The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-06-04 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Monday, June 4, 2018 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:30 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Title: City Manager Authority: Government Code Section 54957(b) REVISED 2 June 4, 2018 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:30-6:40 PM Oral Communications 6:40-6:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:55-7:00 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the May 21, 2018 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 7:00-7:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric Enterprise Fund Construction Contract With Hot Line Construction, Inc. in the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $652,558, Which Includes the Contract Amount of $593,235 Plus a 10 Percent Contingency of $59,323, for the Pole Replacement 2018 Project 4.QUASI-JUDICIAL: Consideration of Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decision to Approve the Architectural Review Application for 620 Emerson Street (17PLN- 00331) to Allow Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construction of a new Two-story 4,063 Square Foot Commercial Building for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project Includes Replacement of Three On-site Parking Spaces With Five In-lieu Spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial) 5.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.51 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets Within the Program, to Tentatively Approve Additional Street Segments Within Crescent Park, and to add Provisions for Opting-out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area (FIRST READING: May 14, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent) 6.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) to Include the Addition of Unwanted, Unwarranted Residential, and Commercial Fire Alarms (FIRST READING: May 14, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois Absent) Q & A 3 June 4, 2018 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. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:05-8:15 PM 7.Review of Refined Public Opinion Survey Results Regarding Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan and Unplanned Potential Community Assets Projects, and Potential Direction to City Staff for a 2018 Ballot Measure 8:15-10:30 PM 8.PUBLIC HEARING/LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL: 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to add a new Combining District to Allow for Higher Density Multi-family Housing that Includes a Workforce Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Transit Stations; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the New Combining District to the Subject Property at 2755 El Camino Real; and Site and Design Approval to Allow Construction of a 57 Unit Multi-Family Residence at the Subject Property. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study (IS/MND) Was Published for Public Comment on January 19, 2018 for a Circulation Period Ending on February 20, 2018. A Final MND was Published on May 18, 2018. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF) 9.PUBLIC HEARING: LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, Public Safety Building Project: Adoption of: 1) Resolution of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report for a New Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Four-Story Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue; and 2) Ordinance Modifying the Public Facilities (PF) Zone Development Standards; and (3) Approval of the Record of Land Use Action Approving Architectural Review Application [File 17PLN-00257] for a new Four-story Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces Above and Below Grade. Planning and Transportation Commission Review Recommended Modification to PF Zoning Development Standards on January 31, 2018 (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 2018) State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. MEMO 4 June 4, 2018 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation June 5, 2018 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Informational Report on the City of Palo Alto's Cubberley Artist Studio Program City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2018 Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 4, 2018 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 21, 2018 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 05-21-18 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 9 Special Meeting May 21, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:04 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Appointment of one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Historic Resources Board Ending December 15, 2019, one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) Ending May 31, 2020, and Three Candidates to HRC for Three -year Terms Ending May 31, 2021. First Round of voting for one position on the Historic Resources Board with a term ending December 15, 2019. Voting For: Gogo Heinrich DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou Voting For: Deborah Shepherd Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Deborah Shepherd with 5 votes was appointed to the Historic Resources Board. First Round of voting for three positions on the Human Relations Commission with terms ending May 31, 2021. Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg Tanaka Voting For: Kathy Johnson Voting For: Gabriel Kralik DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Scharff Voting For: William Morrison Kou Voting For: Kaloma Smith DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 Voting For: Valerie Stinger DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For: Mark Weiss Voting For: Qifeng Xue Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Ms. Minor announced that Valerie Stinger with 9 votes, Kaloma Smith with 6 votes, and Qifeng Xue with 6 votes were appointed to the Human Relations Commission. First Round of voting for one position on the Human Relations Commission with a term ending May 31, 2020. Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg Tanaka Voting For: Kathy Johnson Voting For: Gabriel Kralik DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach Voting For: William Morrison Kou Voting For: Mark Weiss Ms. Minor announced that Gabriel Kralik with 7 votes was appointed to the Human Relations Commission. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 7, 2018 Council Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve the Action Minutes for the May 7, 2018 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Council Members Fine, Tanaka, and Mayor Kniss registered no votes on Agenda Item Number 5- SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40… DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-5. 3. Approval of a Construction Contract With Los Loza Landscaping in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $429,195 to Repair and Replace Brick Pathways and Install Replacement Pathway Lighting at the Lucie Stern Community Center and Approve a Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund. 4. Resolution 9757 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approval of a Design for the Construction of a new Outfall Pipeline to Convey Treated Effluent From the RWQCP Through the Palo Alto Airport to Discharge Into an Unnamed Slough in the Baylands.” 5. Ordinance 5439 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Section Imposing an Annual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations From Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720 (FIRST READING: April 30, 2018 PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou no).” MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3 AND 4 PASSED: 9-0 MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 PASSED: 6-3 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka no Action Items 6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: The City Council Will Consider Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decision to Approve Eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits to Establish Small Cell Wireless Communication Antennas and Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way Near the Following Addresses: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (Near 2490 Louis Road, APN 127-30-062), Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (Near 2802 Louis Road, APN 127-28-046), Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (Near 891 Elbridge Way, APN 127 -26-067), Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (Near 949 Loma Verde, APN 127-24-020), Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (Near 3409 Kenneth Dr., APN 127-09-028), DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (Near 795 Stone Ln., APN 127 -47- 001), Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (Near 3090 Ross Rd., APN 127 - 52-031), Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (Near 836 Colorado Ave., APN 127-27-063), Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (Near 419 El Verano Ave., APN 132-15-017), Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (Near 201 Loma Verde Ave., APN 132-48-015), Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (Near 737 Loma Verde Ave., APN 127-64-039) Environmental Assessment: Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303. Public Hearing opened at 6:53 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:52 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to deny the appeals and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits consistent with a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board and based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action. Council took a break from 9:05 P.M. to 9:17 P.M. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Grant the appeals overturning the Director’s Approval and approve the Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits and requiring radio equipment for all nodes to be placed in underground vaults subject to updated conditions of approval (as included in the Staff Report as Attachment B); and B. Direct Staff to update project-related findings and conditions as appropriate. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “unless an extension to the Shot Clock is reached in agreement with the Applicant.” AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “to give the Applicant the option of using a telephone pole or a light pole.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Holman, Kou, Tanaka yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to explore updating the WCF (Wireless Communication Facility) requirements to minimize height impacts.” (New Part B) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to monitor vaulting technologies and activities in other cities and report back to Council when appropriate.” (New Part C) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to: A. Deny the appeals and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits consistent with a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board and based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action; B. Direct Staff to explore updating the WCF (Wireless Communication Facility) requirements to minimize height impacts; and C. Direct Staff to monitor vaulting technologies and activities in other cities and report back to Council when appropriate. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 Holman, Kou, Tanaka no 7. Approval of: (1) a Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $4,336,298 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1, Capital Improvement Project PE-13011; (2) Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. Contractor in the Amount of $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 2, Capital Improvement Project PE-13011; (3) Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract C14150694 With Mark Thomas & Company in the Amount of $145,419; (4) General Services Contract With TrafficWare Group, LLC. in the Amount of $181,287 for Purchase of SynchoGreen Adaptive Traffic Control System for Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project, Capital Improvement Project PE-13011; and (5) Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund, DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 Charleston/Arastradero Transportation Impact Fee Fund, and Storm Drain Fund. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,336,298 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 1 (Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011); B. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $433,630; C. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 2 (CIP Project PE-13011); D. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $443,435; E. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract C14150694 with Mark Thomas & Company for construction administration services for Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project (CIP PE-13011) in the amount $145,419 for the base contract associated with the scope of work covered in the contract. This amendment results in a revised total contract amount of $1,934,307; F. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to a execute contract with TrafficWare Group, LLC to purchase licensing and install SynchroGreen adaptive traffic control system and related hardware along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor (CIP PE-13011) in the amount not to exceed $181,287; G. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with TrafficWare Group, LLC for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $18,129; H. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation for: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 i. The Capital Improvement Fund by: a. Increasing the revenue estimate for grants by $250,604; b. Increasing Transfers from the Charleston-Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by $12,000; c. Increasing Transfers from the Storm Drainage Fund by $330,000; d. Decreasing the Sidewalk Repair Project CIP (PO-89003) by $575,000; e. Decreasing the Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve by $4,658,211; f. Increasing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project CIP (PE-13011) appropriation by $5,825,815; ii. The Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by: a. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $12,000; b. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $12,000; iii. The Storm Drain Fund by: a. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $330,000; and b. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $330,000. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to make best efforts to mark planned work at least four weeks prior to commencement of work in each area to ensure the public is aware of coming changes.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to make best efforts to mark planned work at least four weeks prior to commencement of work where appropriate and would not cause delay or increases in cost, to ensure the public is aware of coming changes.” (New Part I) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,336,298 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 1 (Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011); B. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and e xecute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $433,630; C. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 2 (CIP Project PE-13011); D. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $443,435; E. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract C14150694 with Mark Thomas & Company for construction administration services for Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project (CIP PE-13011) in the amount $145,419 for the base contract associated with the scope of work covered in the contract. This amendment results in a revised total contract amount of $1,934,307; F. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to a execute contract with TrafficWare Group, LLC to purchase licensing and install SynchroGreen adaptive traffic control system and related hardware along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor (CIP PE-13011) in the amount not to exceed $181,287; G. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with TrafficWare Group, LLC for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $18,129; H. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation for: iv. The Capital Improvement Fund by: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/21/18 a. Increasing the revenue estimate for grants by $250,604; b. Increasing Transfers from the Charleston-Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by $12,000; c. Increasing Transfers from the Storm Drainage Fund by $330,000; d. Decreasing the Sidewalk Repair Project CIP (PO-89003) by $575,000; e. Decreasing the Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve by $4,658,211; f. Increasing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project CIP (PE-13011) appropriation by $5,825,815; v. The Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by: a. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $12,000; b. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $12,000; vi. The Storm Drain Fund by: a. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $330,000; b. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $330,000; and I. Direct Staff to make best efforts to mark planned work at least four weeks prior to commencement of work where appropriate and would not cause delay or increases in cost, to ensure the public is aware of coming changes. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kou no State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 A.M. in honor of Hank Nagao. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8949) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Pole Replacement 2018 Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric Enterprise Fund Construction Contract With Hot Line Construction, Inc. in the Total Not to Exceed Amount of $652,558, Which Includes the Cont ract Amount of $593,235 Plus a 10% Contingency of $59,323, for the Pole Replacement 2018 Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached construction contract (see Attachment A, Contract) with Hot Line Construction, Inc. in the amount of $593,235 for the “Pole Replacement 2018” project, which involves replacement of wood utility poles, and associated equipment, on the City’s electric distribution system at various locations throughout the City of Palo Alto. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Hot Line Construction, Inc. for additional related, but unforeseen work which may develop during the project; the total of which shall not exceed $59,323 (10% of the contract amount). Staff is therefore requesting a total authorized amount of $652,558 for this Contract, which includes the contract amount of $593,235 plus a 10% contingency amount of $59,323. Background As part of its Capital Improvement Program, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (“CPAU”) designs projects to rebuild and maintain the electric distribution system, which includes replacement of electrical equipment that is nearing the end of its useful life or has been identified during regular inspection as requiring replacement. This is done to prevent outages as a result of equipment failure due to age or deterioration , and ensure safe and reliable performance of the electric system. City of Palo Alto Page 2 During regular electric system evaluation, utility power poles are identified as requiring replacement (aged, deteriorated, or otherwise unsafe) through inspections, audits, and wood pole testing. While replacements of some power poles are completed by staff, there are currently insufficient resources within the Electric Operations Division to handle all of the identified pole replacements. Staff compiled engineering drawings and estimates for severa l pole replacements into a single bid package to solicit bids from qualified contractors to complete the pole replacements in a timely manner. Summary of Key Issues The work to be performed under this contract is for construction services to replace 65 utility poles (out of a total of 6,000 poles in the system), which includes labor, equipment, and management of all field activities in coordination with CPAU Electric Operations ’ staff. The City will provide the major construction materials such as; poles, crossarms, insulators, and miscellaneous hardware for the project. The poles identified in the bid package were selected for replacement due to potential reliability and safety concerns identified during annual testing and inspections. New poles will be installed and built to current city, state and industry standards. The height of the new poles will also be increased by 5 feet to accommodate future pole mount attachments. The engineering design for all pole replacements in the bid package was completed by staff. AT&T is a co-owner of the utility poles being replaced in this project and is responsible for sharing the pole replacement costs based on the 1918 joint pole agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). Before replacing poles, staff sends AT&T an intention of construction notice summarizing the planned construction and AT&T’s share of the replacement cost. AT&T agrees to the pole replacement and costs by returning the signed intention of construction notice. Once the construction of the pole replacement is completed, staff sends AT&T an invoice for AT&T’s share of the replacement cost. Staff sent intention of construction notices for all 65 poles in this bid package to AT&T in Jan 2018, and CPAU has received 25% of notices back from AT&T, signed and approved. AT&T has informed the City that the remaining notices are delayed due to the high number of notices that staff sent to AT&T for review. , . Based on the City’s relationship with AT&T and the parties’ history of cooperation on past pole replacement projects, staff anticipates AT&T will sign and approve the remaining notices before construction begins. Upon completion of the project AT&T will be invoiced for its portion of the work, approximately 20% of the contract amount. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The following table is a summary of the bid process initiated in March 2018: Bid Name / Number Pole Replacement Project 3 / IFB-170979 Proposed Length of Project 2 months Number of Potential Contractors notified via the “PlanetBids” bid management system 663 Total Days to Respond to Bid 24 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 4 Number of Bids Received 4 Bid Price Range $557,175 - $1,089,310 Staff has reviewed the bids received and recommends that the bid of $557,175 submitted by Hot Line Construction Inc. be accepted and that Hot Line Construction Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder by Council. This bid amount is lower than the anticipated cost , therefore staff hasincluded six (6) poles from the optional items list to the total number poles to be replaced, bringing the grand total to $593,235. The last pole replacement contract was $995,618 for 67 poles at the end of 2015. Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file and also checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found all to be satisfactory. Resource Impact Funds for the Pole Replacement 2018 project are included in the Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Improvement Program budget in the Electric System Improvement (EL-98003) project. Timeline Upon Council approval of the Contract, construction can be scheduled to begin the week of June 25, 2018, and is to be completed within sixty (60) calender days after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies, including the Council- approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the distribution system in a cost effective manner and to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15301 (repair or maintenance of existing facilities), and Sec. 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities). Attachments:  Attachment A: C18170979 Pole Replacement 2018 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C18170979 City of Palo Alto “Pole Replacement 2018” Project ATTACHMENT A Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on June 4, 2018 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and HOT LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 710855 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 10000010001. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On March 21, 2018, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “Pole Replacement 2018” (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the “Pole Replacement 2018” Project, located at various locations, Palo Alto, CA. ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Five Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five Dollars ($593,235.00). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Options 65-70.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Henry Nguyen In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Hot Line Construction Inc. 9020 Brentwood Blvd., Suite H Brentwood, CA 94513 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager or designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney or designee HOT LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. Officer 1 By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Officer 2 By:____________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:___________________________ Date:____________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 9231) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 620 Emerson (Nobu Restaurant Annex): Appeal of Director's Decision Title: QUASI -JUDICIAL: Consideration of Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decision to Approve the Architectural Review Application for 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331) to Allow Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construction of a new Two -story 4,063 Square Foot Commercial Building for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project Includes Replacement of Three On -site Parking Spaces With Five In -lieu Spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD -C(GF)(P) (Dow ntown Commercial) For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council take the following action(s): 1. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal, upholding the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review ap plication and finding the proposed project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Background The project seeks to demolish the existing building and construct a new 4,063 square foot (sf) building to accommodate the expansion of the Nobu restaurant currently located at the neighboring Epiphany hotel at 180 Hamilton. The project was reviewed by the ARB on two occasions and unanimously approved. Public comments similar to the appeal topics below were received at the hearings. Prior ARB reports are available online: City of Palo Alto Page 2 February 1, 2018 Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63068 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63703 April 5, 2018 Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64363 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=65143 The project involves the loss of three existing noncomplying on-site parking spaces. As discussed below, the new construction necessitates a new van-accessible disable access space, which substantial limits parking options and layout. Combined with the project site and alley characteristics, staff and a majority of the Board, found payment into the city’s in-lieu parking fund an acceptable means for addressing the parking requirement. On April 19, 2018, the Director of Planning issued a tentative approval of the subject project. (Attachment B) On April 27, 2018, Elizabeth Wong filed a timely appeal for the project. The key issues from the appeal are further described below. Discussion Director decisions on ARB projects are subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals must be scheduled on the City Council’s consent calendar within 45 days from the date of appeal. Acceptance of the report on the consent calendar accepts the Director’s determination. However, three or more council members may pull the item from consent and an appeal hearing would be scheduled for a future date. The appellant has noted the following objections to the project; the complete appeal statemen t is provided in Attachment A. Parking The appellant appears to object to the use of the in lieu parking fee for the redevelopment of the site and asserts underground parking and mechanical lifts should be considered for this development. Staff did explore with the applicant and other city departments the feasibility of providing underground parking and mechanical lifts. And, it is feasible to provide one accessible parking space onsite. However, the location and size of the property combined with compliance with the American Disability Act, local standards for refuse collection and other standards make it infeasible to provide additional parking onsite in an efficient or convenient parking layout. The site was previously assessed for its parking deficiency and payment of in-lieu parking fees is authorized by PAMC 18.18.090. Redevelopment would result in the loss of three noncompliant parking spaces. To make up for these three spaces, the applicant request participation in the in lieu parking program, which is permitted if it is not feasible to provide required parking on-site. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Traffic and Circulation The appellant asserts that another restaurant may bring traffic and circulation on the block to a standstill, especially during peak hours. This block is located within a developed urban environment with existing business establishments, including other restaurants. Redevelopment is consistent with applicable zoning requirements and exempt from environmental review from the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Palo Alto typically requires a focused traffic analysis, which quantifies potential project impacts, for projects generating more than 50 trips per peak hour; the proposed development falls below this threshold. Moreover, the applicant has not provided any information to substantiate the claim that traffic flow will be impacted. Loading The applicant asserts that the loss of the three parking spaces also impacts loading zone activities that previously used those spaces for loading and notes the challenges of delivery vehicles accessing the site given the alley characteristics. While the prior tenant may have used the substandard parking spaces to provide a loading opportunity for its goods, the code provides the standard for when a code compliant parking space is required. For eating and drinking establishments, buildings over 4,999 square feet in area require one loading space. The subject project is below this standard and does not require on-site loading. Restroom Facilities The project is proposed to connect to the existing hotel (180 Hamilton) via interior access on the ground level of both sites. The hotel lobby will have remodeled restroom facilities that will be sufficient to support the restaurant operations at 620 Emerson and the hotel operations at 180 Hamilton. The appellant states concern with this design approach and future enforcement and monitoring. A condition of approval was added to the project that if the interior connections between the two sites terminate, 620 Emerson will need to provide code compliant restroom facilities. Compliance with this condition would be verified during the plan check review process in the event there is a request to close of the interior access. Moreover, the city’s building official has the authority to require that covenants be recorded against the two properties prior to building permit or final inspection if such documentation were determined necessary to meet building code requirements. Policy Implications The proposed project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, applicable city departments and found to be compliant with applicable zoning regulations. The Director’s determination details compliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies. The appellant list several concerns that are not supported by the municipal code or is conjecture. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 4 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, this project is categorically exempt from the provision of the CEQA as it falls under a Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) for “new construction or conversion of small structures.” The project meets the criteria for this exemption as it is a new building that is below 10,000 square feet in area and is located within an urban area with a proposed use that is permitted within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone district. Attachments: Attachment A: Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment B: Director's Tentative Approval Letter (PDF) Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC) Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA Office et the city cleric CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT' 18 APR 27 Phi 3: 51 For appear of dial ceasions on Artirrlel a! Review Board acid Hrxrw Impsvrernent Exraeptioi appllrattorr (rendered aster hearing), this appeia form shar1 ba c npfeted and subrnidad try eppaUa71 within fourteen days from dote of the Director's �sux7 Appeals of final demons on Indrectual Rar4ew apt cataorys (rendered alter public hearing) rn.,st be s,,tinttterd withn ten days of the Dke^J.crs derision. Complete form, the curer lee and a letter slating reasons for the appeal sha►i be s-ibm tted to font desk staff of the Planning Division, 5* foot, City Hail, 25O Namitton Avenue, except for 9899 Factors when City Hall Is used, *ten these items shall be submitted to Planning stet at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue (gems storefront across from Cly Hal on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton). • Director of Planninc includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official Appeal Application No. Name of Appeelant t } LL G. Addms D ?o}„ 2,34 Street Re elpf No. Phone (4 S t 814 - 3 0 P44,,D 44.- )_ cA 2.ys3o z City ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL: Street Adri i, 2.0 E .e2sop•A sr, , Pito Name cr Property Omer RIother than appall Property Oimtees Address Stud e41 City ZIP The de an of the Director of Planning and Carinutitty Envlmmanl dated , 20 wherebythe appiioa on PL 61)334 t' Y Mf^7J 7fictsM MaC147V-T ( ie numbe() (original Pfriect apPliCanl) , is heratry appealed for the mesons elated in tie attad-ied letter (in duplicate) Suvtiature of .ApelLen' fO_. 1 LIC- PLA}ThING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TD ThE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF)' Date Approved er' Lbr Canditirms! CITY C OLJWCIL'DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Dale Approved Denied RerriwIrs endr"or Conditions' SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1. Caller staling remits for appeai _ JAN'n Reamed by: 1 Y TALL 1N in 2. Fee (currently $28)00) Received by: . =v- wu CJ--�' PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 750 on A.err�a Sth Poo: PALO Maio r..to. 94.301 ALTO 650 ;29.2441 April 19, 2018 Montalba Architects, Inc/Blake Hussey 2525 Michigan Ave., Building T4 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subject: 620 Emerson St— Minor Board Level Architectural Review 17PLN-00331 Dear Blake, On April 5, 2018 the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced above and as described below. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the project on April 19th, 2018. 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. The approval was based on the findings in Attachment A, and is subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B for the project. The project is described as follows: 620 Emerson St [17PLN-003311: Request for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an existing commercial building and the construction of a new two -Story approximately 4,063 Square Foot Restaurant. Environmental Assessment: Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) for "new construction or conversion of small structures." The project meets the criteria for this exemption as it is a new building that is below 10,000 square feet in area and is located within an urban area with a proposed use that is permitted within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone district (Downtown Commercial). Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year from May 3, 2018, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez, by email at Samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org by phone at (650) 329- 2225. Sincerely, f Jodie Gerhardt, MCP Current Planning Manager cc: PA Hotel Holding LLC, 101 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Suite 320 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attachments: A: Findings for Architectural Review Approval B: Conditions of Approval 44(4 CityOiPaloAlto.org ATTACHMENT A ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 620 Emerson Street 17PLN-00331 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1; The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. On balance, the project has been found in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. How project adheres or does not adhere to Camp Plan The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element GOAL B-6: Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. POLICY B-6.1 Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area prioritizing retail, personal service, small office, start-ups, restaurant, residential and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. 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-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi -Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense The proposal would result in no net loss of retail as the proposed restaurant use is considered retail like, maintaining a similar mixture of uses in the indicative of the Downtown area. The new building would have large windows that connect the proposed restaurant to the street and will provide a large awning that spans the length of the building, creating a more pleasant pedestrian environment. The project will create a new building with a new restaurant use which includes new pedestrian furniture for public use on private Page 2 of 17 of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. POLICY L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. POLICY L-4.8: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian -friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists POLICY L-6.1: Promote high -quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. property, maintaining the Downtown area's pedestrian identity. The large windows that allow clear views into the proposed restaurant. This design feature is consistent with the existing design of the businesses along Emersion that also have large open windows that reinforce the pedestrian characteristic of Downtown Palo Alto. The project includes new street furniture (bench seating) within the recessed window area of the facade and will install a new bike rack within the public right of way, enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment of the area. The project proposes a new building that is in scale with the adjacent single story buildings along Emerson Street and will include the use of high quality materials such as bronze and stone. POLICY L-9.10.2: Encourage the use of I The project locates new backflow preventers compact and well -designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. within the facade via hidden cabinets, removing them from public view. The project would be consistent the Downtown Design Guidelines as it involves an active retail - like use (eating and drinking use) and the new facade materials are consistent with those listed in the Guidelines. The new facade provides a recessed entry, a new awning, and glass windows with bench seats that fit the character of the smaller store front pattern and setbacks of the adjacent buildings. These features will also help to activate the street. The proposed green roof would further enhance views from the adjacent hotel and other taller buildings in the area. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, Page 3 of 17 c. is consistent with the context -based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing a new building with a facade that will enhance the immediate neighborhood and patrons of the local businesses alike. The design of the new building is consistent with the context -based design criteria within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone, as further described below. In addition, the project will integrate the exterior ground floor facade of the adjacent hotel, as it expands the existing restaurant from 180 Hamilton Avenue to 620 Emerson Street. The proposed facade would also better connect the building with the existing character and streetscape along Emerson Street. The new building will be built to the property lines similar to other existing buildings in the area and would preserve the pedestrian scale of the area. In addition, new bench seats are proposed within the window recesses and new bicycle racks will be installed in the public right way, improving the pedestrian and bicycle environment of the area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context -based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context -based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements Project Consistency The project will have the same scale as the existing buildings in the area, maintaining the areas pedestrian environment and scale. The project includes benches along its front facade to promote a pedestrian friendly environment. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide o strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks The proposed building includes a recessed entry and awning that will function as a shelter for pedestrians. The project also includes new seating that can be utilized by the public supporting pedestrian activity. The proposed building will have large clear windows that connect the interior of the building to the sidewalk and street, promoting pedestrian activity. Page 4 of 17 Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not substantially increase the existing massing or setbacks from the street. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing This finding does not apply. lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties S. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the chorocter of the project or detroct from the pedestrion environment 7. Large Multi -Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shot! be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainobility and green building design should be incorporated into the project This finding does not apply. The proposed project will remove existing on -site parking and replace them via the Downtown Parking Assessment Districts in - lieu fee, which provides parking off site within walking distance of the site. This finding does not apply The project will be constructed in accordance with current green building energy efficiency requirements. The project will also utilize a green roof that would reduce runoff from the roof and lower the heat absorption of the building, leading to lower demands on the HVAC systems. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high quality finishes consisting of bronze and stone. The new facade will have a light colored textured stone finish that will better fit with the existing character of the area and will enhance the surrounding area. Page 5 of 17 11. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Review of the landscaping design of the green roof area to ensure conformance with Finding #5. 12. TRASH ROOM: The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shalt be closed and locked during non -business hours. 13. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Estimated Development impact Fees in the amount of $340,320.34 , shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 14. IMPACT FEE 90 -DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90 -DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90 -day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 15. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 16. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 17. Teak planters proposed in the right-of-way shall be removable and moved out of the right of way at the end of each business day. Page 8 of 17 public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 25. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 26. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: • Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. • Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas, • Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. • Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. • Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 27. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, "The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. tithe height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk." 28. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor's parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor's contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. a. The applicant will further explain how they will ensure additional care and attention is taken during construction to protect the adjacent Historic buildings terracotta facade and tiled roof. Page 10 of 17 6. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 7. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 1. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) 1. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: Drain Fixtures Pre -rinse sink 3 compartment sink 2 compartment sink Prep sink Mop/Janitorial sink Floor drain Floor sink DFUs 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: GCD Sizing: Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons) 8 500 21 750 35 1,000 90 1,250 172 1,500 216 2,000 Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre -rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 r 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4& wok stove, Item 9 r 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 1 Page 15 of 17 r • 1 1 • u IU ■ i 1 1 • .- MIL T' w NEN a F ev Attachment C Page 1 of 15 Draft APPROVAL NO. 2018-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 620 EMERSON STREET: MINOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL (17PLN-00331) On XXXXXXX, 20XX, the Council of Palo alto approved the Minor Architectural Review application to allow the demolition of an existing single story commercial building and construct a new two story 4,063 square foot commercial building for the expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project includes replacement of three (3) on-site parking spaces with five (5) In-Lieu spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District in the CD-C(GF)(P) Zoning District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The “City Council” of the City of Palo Alto finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. An application for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review was submitted by Blake Hussey of Montalba Architects was submitted on September 12, 2017. B. Planning Staff reviewed the submitted application and referred the application to the Architectural Review Board for a recommendation of approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. C. The Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing single story commercial building and construct a new two story 4,063 square foot commercial building for the expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project includes replacement of three (3) on-site parking spaces with five (5) In-Lieu spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The project site is located within the CD-C(GF)(P) zoning District. D. The Project has gone to the Architectural Review Board twice prior to being recommended for approval with the draft conditions submitted to the Architectural Review Board on April 5, 2018. The Architectural Review Board included a condition of approval, requiring the landscaping for the project to return to the Architectural Review Board Subcommittee for approval which changes to the landscaping. The Architectural Review Board Subcommittee reviewed the revision to the landscaping and recommended approval of the changes on May 3, 2018. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has determined to be categorically exempt under a Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) for “new construction or conversion of small structures” of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The project meets the criteria for this exemption as it is a new building that is below 10,000 square feet in area and is located within an urban area with a proposed use that is permitted within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone district. SECTION 3. Exception to On-Site Parking Requirements. An exception for on-site parking requirements for new buildings located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District per section 18.18.090 (d) “In-lieu Parking Provisions” pursuant to meeting the criteria within this code section as determine by the Director of Planning Community Environment, whose decision shall be final. The criteria state only sites satisfying one or more of the following criteria, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, shall be eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program: Attachment C Page 2 of 15 (1) Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial demolition of a designated historic structure; (2) The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking; (3) The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking; (4) The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or (5) The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table, which preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense. (e) Underground Parking Underground parking deeper than two levels below grade shall be prohibited unless a soils report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be required. The existing site has paid into the Downtown Parking Assessment District for an equivalent of eleven spaces and has provided three parking spaces on site that are accessed from the rear alleyway. The proposed project involves removing three noncompliant on-site parking spaces and adding additional square footage to create space for a new trash room and kitchen. The site has been analyzed by Staff and explored various parking configuration with the applicant and other city departments. The feasibility of providing underground parking, parking via mechanical lifts, and surface parking accessed via the rear alleyway resulted in the project being able to provide one feasible parking space physically onsite. However, the location and size of the property combined with compliance with the American Disability Act, local standards for refuse collection and other standards make it infeasible to provide additional parking onsite in an efficient or convenient parking layout. With these findings the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the project is eligible to participate in the parking in-lieu program for five (5) in-lieu parking spaces. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with the applicable regulations within the Zoning Code and the Architectural Review Findings. In addition, the project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies in that the project would result in no net loss of retail as the proposed restaurant use is considered retail like, maintaining a similar mixture of uses in the indicative of the Downtown area. The design of the new building includes large windows that connect the proposed use to the street while providing pedestrian amenities such as a large awning that spans across the building, pedestrian seating, new bicycle racks, and new creating a more pleasant pedestrian environment. The project will create a new building with a new restaurant use which includes new pedestrian furniture for public use on private property, maintaining the Downtown area’s pedestrian identity. The project includes large windows that allow clear views into the proposed restaurant and is consistent with the existing businesses along Emersion reinforcing the pedestrian characteristic of Downtown Palo Alto. The project Attachment C Page 3 of 15 includes new street furniture (bench seating) within the recessed window area of the façade and will install a new bike racks within the public right of way, enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment of the area. The project proposes a new building that is in scale with the adjacent single-story buildings along Emerson Street and will include the use of high-quality materials such as solid bronze and stone. The project locates new backflow preventers within the façade via hidden cabinets, removing them from public view. The project would be consistent the Downtown Design Guidelines as it involves an active retail-like use (eating and drinking use) and the new façade materials are consistent with those listed in the Guidelines. The new façade provides a recessed entry, a new awning, and glass windows with bench seats that fit the character of the smaller storefront pattern and setbacks of the adjacent buildings. These features will also help to activate the street. The proposed green roof would further enhance views from the adjacent hotel and other taller buildings in the area. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. “creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community,” b. “preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,” c. “is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,” d. “provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations,” e. “enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.” The project proposes a new building with a façade that will enhance the immediate neighborhood and patrons of the local businesses alike. The design of the new building is consistent with the context-based design criteria within the CD-C(GF)(P) zone. In addition, the project will integrate the exterior ground floor façade of the adjacent hotel, as it expands the existing restaurant from 180 Hamilton Avenue to 620 Emerson Street. The proposed façade would also better connect the building with the existing character and streetscape along Emerson Street. The new building will be built to the property lines similar to other existing buildings in the area and would preserve the pedestrian scale of the area. In addition, the new public furniture (bench seats) proposed within the window recesses and new bicycle racks in the public right way will improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment of the Downtown area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible for its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian-oriented design. The project will have the same scale as the existing buildings in the area, maintaining the areas pedestrian environment and scale. The project includes benches along its front façade to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed building includes a recessed entry and awning that will function as a shelter for pedestrians. The project also includes new seating that can be utilized by the public supporting pedestrian activity. The proposed building will have large clear windows that connect the interior of the building to the sidewalk and street, promoting pedestrian activity. The proposed project will not substantially increase the existing massing or setbacks from the street. The proposed project will remove existing on-site parking and replace them via the Downtown Parking Assessment Districts in-lieu fee, which provides parking off site within walking distance of the site. The project will be constructed in accordance with current green building Attachment C Page 4 of 15 energy efficiency requirements. The project will also utilize a green roof that would reduce runoff from the roof and lower the heat absorption of the building, leading to lower demands on the HVAC systems. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high-quality finishes consisting of bronze and stone. The new façade will have a light colored textured stone finish that will better fit with the existing character of the area and will enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The proposed building will maintain the pedestrian scale of the area and promote a pedestrian-friendly environment by including benches along its front façade. A recessed entry and awning that will function as a shelter for pedestrians are proposed and would provide a refuge for pedestrians from the elements. The proposed building will also have large clear windows that connect the interior of the building to the sidewalk and street, promoting pedestrian activity. The project includes new utilities which will be easily accessible via hidden panels within the façade keeping them out of the public right of way and out of sight. The site is located in the downtown parking assessment district which allows for more convenient parking options. Additionally, the site has access to a rear alleyway which can be utilized by service and delivery vehicles that support the day to day operation of the proposed restaurant. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practicable, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project includes new planters along the sidewalk and a green roof which can be viewed partially through the open skylight within the building and will be clearly visible to patrons within the adjacent hotel and other taller buildings in the area. The green roof and new planters will contribute to the overall character of Downtown and do incorporate native plants. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project will comply with all applicable green building codes for energy efficient buildings such as the use of energy-efficient lighting and the construction debris diversion rate requirement minimizing trips to landfills. The proposed green roof will reduce runoff and reduce the heat island effect while providing additional green space over a more traditional roof. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. Attachment C Page 5 of 15 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "NOBU PA 620” stamped as received by the City on March 26th, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. 6. PARKING IN-LIEU FEES: Parking in-lieu fees shall be paid for five (5) parking spaces prior to issuance of Building permits at the rate set, per in-lieu space, at the time of payment (See condition #13) 7. BICYCLE PARKING: One new short term bicycle rack shall be installed within the public right of way, and one long term bicycle rack shall be installed on site to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official. All bicycle racks shall be installed prior to final Planning Inspection. 8. Vehicle LOADING: Vehicle loading and unloading shall not impede the movement of traffic for extended periods of time. 9. REAR DOOR: The rear door (door 103 on plans) shall remain closed during business hours to minimize noise from projecting into in rear property of the adjacent single family residence. 10. RESTROOM FACILITIES: If and when access to 180 Hamilton is terminated, on site code compliant restroom facilities shall be provided. 11. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: Attachment C Page 6 of 15 a. Review of the landscaping design of the green roof area to ensure conformance with Finding #5. 12. TRASH ROOM: The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours. 13. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $340,320.34 , shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 14. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 15. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 16. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Attachment C Page 7 of 15 17. Teak planters proposed in the right-of-way shall be removable and moved out of the right of way at the end of each business day. 18. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 19. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650- 496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496- 5953). 20. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 21. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 22. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 23. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street Attachment C Page 8 of 15 trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 24. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 25. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 26. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 27. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 28. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. Attachment C Page 9 of 15 a. The applicant will further explain how they will ensure additional care and attention is taken during construction to protect the adjacent Historic buildings terracotta façade and tiled roof. Public Works Zero Waste 29. Trash enclosure must be large enough to accommodate at least 2 bins and a cart. UTILITIES ENGINEERING 30. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 31. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 32. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 33. 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. 34. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 35. 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 for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 36. 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 California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Attachment C Page 10 of 15 37. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 38. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 39. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 40. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 41. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 42. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 43. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 44. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 45. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 46. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 47. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service:  All fees must be paid. Attachment C Page 11 of 15  All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.  All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.  Easement documents must be completed. BUILDING DIVISION 48. For the proposed property line openings from 620 Emerson St into 180 Hamilton Ave, provide a recorded restricted covenant on both properties that assures that the proposed openings will not be increased at any time and will be filled in with solid rated walls as required by the 2016 or most recent California Building Code once the ownership and/or tenant vacates either structure prior to the issuance of the building permit. 49. The proposed restaurant occupancy use of A-2 from the former M (florist shop) occupancy is considered a change of occupancy to a higher risk category. When a change in occupancy results in a structure being reclassified to a higher risk category, the structure shall conform to the seismic requirements for a new structure of a higher risk category. A seismic evaluation of the existing structure will be required for the change of occupancy for the submittal of the building permit. (CBC Part 10 Existing Building Code Section 407.4) 50. If the proposed tenant improvement of less than 5,000 s.f. also includes the replacement of at least two of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, not water system, or lighting system, then this project shall comply with the CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 1 requirement when submitting for the building permit. The City of Palo Alto GB Mandatory + Tier 1 plan sheets can be downloaded from the following website address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp 51. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. WATERSHED PROTECTION Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Projects: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & Cited Building/Plumbing Codes 1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) 2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. 3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. 4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. Attachment C Page 12 of 15 5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. 6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) 7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. 8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. 9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) 10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & Cited Building/Plumbing Codes 1. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. 2. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. 3. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f. Prep sinks g. Mop (janitor) sinks h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks 4. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a. Dishwashers b. Steamers c. Pasta cookers d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens e. Hand sinks f. Ice machine drip lines Attachment C Page 13 of 15 g. Soda machine drip lines h. Drainage lines in bar areas 5. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). 6. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 7. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 1. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) 1. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 Attachment C Page 14 of 15 Note:  All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.  It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)  The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers and Packaging Items A. Prohibitions on the Use of Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Plastics, PAMC 5.30.020 1. Except as provided by PAMC Section 5.30.030, Food Service Establishments are prohibited from providing prepared food in Disposable Food Service Containers made from Plastic Foam or other Non-Recyclable Plastic; 2. Except as provided by PAMC Section 5.30.030, Retail Service Establishments are prohibited from selling, leasing or otherwise providing Plastic Foam Products; 3. Except as provided by PAMC Section 5.30.030, all City facilities and vendors at City sponsored events or City owned facilities are prohibited from using Disposable Food Service Containers, packaging or other products made from Plastic Foam or Non-Recyclable Plastic; 4. Nothing in PAMC Section 5.30 shall be interpreted to restrict the use or sale of any form of fiber or paper disposable food service container, or the use of any form of biodegradable or plastic food service container meeting ASTM Standards or other products authorized by Administrative Regulation. B. Exemptions to the Prohibitions on the Use of Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Plastics, PAMC 5.30.030 1. The following exemptions shall apply: i. Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are exempt from the provisions of PAMC Section 5.30. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are encouraged to follow the provisions of this PAMC Section 5.30. ii. The Director of Public Works, or his/her designee, may exempt a Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor from the requirements of this Ordinance for a period of up to one year, if the applicant for such exemption can demonstrate that the conditions of this Ordinance would cause an undue hardship. An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to situations unique to the applicant where there are no reasonable alternatives to Plastic Foam Products or Non-recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers and compliance with PAMC Section 5.30 would cause significant economic hardship to that applicant, or cause them to be deprived of a legally protected right. iii. A Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor seeking an exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City Attachment C Page 15 of 15 to make its decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. iv. Emergency Supplies and Service Procurement. City facilities, Food Service Establishments, Retail Service Establishments, City contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of PAMC Section 5.30, in a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years of council approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Montalba Architects titled “Nobu PA 620”, consisting of 28 pages, dated received by the City on March 14, 2018. Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “620 Emerson St” and click the address link 4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4260 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 4, 2018 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.51 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets Within the Program, to Tentatively Approve Additional Street Segments Within Crescent Park, and to add Provisions for Opting-out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area (FIRST READING: May 14, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent) This was first heard by the City Council on May 14, 2018 and was passed without any changes, by a vote of 8-0 DuBois absent. It is now before you for the second reading. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Crescent Park Ordiance (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets and Add the Remaining Streets or Street Segments Within Crescent Park to the List of Tentatively Approved Streets and Street Segments, and to Add Provisions for Opting-Out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.51.030 (Designation of Crescent Park no overnight parking area) of Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Parking No Overnight Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is amended to read as follows: 10.51.030 Designation of Crescent Park no overnight parking area. (a) Area. (1) The following streets or street segments are approved for the Crescent Park no overnight parking program: Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Channing Opted in September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Newell Place Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island Lincoln and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Drive Opted in November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to between Center and Alester Opted in November 2013 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Lincoln Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted in December 2013 West Crescent Drive Not Yet Approved Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Center Drive between University and Pitman Opted in June 2014 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Opted in October 2014 University Avenue between East Palm and East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Opted in December 2014 Louisa Court Opted in March 2015 Arcadia Place Opted in July 2015 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West Crescent Opted in August 2015 (2) The following streets or street segments are tentatively approved for the Crescent Park no overnight parking program:. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Channing Avenue between Lincoln and West Bayshore Center Drive from Hamilton between Pitman to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval Lincoln Avenue between University Channing and Hamilton (south side) Pending Approval Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent Petition Distributed Dana Avenue from Ashby Lincoln to Center Petition Distributed Hamilton Avenue from West Crescent Alester to LincolnGreer No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center Lincoln No Petition Request Dana Avenue between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Forest Avenue between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Lincoln Avenue between Hamilton and Channing Recommended Program Expansion University Avenue between Lincoln Hale and Palm Recommended Program Expansion Alester Avenue between Channing and Hamilton Recommended Program Expansion Not Yet Approved Patricia Lane Recommended Program Expansion Jackson Drive Recommended Program Expansion Sandalwood Court Wildwood Lane Ivy Lane Hilbar Lane Alannah Court De Soto Drive Sharon Court Tevis Place Kent Place Regent Place Somerset Place Kirby Place Palm Street Maples Street Marlowe Street Hamilton Chaucer Street between Patricia Palo Alto Ave and Rhodes University Recommended Program Expansion Edgewood Palo Alto Avenue between Patricia Hale and Rhodes Marlowe Recommended Program Expansion (b) Parking restriction hours. (1) Vehicles not displaying a valid overnight residential parking permit are prohibited from parking within the restricted parking area between two a.m. and five a.m. every day of the week. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in Crescent Park outside of this specified enforcement period. (2) City staff shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in that area, indicating prominently thereon the time limitation and period of the day for its application. Not Yet Approved SECTION 2. A new Section 10.51.065 (Modification or termination of restricted parking areas) is added to Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Parking No Overnight Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC to read as follows: 10.51.065 Modification or termination of restricted parking areas. (a) Opting out. After final adoption of a designated restricted parking area, an application to opt out may be filed with the director of planning and community environment, subject to the following: (1) The minimum number of blocks and percentage of dwelling units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. (2) Each legal dwelling unit, as defined in Section 18.04.030(b)(46) of this code, shall be entitled to one vote towards the determination of support. (3) Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted upon by the director. (b) Dissolution. The city council, following a noticed public hearing, may adopt a resolution dissolving a designated restricted parking area: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a signed petition representing 50% or more of the affected dwelling units within a designated restricted parking area; or (2) Upon findings by the city council that the criteria for designating the restricted parking area are no longer satisfied. SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this Ordinance does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Not Yet Approved SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 4, 2018 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) to Include the Addition of Unwanted, Unwarranted Residential, and Commercial Fire Alarms (FIRST READING: May 14, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois Absent) This was first heard by the City Council on May 14, 2018 and was passed without any changes, by a vote of 8-0 DuBois absent. It is now before you for the second reading. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Not Yet Adopted 1 Ordinance No. ___ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Include Fire Alarms The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby Retitled “Private Intrusion and Fire Alarms” and amended to read as follows: Chapter 4.39 PRIVATE INTRUSION AND FIRE ALARMS Sections: 4.39.010 Findings and purpose. 4.39.020 Definitions. 4.39.030 Limitations on audible alarm systems. 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic telephone dialing devices. 4.39.050 Back-up power supply. 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 4.39.070 Alarm tests. 4.39.080 False alarm service charges. 4.39.090 Revocation of alarm registration. 4.39.100 Appeal. 4.39.110 Enforcement. 4.39.010 Findings and purpose. (a) The City Council finds and declares that: (1) There are a substantial number of alarms of possible criminal activity which that come into the Palo Alto Police Department and preventable false fire alarms that come into the Palo Alto Fire Department. These alarms average in excess of four hundred per month for the Police Department and one hundred per month for the Fire Department. It is the policy and practice of the Palo Alto Police and Fire Departments to respond to all alarms except those which are known to be false and to report on all alarms genuine or false. Most alarms are false. Most false alarms are the result of improper maintenance or improper or careless use of an alarm system. (2) False alarms needlessly divert limited police and fire resources from genuine alarms and other emergencies. Police officers and fire crews responding to false alarms are not Not Yet Adopted 2 available to carry out other police public safety duties. In the interest of using limited law enforcement resources most effectively, the number of false alarms can and must be reduced. (3) The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the dangers and diversions of false alarms and to encourage alarm users to maintain their systems in good working order and to use them properly thereby conserving police and fire personnel time and increasing protection for all Palo Alto citizens. (4) Where the alarm system in question is a Fire Alarm, the enforcement official for the City shall be the Fire Chief or his or her designee. For all other alarm systems, the enforcement official shall be the Chief of Police or his or her designee. 4.39.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms used herein are defined as follows: (a) “Alarm Administrator” means a person or persons designated by the City (Police Chief and Fire Chief) to administer the provisions of this chapter. (ab) "Alarm business" means any person operating for any consideration who is engaged in the installation, maintenance, alteration or servicing of alarm systems or who responds to such alarm systems. (c) "Alarm user awareness class" means a class conducted for the purpose of educating alarm users about the responsible use, operation, and maintenance of alarm systems and the problems created by false alarms. (bd) "Alarm system" means an assembly of equipment and devices arranged to signal the presence of any condition upon premises within the City of Palo Alto to which the police and fire department normally responds. The term "alarm system" shall include equipment which is designed to detect an emergency, or which is designed to be activated by a person to report an emergency. Alarm systems include, but are not limited to, local alarm systems, direct connection systems, central station alarm systems and automatic telephone dialing systems. Alarm systems shall not include audible alarms affixed to automobiles. (ce) "Alarm user" means any person who owns, leases, is the agent of the owner or lessee of, or otherwise is in possession or control of a premises on which an alarm system has been installed and operates. (df) "Audible alarm system" means an alarm system which is capable of being heard outdoors when it is activated. (fg) "Automatic telephone dialing alarm system" means an alarm system which utilizes a device which automatically transmits a pre-recorded message over telephone lines to a number in the city's communications center. Not Yet Adopted 3 (fh) "Central station alarm system" means an alarm system which transmits the alarm signal to a facility where operators monitor the system and retransmit the signal to the city's communications center. (gj) "Direct connection alarm system" means an alarm system which transmits an alarm signal directly to the city's communications center. (hl) "False alarm" means an alarm signal resulting in a response by the Police or Fire departments when an emergency does not exist. An alarm shall be presumed false if the responding officer(s) police or fire personnel do not locate any evidence of an intrusion, or of the commission of an unlawful act, a fire, or other emergency on the premises which might have caused the alarm to sound. Alarms caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or other "violent" acts of nature, shall not be deemed false alarms. (im) "Local alarm system" means an alarm system which is operated by the user who is normally responsible for its operation. The alarm signal is annunciated only on the premises, does not emit an audible signal, and is not monitored by a third party monitoring provider. (jn) "Person" means and includes an individual, partnership, unincorporated association or corporation. (ko) "Premises" means any land and building located within the city except land or buildings owned or leased by the federal government, State of California or any political subdivision of the state, or by any municipal corporation or special district. 4.39.025 Requirements for all alarm systems (a) Before requesting a police or fire response, an alarm system monitoring company shall attempt to contact the alarm site and/or alarm user by telephone and/or other means, whether or not actual contact with a person is made, to determine whether an alarm signal is valid. A second call shall be made to an alternate number provided by the alarm user if the first attempt fails. EXCEPTION: In case of a fire, panic, or robbery-in-progress alarm or in cases where a crime-in-progress has been verified as defined in ANSI/CSAA CS-V-01-2016 (or current version). (b) Equipment and installation methods shall comply with all appropriate nationally recognized testing laboratories and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requirements. (c) It shall be unlawful for automatic telephone dialing devices to dial any phone number used by the City of Palo Alto. 4.39.030 Limitations on audible alarm systems. (a) It is unlawful to install, sell or use an alarm system which, upon activation, emits a sound similar to a siren in use on public emergency vehicles or for public emergency vehicles or Not Yet Adopted 4 for public disaster warning purposes. For the purposes of this section, any variable pitch siren as opposed to steady pitch, shall be considered to emit a sound similar to the sound emitted by a public emergency vehicle. This section does not apply to sirens mounted inside a building which cannot be heard outside the building. (b) It is unlawful to operate an audible alarm system which does not shut off within a maximum time of ten minutes from the time of activation. 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic telephone dialing devices. Reserved. It shall be unlawful for automatic telephone dialing devices to dial any phone number used by the City of Palo Alto. 4.39.050 Back-up power supply. Any alarm system shall be supplied with an uninterrupted power supply in such a manner that the failure or interruption of the normal electric utility service will not activate the alarm system. The power supply must be capable of at least four hours of operation. 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. (a) It shall be unlawful to operate, or cause to be operated, an alarm system on any premises in the City of Palo Alto without an alarm registration. An alarm user shall register with the Police Department or Fire Department alarm administrator, by filling out a registration form with his home address, and business and residence telephone numbers. In addition, he shall provide the Police or Fire Department with a list of persons responsible for the premises protected by the alarm system. This list shall contain at least three names, one of which may be that of the alarm business maintaining the alarm system. The list shall be kept current by the alarm user and shall supply home and business telephone numbers of responsible persons. In addition, the registration form shall contain any information deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or Fire Chief to carry out the purposes of this chapter. A fee adopted in the municipal fee schedule shall be charged for registration. Any information contained in this form shall be confidential and shall not constitute a public record. An alarm registration shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance unless sooner revoked. (b) Upon request by the Police or Fire department alarm administrator, the alarm user, or a responsible party, shall proceed to the scene of the alarm within thirty minutes and render any necessary service. Such service shall include, but not be limited to, opening the premises so that said premises may be searched by responding police officers or fire crews. 4.39.070 Alarm tests. An alarm user, or alarm business, shall notify the communications division of the Police Department Public Safety Communication Center prior to any service, test, repair, maintenance, adjustment, or installation of an alarm system which would normally result in a Not Yet Adopted 5 police or fire response. Any alarm activated, where such prior notice has been given, shall not constitute a false alarm. 4.39.080 False alarm service charges and penalties. (a) There is imposed upon every alarm user whose alarm system causes three or more false alarms within twelve months a false alarm service charge. A separate charge shall be imposed for each false alarm in excess of two as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. When the alarm business or alarm user notifies the public safety communication center that there is not an existing situation at the alarm site requiring emergency services response, within three (3) minutes of dispatch and prior to emergency personnel arriving at the scene, no fee will be assessed. (b) Service charges shall be due and payable and are delinquent after thirty days of the mailing of a bill from the city. Penalties Interest for delinquency in remittance of any service charge or any deficiency in remittance shall attach and be paid by the person required to remit at the rate of ten percent each month on the base false alarm delinquent or deficient charge, but such penalty interest shall not be compounded. (c) Debt to City. All fees and charges levied pursuant to this chapter shall constitute a valid and subsisting debt in favor of the city and against the alarm user for whom services were rendered. If the amount remains unpaid, a civil action may be filed with the appropriate court for the amount due together with any interest or penalties, any related charges and fees accrued due to nonpayment, and all fees and charges required to file and pursue such civil action. (d) An alarm user may appeal any alarm service charge under this section by submitting a letter of appeal to the Chief of Police the Police or Fire Department alarm administrator explaining the basis for the appeal within forty-five fifteen (15) days of the mailing of the bill for that service charge. While the appeal is pending, the bill shall not be due and payable. An administrative hearing officer shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal within fifteen days after receipt of the letter of appeal. Failure to file a timely letter of appeal shall be a waiver of the alarm user’s right to a hearing; however, the administrative hearing officer may set a date for a hearing if there is cause to believe that it might encourage substantial cooperation from the alarm user. At the time and place set for the hearing upon the appeal, the administrative hearing officer shall hear evidence as to whether the alarm service charge should be imposed in whole or in part. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence that the alarm service charge was properly imposed as provided in this chapter. Within ten days after the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be final. Notification of the decision shall be mailed to the appellant within three (3) days of the decision. If the appeal is denied, the notification shall inform the alarm user of the exact date that the alarm service charge shall become due and payable, which date shall in no event be sooner than five (5) days after notice of the decision has been mailed. Not Yet Adopted 6 (e) In addition to any service charges or fees imposed by authority of this chapter, an alarm user may also be subject to penalties for violating any of the mandatory requirements of the chapter or Chapter 15.04, as provided in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this Code. 4.39.090 Revocation of alarm registration Suspension of response; Reinstatement. (a) The City may discontinue response of emergency services personnel if the City determines that: 1. There is any violation of this Chapter; 2. There is a false statement of material matter in the application for permit; 3. An alarm system has generated seven (7) or more false alarms during any twelve (12) month period; 4. The permit holder has failed to make payment of any service fee, permit fee, late fee or suspension fee assessed under this article within ninety (90) days of the assessment. (b) The City may resume emergency services response upon the alarm holder submitting satisfactory proof of all of the following, at the discretion of the Police or Fire Department alarm administrator: 1. Proof the alarm system has been inspected and the measures taken to ensure the alarm system is in good working order. Measures taken may require the alarm user repair, upgrade or modify the alarm system to be compliant with this Chapter. 2. Proof the alarm user has been retrained on the use of the alarm system and procedures for contacting the alarm business in the case of false activation. 3. The alarm user successfully completes an on-line alarm awareness class and test. 4. All fees and fines are paid in full including the reinstatement fee of fifty ($50.00) dollars. (a) After the Police department has recorded more than five false alarms on any specific premises within any twelve-month period, and after the alarm user has been notified by first- class mail that the false alarms have been activated, the chief of police shall notify the alarm user by first class mail of a pre-revocation hearing to discuss the cause of the false alarms and to remind the alarm user that the registration will be subject to revocation if the police department has recorded seven false alarms occur within any twelve-month period. The hearing will be within forty-five days from the date of mailing of the notification. Following a pre-revocation hearing, if the police department has recorded seven false alarms in any twelve- month period, the chief of police shall revoke the alarm user’s registration and from that time on the Police department will not respond to any alarm from that alarm user’s premises for a period of six months and until such time as the alarm user submits a new alarm registration application and the Chief of Police determines to issue an alarm registration upon proof that adequate measures have been taken to correct any problem causing the false alarms. 4.39.100 Appeal. An alarm user whose alarm registration has been denied or revoked by the chief of police City, may appeal that decision. Not Yet Adopted 7 (a) Letter of Appeal. Such alarm user must file a letter of appeal with the Chief of Police Police or Fire Department alarm administrator within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of the letter of notification of denial or revocation. While the appeal is pending, the alarm user’s shall registration shall not be revoked, but an appeal shall not affect the denial of an alarm registration. (b) Setting of Hearing. If the alarm user files a timely letter of appeal, the chief of police shall refer the appeal to an administrative hearing officer who shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal. The date set for hearing shall be no more than fifteen sixty (60) days after the city's receipt of the letter of appeal. Failure to file a timely letter of appeal shall be a waiver of the alarm user's right to a hearing; however, the administrative hearing officer may set a date for a hearing if there is cause to believe that it might encourage substantial cooperation from the alarm user. (c) Hearing. At the time and place set for the hearing upon the appeal, the administrative hearing officer shall hear evidence from the appellant and/or any other interested party. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence to support disconnection the denial or revocation of the alarm registration. (d) Decision. Within ten (10) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be final. Notification of the decision shall be mailed to the appellant within three (3) days of the decision. If the appeal of an alarm registration revocation is denied, the notification shall inform the alarm user of the exact date that revocation of the alarm registration shall commence which shall in no event be sooner than five (5) days after notice of the decision has been mailed. 4.39.110 Enforcement. (a) The amount of any service charge imposed by authority of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owing to the city. Proceedings may be instituted by the city in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure a judgment for the amount due. (b) It is unlawful for any person, or business entity to install, operate or maintain an alarm system contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person or business entity violating any of the mandatory requirements of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, punishable as provided in Section 1.08.010 of this code, and may additionally be subject to administrative penalties as provided in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this code. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. Not Yet Adopted 8 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Fire Chief ____________________________ Chief of Police City of Palo Alto (ID # 9322) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan Title: Review of Refined Public Opinion Survey Results Regarding Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan and Unplanned Potential Community Assets Projects, and Potential Direction to City Staff for a 2018 Ballot Measure From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review the results of the refined public opinion survey regarding a potential 2018 ballot measure to address the funding gap for the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan projects and unplanned potential community asset projects; and 2. If Council determines, direct staff to return t o Council with language for a revenue measure for the November 2018 ballot. Background At the City Council’s direction from January 2018, the Finance Committee has been reviewing the funding gap identified in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan projects, currently estimated at $76 million. The Committee met three times to discuss the funding needs for capital investments and options for funding strategies. Staff reports considered by the Committee are referenced below. CMR 8927 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63293 ) CMR 9039 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64128) CMR 9107 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64561 ) On March 20, 2018 the Finance Committee approved direction to have Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3 Research) conduct an initial public opinion survey to assess public support for a revenue measure for the November 2018 ballot to help address the funding gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan projects, currently estimated at $76 million including a $20 million contingency placeholder. The survey also gathered information City of Palo Alto Page 2 regarding the level of public support for funding other “community asset” projects, such as the second phase of the new Junior Museum and Zoo, a New Animal Shelter, and implementation of elements of the Parks Master Plan which were estimated to cost $55-65 million. The results of this initial survey were transmitted to the City Council on April 30, 2018 in Staff Report 9191 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64809). After the results of the initial survey were discussed by the Council, Staff was directed to work with FM3 Research to conduct a refined survey to further assess community support for a two percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase and a $1.10 per $1,000 increase in the Documentary Transfer (Real Estate Transfer) Tax. In addition, the survey was to consider the viability of a sugar sweetened beverage tax of 1 to 2 cents per ounce. Council also determined to discontinue consideration of a Sales Tax or a Parcel Tax for the 2018 ballot. Also, after the Rail Committee met on April 18, 2018, it was suggested that any polling related to funding for grade separation would most appropriately be conducted separately from any additional survey work related to Infrastructure Funding. Discussion Refined Survey Results FM3 Research conducted the refined survey from May 12 to May 23, 2018 by phone and through email and received approximately 1,000 responses from likely November 2018 voters. (For more information, a summary of survey results from FM3 Research is provided in Attachment A.) The refined survey tested the three potential tax measures directed by the Council on April 30, 2018 to use as funding mechanisms, using sample ballot measure language. Similar to the initial survey, when asked about specific infrastructure projects that have been identified as upcoming needs, projects that pertained to public safety and streets maintenance all rated over 60% in terms of importance. Currently the measures as proposed would need to pass with a simple majority (over 50% approval); however, there is a statewide initiative measure that could potentially be on the November ballot, known as the California Business Roundtable Initiative (CBRI), that would amend the constitution to require all local government taxes to pass with a two-thirds supermajority (over 67%) and to include specific language about the uses of the revenue. As a result, the survey also tested sample ballot language for the viability of the three tax measures to pass at the 67% level with language that FM3 advises will satisfy the CBRI initiative’s requirements. Transient Occupancy Tax Palo Alto has a TOT (hotel tax) rate of 14 percent of the room rate. This rate increased from 12 percent to 14 percent in 2014 as approved by the voters and is consistent with other destination cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. The highest rate in the state is currently 15 percent in Anaheim and the median rate in the state is 10 percent, according to Californiacityfinance.com. Some cities have other taxes included in City of Palo Alto Page 3 addition to the hotel tax, such as tourism tax and/or convention center tax. For every 1 percent increase in the tax rate, we estimate collecting $1.7 million in additional revenues annually. Similar to the initial survey, a two percent increase (14% to 16%) to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was supported by a majority of individuals surveyed, but fell slightly short of supermajority support when the CBRI compliant language was presented. With pro/con arguments, support decreased slightly; however, it continued to remain above 50% approval. As shown in Attachment B, the level of TOT revenue collected by the City has continued to increase since 2004, while the overall hotel occupancy rate has remained above 75% since 2012. Staff conducted an outreach meeting with a group of hoteliers from around the City on May 31, 2018 at 2:30 PM at the Cardinal Hotel. Due to the timing of the meeting, any information from the meeting will be gathered too late for this staff report; however, Staff is prepared to give a verbal update to Council when this item is discussed on June 4, 2018. Documentary Transfer Tax California’s Documentary Transfer Tax Act allows counties and cities to collect tax on transactions that transfer real estate. In addition to the county rate, cities may impose additional documentary transfer taxes. The amount that the city may impose depends on whether the city is a charter city or a general law city (Palo Alto is a charter city). In Palo Alto, property owners pay a total of $4.40 ($1.10 county rate plus $3.30 city rate) on each $1,000 of property value transferred. In comparison to other Santa Clara County cities, Palo Alto’s rate is consistent with San Jose and Mountain View, but higher than Sunnyvale and Santa Clara which are at $0.55 per $1,000 even though they are charter cities. The results of the initial survey had a slight majority support for an increase to the Documentary Transfer Tax (DTT); however, the results of the refined survey to increase the DTT by $1.10 per $1,000 failed to reach majority support before the CBRI compliant language wa s presented. Support decreased even more when the CBRI compliant language was presented. With pro/con arguments, support increased slightly; however, it continued to remain below 50% approval. Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax The final funding mechanism in the refined survey was for a $0.02 tax per ounce on sugar sweetened beverages. This tax was not part of the initial survey and received a slight majority of support in the refined survey. It should be noted that this tax measure did not have pro/con arguments presented in the survey. Further, considerable staff and Council work will be required to craft a sugar sweetened beverage tax measure for placement on the ballot, suggesting that this idea may be suitable for committee attention in the fall and consider ation for a subsequent ballot. For example, staff analysis and Council direction will be required regarding: 1. the size of a tax 2. administrative and operational issues with respect to collection and enforcement City of Palo Alto Page 4 3. whether some products should be excepted (for example, milk products, juices, naturally sweetened beverages, beverages consumed for medical purposes or weight loss, etc.) 4. whether some businesses should be exempted (for example, small businesses below a Council-determined size threshold) 5. Council direction on the intended purpose of the tax and uses of the tax proceeds 6. whether to form an advisory committee, as other cities have done, to make recommendations uses of tax proceeds, and on programs to reduce consumption of sugary beverages and combat childhood obesity In addition to the analysis and direction needed to craft a local measure, Council way wish to direct staff to engage in outreach and education with beverage distributors who would be subject to the tax, and with other stakeholders (such as the Palo Alto Unified School District) regarding the issue and the potential adoption of a local tax to address it. Timeline Should the Council provide direction for Staff to prepare a revenue measure for the November 2018 ballot, it would need to be approved before the Council summer break at one of the Council meetings in late June. Resource Impact No additional funding is required; the FM3 costs can be absorbed within the existing General Fund budget; however, the result of this process will assist in informing both the FY 2019 budget adoption and proposed funding for various infrastructure investments. Attachments:  Attachment A Palo Alto Ballot Measure Refined Survey Analysis  Attachment B TOT Historical Graph 220-5093 Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters Conducted May 12-23, 2018 Palo Alto Voter Views of Potential Ballot Measures ATTACHMENT A 1 Methodology •1,003 interviews with likely November 2018 voters in Palo Alto •Conducted May 12-23, 2018, via online interviews and landline and wireless phones •Margin of sampling error of +/-4.2% at the 95% confidence interval •Due to rounding, some percentages do not add up to 100% •Selected comparisons to past surveys, including the exploratory survey conducted in late April •Selected questions framed to meet the requirements of a California Business Roundtable initiative (CBRI), designed to make it more difficult to pass local government tax increases, which may appear on the November ballot and apply retroactively 2 Support for a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase 3 Given a potential change in law in November, two versions of measure language were tested. Q2. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? To provide funding for vital City services such as ensuring a modern, stable 911 emergency communications network, earthquake safe fire stations, emergency command center; improving pedestrian/bicyclist safety; ensuring safe routes to schools; maintaining City streets, roads, sidewalks; and other City services, shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax paid by hotel, motel, short-term rental guests by 2%, providing approximately $3.4 million annually until ended by voters, subject to annual audits? To provide funding for vital City services such as ensuring a modern, stable 911 emergency communications network, earthquake safe fire stations, and emergency command center; improving pedestrian, and bicyclist safety; ensuring safe routes to schools; maintaining City streets, roads, and sidewalks; and for unrestricted general revenue purposes, shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax paid by hotel, motel, short-term rental guests by 2%, providing approximately $3.4 million annually until ended by voters, subject to annual audits?” With CBRI No CBRI 4 With the CBRI-required language, the measure falls short of two-thirds, but each version is well above a majority. Q2 Split A & Split B. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided 32% 24% 11% 3% 9% 17% 4% Total Yes 67% Total No 29% 35% 22% 5% 7% 9% 18% 3% Total Yes 62% Total No 34% With CBRI No CBRI 5 37% 30% 30% 47% 35% 41% 34% 31% 22% 36% 32% 32% 5% 12% 17% 16% 6% 15% 12% 15% 18% 30% 11% 15% 14% Democrats Independents Republicans Asian/Pacific Islander Voters White Voters Voters of Color Def. Yes Prob./Und., Lean Yes Undecided Prob./Und., Lean No Def. No Total Yes Total No 70% 27% 61% 35% 53% 46% 83% 17% 67% 29% 73% 26% Q2 Total. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Seven in ten Democrats back the measure, as do three in five independents; support is stronger among voters of color. Initial Vote by Party & Ethnicity 6 22% 37% 33% 35% 37% 23% 43% 31% 21% 15% 11% 13% 14% 24% 9% 18% Men Ages 18-49 Men Ages 50+ Women Ages 18-49 Women Ages 50+ Def. Yes Prob./Und., Lean Yes Undecided Prob./Und., Lean No Def. No Total Yes Total No 60% 35% 60% 38% 76% 20% 66% 30% Q2 Total. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Three-quarters of women under 50 support the measure, as do two-thirds of older women. Initial Vote by Gender by Age 7 34% 43% 35% 34% 33% 34% 36% 44% 29% 26% 28% 43% 35% 38% 34% 26% 6% 5% 16% 15% 16% 10% 11% 13% 11% 14% 20% 10% 19% 8% 17% 11% 17% 15% Own a Single Family … Own a Condo Total Homeowners Renters <$100,000 $100,000-$150,000 $150,000-$250,000 $250,000+ Def. Yes Prob./Und., Lean Yes Undecided Prob./Und., Lean No Def. No Total Yes Total No 63% 35% 69% 25% 63% 34% 77% 18% 68% 29% 72% 25% 70% 28% 70% 29% Q2 Total. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Income makes little difference in support; three-quarters of renters back the measure. Initial Vote by Residence and Household Income 8 36% 25% 32% 20% 29% 19% 27% 26% 16% 16% 37% 43% 35% 47% 38% 45% 32% 31% 40% 34% 18% 24% 20% 25% 23% 27% 24% 24% 33% 31% 9% 8% 13% 7% 11% 9% 17% 19% 11% 19% Ensuring a modern, stable 911 emergency communications network Fixing potholes and paving City streets Ensuring safe routes to schools Maintaining City streets and roads Ensuring earthquake-safe fire stations and emergency command center Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities Providing safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety Maintaining City sidewalks Upgrading City infrastructure Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA Q3. I am going to read you a list of types of projects and objectives that could be funded by this measure. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that each project be undertaken: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Ext./Very Impt. 73% 68% 67% 67% 66% 64% 59% 57% 56% 50% Palo Alto voters’ highest priorities for a measure include public safety and road repairs. 9 Q3. I am going to read you a list of types of projects and objectives that could be funded by this measure. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that each project be undertaken: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? *Slight Difference in Wording Projects/Objectives 2013 2014 2016 March/ April 2018 May 2018 Ensuring a modern, stable 911 emergency communications network 81% 78% -- 75% 73% Fixing potholes and paving City streets 66% 57% *54% 63% 68% Maintaining City streets and roads 74% 69% 64% 66% 67% Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities 74% 69% 64% 66% 64% Providing safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians 67% 66% 68% 61% 59% (Extremely/Very Important) Fixing potholes is a growing concern, but other priorities are ranked similarly to prior years. 10 Messaging and Movement 11 34% 36% 31% 31% 31% 30% 5% 14% 9% 11% 18% 20% 24% Initial Vote After Pros After Pros/Cons Def. Yes Prob./Und., Lean Yes Undecided Prob./Und., Lean No Def. No Total Yes Total No 65% 32% 68% 29% 61% 34% The measure retains solid majority support throughout, though not always over two-thirds. Q2 Total, Q5 & Q7. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? 66.7% 50.1% 12 Q4. Here are some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes on the measure. Supportive Arguments Tested (Ranked in Order of Persuasiveness) (PUBLIC SAFETY) This measure will help fund vital seismic upgrades to the City’s public safety and emergency response infrastructure, including local police and fire stations and the City’s emergency command center. It will also help ensure the City has a modern, stable 911 emergency response communications network in case of disaster or emergency. (QUALITY OF LIFE) Palo Alto’s infrastructure is aging. Making investments in maintaining and improving local streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and parks and recreation centers, as well as making vital safety upgrades to local infrastructure like our fire stations will help ensure that Palo Alto remains a safe, beautiful, and vibrant place to live, work and raise a family. (ROADS/SIDEWALKS) Palo Alto’s City streets, intersections, and sidewalks must be maintained and improved to minimize traffic congestion and maximize safety, including making dangerous intersections safer and helping to ensure that students have safe routes to school. 13 Q4. Here are some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes on the measure. (HOTEL TAX) The tax increased by this measure is only charged to local hotel guests, and will not increase taxes for local residents. This measure is designed to ensure that tourists and business travelers contribute to maintaining the local infrastructure they use during their stay, including streets and roads, park and recreation facilities, parking, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bike paths. (ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will be subject to strict accountability provisions like annual financial audits; full public disclosure of all spending; and a requirement that all funds be spent locally in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are used efficiently, effectively, and as promised. (PROPERTY VALUES) Safe neighborhoods and well-maintained streets and sidewalks are a big part of maintaining property values. By improving public safety and infrastructure, this measure will help to maintain or increase the value of our homes. Supportive Arguments Tested (Continued) (Ranked in Order of Persuasiveness) 14 30% 29% 29% 31% 25% 18% 40% 42% 38% 33% 39% 34% 70% 71% 67% 64% 64% 52% Public Safety Quality of Life Roads/Sidewalks Hotel Tax Accountability Property Values Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Messages show broad appeal, but do not generate an intense reaction. Q4. Here are some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes on the measure. 15 Q6. Here are some statements from people who oppose the measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote no on the measure. (OVERRUNS) The City cannot be trusted to spend tax dollars wisely. They have already raised our taxes more than once to pay for these same infrastructure projects, which are plagued by cost overruns and poor planning. We should not give them more of our money to waste. (HIGHEST) This measure will raise Palo Alto’s hotel tax to the highest in the state – nearly as high as Anaheim, home of Disneyland. This will hurt small local hotels and motels, whose guests will choose to stay in nearby cities like Mountain View instead. (TAX FATIGUE) Enough is enough. Palo Alto increased this same tax just two years ago – and on top of that, local voters are facing bridge toll increases, a school district tax measure, and state bonds and a recent gas tax increase. We have hit our limit and should not be increasing taxes any further. (OTHER PRIORITIES) This measure will largely fund things like parking garages and bike lanes. They might be nice to have, but there are more important priorities for taxpayer dollars – like supporting more affordable housing. (TAXES) Local taxes are already too high, and federal tax law changes will hit local homeowners especially hard. We should not vote for anything that raises our taxes. Opposition Arguments Tested (Ranked in Order of Persuasiveness) 16 31% 25% 25% 21% 22% 28% 33% 29% 28% 17% 59% 58% 54% 49% 39% Overruns Highest Tax Fatigue Other Priorities Taxes Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Overall, opposition messaging was less broadly persuasive. Q6. Here are some statements from people who oppose the measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote no on the measure. 17 Voter Views of a Real Estate Transfer Tax 18 After discussion of a potential TOT increase, support for a RETT increase was explored. Q8. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? To provide funding for vital City services including public safety; maintaining City streets, roads, and sidewalks; improving parks throughout the City; and improving infrastructure like the animal shelter and Junior Museum and Zoo, as well as other City services, shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance increasing the real estate transfer tax by $1.10 per $1,000, providing approximately $2 million annually until ended by voters, subject to annual audits? To provide funding for vital City services including public safety; maintaining City streets, roads, and sidewalks; improving parks throughout the City; and improving infrastructure like the animal shelter and Junior Museum and Zoo, and for unrestricted general revenue purposes, shall the City of Palo Alto adopt an ordinance increasing the real estate transfer tax by $1.10 per $1,000, providing approximately $2 million annually until ended by voters, subject to annual audits? With CBRI No CBRI 19 Regardless of wording, this measure falls well short of even a simple majority. Q8 Split A & Split B. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided 18% 18% 5% 5% 16% 30% 8% Total Yes 41% Total No 51% 19% 12% 7% 5% 14% 36% 8% Total Yes 38% Total No 54% With CBRI No CBRI 20 Voters heard a brief exchange of pros and cons on the real-estate transfer tax measure. Q9. Having heard more about it, let me ask you again about the measure to provide funding for vital City services including public safety; maintaining City streets, roads, and sidewalks; improving parks throughout the City; and improving infrastructure like the animal shelter and Junior Museum and Zoo by increasing the real estate transfer tax by $1.10 per $1,000. Would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Supporters of the measure say the tax increased by this measure is only applied to home sales in Palo Alto, and will not increase taxes for local residents. People who buy a home in Palo Alto should contribute to the City’s infrastructure with a one-time investment when they buy the house, and our real estate transfer tax will still be one of the lowest in the Bay Area – one-quarter the cost in Berkeley and Oakland. Opponents of the measure say that the cost of housing is already outrageous, and this tax is paid by both the buyer and seller. We shouldn’t make it even more costly to buy a home in our community, and we shouldn’t punish seniors who are looking to sell their home and downsize or fund their retirement. 21 Arguments on each side leave it well short of a majority. Q8 Total & Q9. If the vote on this measure were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it or vote no to oppose it? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided 19% 15% 6% 5% 15% 33% 8% Total Yes 39% Total No 53% 21% 16% 6% 6% 13% 32% 6% Total Yes 44% Total No 51% After Pro/Con Initial Vote 22 Voter Views of a Soda Tax 23 Q10. If the election was held today do you think you would vote yes to support or no to oppose this measure? Shall the City of Palo Alto impose a 2-cent per ounce general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages, including products such as sodas, sports drinks, sweetened teas, and energy drinks, but exempting: milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, diet drinks, or drinks taken for medical reasons; providing an exemption for small businesses, and providing $2.5 million annually for the City’s General Fund? Shall the City of Palo Alto impose a 2-cent per ounce general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages, including products such as sodas, sports drinks, sweetened teas, and energy drinks, but exempting: milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, diet drinks, or drinks taken for medical reasons; providing an exemption for small businesses, and providing $2.5 million annually for unrestricted general revenue purposes? With CBRI No CBRI Two versions of a potential soda tax were tested at the end of the survey. 24 A soda tax is divisive, with a narrow majority of voters initially in support. Q10 Split A & Split B. If the election was held today do you think you would vote yes to support or no to oppose this measure? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided 33% 12% 5% 3% 10% 35% 4% Total Yes 49% Total No 47% 33% 12% 7% 3% 9% 32% 4% Total Yes 52% Total No 44% With CBRI No CBRI 25 Conclusions 26 Conclusions •A transient occupancy tax is clearly viable as a general tax, receiving well over majority support before and after messaging. –It likely would not be as a special tax, exceeding the two-thirds threshold only slightly after positive messaging. •A real estate transfer tax increase is not viable. It starts under 40%, and fails to reach a majority even after messaging. •Voters are deeply divided on a soda tax, with a slim majority in support. –However, it was tested as the third measure presented in the poll, and without any pro and con messaging. •Generally, language conforming with requirements of the California Business Roundtable’s initiative polls marginally worse; none of the measures tested appears likely to reach the two-thirds supermajority support the CBRI measure would require. For more information, contact: 1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (510) 451-9521 Fax (510) 451-0384 Dave@FM3research.com Miranda@FM3research.com 56 . 8 % 61 . 0 % 70 . 5 % 72 . 4 % 75 . 5 % 65 . 2 % 65 . 9 % 73 . 2 % 79 . 1 % 79 . 6 % 79 . 0 % 78 . 1 % 77 . 0 % 78 . 3 % 77 . 5 % $5.5 $5.7 $6.4 $6.7 $8.0 $7.1 $6.9 $8.1 $9.7 $10.8 $12.3 $16.7 $22.4 $23.5 $24.5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 Occupancy % Millions Fiscal Year Transient Occupancy Tax $114 $119 $131 $141 $237 $209 $182 $166 $147 $139 $146 $149 $265 $262 $264 Room Rates Note: FY 2018 Occupancy % & Avg. Room Rate are as of Feb. 2018 Jan. 2008 TOT Rate went from 10% to 12% Jan. 2015, TOT Rate went from 12% to 14% ATTACHMENT B • CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: DATE: City Council June 4, 2018 City of Palo Alto MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting #7 6/4/2018 [X] Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting SUBJECT: CMR ID# 9322: Review of Refined Public Opinion Survey Results Regarding Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan and Unplanned Potential Community Assets Projects, and Potential Direction to City Staff for a 2018 Ballot Measure The following is a summary of a meeting with members of the Hotel Industry and a representative of the Downtown Business Association regarding the potential 2018 Ballot Measure to increase the Hotel Tax. This was sent via email on June 3rd and is now at places so the public can see the information provided. Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan. Staff indicated in CMR ID#9322 that it would meet with the general managers of Palo Alto hotels on Thursday, May 31, 2018. General managers from Palo Alto hotels including the including the Garden Court, Cardinal, Zen, Sheraton, Dinahs, as well as from the Downtown Business Association attended the meeting and provided staff with feedback and a request that a written summary be provided to City Council. Staff from the City Manager's Office, Public Works and Administrative Service Departments attended the meeting and captured the following: The general managers expressed frustration that City staff had not met with them earlier, and while they feel that voters would most likely approve an increase in the hotel tax, they communicated they would have liked other options to be considered such as increasing· enforcement in collection of hotel taxes from short-term rentals, having a tax that sunsets, a flat tax increase, keeping the hotel tax at current level and adding a tourism fee or tax. The group also expressed concerns that companies were also not consulted such as Stanford, Palantir, VM Ware and Facebook since expenses are rising and business bookings in particular have other nearby options in Mountain View and Menlo Park. It was important for the general managers to point out to City Council that occupancy is starting to trend down, which forces them to adjust room rates down in a time when minimum wages and parking permits are going up as well. Additional notes: • Owners of hotel properties are mentioning that it may be too difficult to maintain the businesses and it could be more appealing to turn the properties into office space • Concerns that the City will not generate the revenue it's anticipating, because the level of occupancy will not be maintained and it will hurt both the City's tax base as well as the local hotel industry • General consensus that this will be a game changer when hotel tax goes from 14 to 16%, highest in state . • Belief there are million to be collected in the enforcement/collection of hotel tax from short-term rentals • Occupancy rates at all hotels are flat, and are seeing softening in terms of corporate bookings, particularly those hotels closest to nearby cities • Expressed frustration at last minute nature of meeting, hotels not considered • Expressed willingness to work with City on solutions (i.e. flat tax with sunset on rooms, marketing rebate to hotels if TOT increased, possibility of 1% so city is not highest in state, decrease in parking permit rates for employees) • The number of rooms available has increased, but they are struggling to remain competitive with room rates • Believe that Council doesn't understand contribution of hotels to local economy, and how difficult it is to do business in city (parking, etc.) • The Council focus has been on individual travel when it should be on total corporate cost . • Hotel owners are now attending general manager meetings, which was not the case previously, but the cost of doing business is going up and the potentia l increase in hotel taxes has them very concerned. • They started to notice impacts to the Monday-Thursday bookings which normally are very strong. •Some corporate businesses are removing staff from town and it is decreasing room demand. • Having the City with the highest hotel tax in the State is not right -leave it to San Francisco, Anaheim or Los Angeles. Staff will discuss the challenges of enforcing the collection of hotel tax on short-term rentals at the Council meeting. In addition the revenue stream needed to debt finance bonds that will have a minimum term of 20 years and credit rating agencies will need to be assured the revenues pledged will be there for the term of the debt issuance. DEPARTMENT HEAD: mistrative Services/Chief Financial Officer· CITY MANAGER: City of Palo Alto (ID # 8972) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Multi -family Housing Project & Workforce Housing Ord. Title: PUBLIC HEARING/LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI -JUDICIAL: 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to add a new Combining District to Allow for Higher Density Multi -family Housing that Includes a Workforce Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Tran sit Stations; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the New Combining District to the Subject Property at 2755 El Camino Real; and Site and Design Approval to Allow Construction of a 57 Unit Multi -Family Residence at the Subject Propert y. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study (IS/MND) Was Published for Public Comment on January 19, 2018 for a Circulation Period Ending on February 20, 2018. A Final MND was Published on May 18, 2018. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the mitigated negative declaration resolution and the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (Attachment B); 2. Adopt the proposed ordinance to create a new “Workforce Housing Combining District” (Attachment C) 3. Adopt the proposed ordinance to amend the zoning map and apply the new combining district to 2755 El Camino Real (Attachment D); and 4. Approve the site and design application based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment E). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary The applicant requests approval of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to establish a new Workforce Housing Combining District and a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district to the subject parcel at 2755 El Camino Real. These legislative actions would accommodate a four-story multi-family residential building with 57 dwelling units and one level of below grade parking. The project site is a former VTA Park and Ride lot, zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The subject project, which is located within close proximity to extensive job opportunities and public transit options, has been termed a “pilot” project to allow a workforce housing development and to evaluate the effectiveness of reaching the intended tenant mix and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as well as to evaluate use of on-site parking. If established, the Workforce Housing Combining District could be applied to other sites in the PF Zone within 0.5 miles of a major fixed rail transit stations in the future through a Zoning Map Amendment, a legislative process subject to Council’s approval. Background The Mayor and City Council has asserted that housing is a key priority for the City of Palo Alto, a sentiment reflected in updated transportation, land use, and housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 adopted in October 2017 as well as in the Council’s endorsement of a colleagues’ memo which seeks to advance housing related policies to encourage diverse housing near jobs, transit, and services (Attachment F). The memo seeks to promote housing by increasing floor area where appropriate, eliminating unit limits, and exploring the concept of car-light housing projects, all in conjunction with furthering the goals and policies outlined in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The memo directed staff to return with a housing work plan, which was adopted by the City Council in February. The subject zoning code amendment is identified as an initiative in the approved work plan (see Section 3, Item 1.7 of the Housing Work Plan) to meet the City’s housing implementation goals, co nsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The subject property at 2755 El Camino Real formerly served as a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride lot until use declined and the site was deemed “surplus.” Following a formal process, VTA sold the site to a private developer in 2013. Council has since reviewed two other proposed projects at the subject property. The first was a proposal in 2013 to rezone the site to Planned Community (PC) to allow office use. The second was a proposal in 2015 to rezone the site to Community Commercial (CC) to allow a mixed-use project with office space and condominiums. Ultimately, neither of these proposals received a favorable response City of Palo Alto Page 3 from the Council. During the 2015 hearing, some councilmembers suggested that a more appropriate use for the site would be multi-family housing with smaller units. Previous Hearings The property owner and applicant considered feedback received from Council on these former projects and returned in 2016 with a conceptual project that included residential rental units. Council Prescreening The City Council held a prescreening review of the project on September 12, 2016. The City Council did not take a formal action, but had the following comments on the conceptual plans. A transcript of the meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/Council-Prescreening-2755- ECR.  Most thought the subject location was good for housing. Some supported retail on the ground floor, others did not, or at least, not at the expense of housing.  Some expressed concern about the increased development potential of the site, noting the current PF zoning allows certain limited uses and what was being discussed was a project that exceeded development standards of other districts.  There was some discussion regarding deed restricting the units to limit tenancy to people who did not own cars.  There was interest for limiting rental units to certain individuals employed as teachers, public safety workers and seniors.  Some noted the land dedication on Oregon Expressway as a positive to improve traffic flow conditions at the intersection with El Camino Real.  There was support for a rooftop garden to enhance outdoor open space opportunities.  Some expressed a strong interest for affordable housing units.  Many believed the TDM plan with aggressive measures, enforcement, and monitoring would be critical to such a project. Following the Council prescreening, the applicant filed a formal application in December 2016. Planning and Transportation Commission The PTC conducted a study session on June 14, 2017. In response to concerns raised during the PTC study session, the applicant made several key revisions to the project, including but not limited to: reducing the floor area ratio (FAR); increasing parking on site based on further study of parking ratios; proposing a local preference requirement; and providing a TDM plan that included several key components recommended by the PTC. The PTC recommended approval of the project on January 31, 2018. The most recent PTC report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/2755-PTC-Staff-Report and meeting minutes are also available at: https://tinyurl.com/PTC-Minutes-January-31-2018. The PTC’s formal City of Palo Alto Page 4 recommendation included the following amendments, which have been addressed in the proposed ordinance in Attachment C:  Provide further clarification in the ordinance regarding incidental retail use.  Refine the findings to apply the Workforce Housing Ordinance to property, including adding a new finding that data collection on parking, traffic and tenant demographics is a key goal of the combining district.  Adjust bicycle parking requirements.  Request that staff further consider the requirements related to local preferences, including expanding preferences to include seniors. At least one member of the PTC objected to the ‘Workforce Housing’ term applied to the proposed combining district title. Council may consider a different title if warranted. Architectural Review Board The ARB conducted a study session on June 15, 2017. In response to concerns raised during the ARB study session, the applicant made several changes to improve the quality and functionality of the project, including, but not limited to:  Redesigning the circulation of the project including adding at grade parking, revising the parking layout, lowering the corner entrance to be at grade, and providing all bicycle parking at grade.  Redesigning the platform open space at the rear of the building and providing open space via a deck above the third floor.  Improving the livability of ground floor units.  Reducing massing through articulation, changes in material, and revisions to windows, balcony, and open space.  Providing a ride share service pick-up/drop-off area. The ARB conducted formal hearings on March 15, 2018 and April 19, 2018 and recommended approval of the project in a 3-2 vote. Dissenting boardmembers sought additional architectural design development and changes to the landscaping plan. The applicant has made further refinements to the plans since April in response to these comments. The most recent ARB staff report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/ARB-Staff-Report-2755-ECR. Minutes from the most recent ARB hearing are also available online: https://tinyurl.com/ARB-Minutes-3rd- Formal-2755. The project description below reflects input from the prescreening with City Council as well as these study sessions and formal hearings with the PTC and ARB. Project Description City of Palo Alto Page 5 The proposed project requests approval of a four-story multi-family residential building with 57 dwelling units, including 40 studio units and 17 one bedroom units. The subject property is currently a vacant parking lot located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road where there are extensive employment opportunities (e.g. businesses in Stanford Research Park and at Palo Alto Square) and public transit options within the immediate vicinity (e.g. 0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops including VTA Route 22, 101, 102, 103 and the Dumbarton Express line DB-1) which provide local and regional connections. A location map is included in Attachment A and a complete project description is included in Attachment R. The project includes 68 parking spaces, equivalent to 1.2 spaces per unit, including guest parking, sixty of which are provided via three individual lift systems located below-grade. The separate lift systems allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. The applicant also proposes the following:  In addition to paying in-lieu fees for below market rate (BMR) units, as required for residential rental unit developments under PAMC Section 16.65; six units are proposed to be deed restricted to 140 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and six units are proposed to be deed restricted to 150 percent of AMI, a total of 20 percent of the units on site.  The applicant would offer a local preference for those applying for residential units.  The applicant voluntarily proposed to dedicate a portion of the subject property to the County of Santa Clara and update the curb design to accommodate future improvements to Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway, including a new right turn lane and a new bicycle lane. The proposed development does not conform to any nearby zoning district and would necessarily require modification to base district zoning regulations. Therefore, in addition to the proposed multi-family development, the applicant requests approval of the following legislative actions, which are required to accommodate the proposed development: 1. Amendment of the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that could be applied to PF zoned properties within 0.5 miles of major fixed rail transit stations; and 2. Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the new combining district to the subject property at 2755 El Camino Real. Proposed Workforce Housing Combining District Ordinance The ordinance included in Attachment C establishes the new combining district and outlines the applicability, allowed use, development standards, and other requirements that would apply. As detailed in the ordinance, the workforce combining district may be applied through a Zoning Map Amendment to any PF zoned parcel within 0.5 miles of a major fixed rail transit station City of Palo Alto Page 6 platform. The ordinance defines workforce housing as “multi-family rental housing project in which at least twenty percent (20%) of the units, excluding any required below-market-rate units, are affordable to households earning more than 120 percent of area median income (AMI) up to and including 150 percent of AMI.” It also outlines the development standards that may be applied, in lieu of the PF district standards, to proposed workforce housing projects. Key elements of this ordinance include:  No restriction on the density of dwelling units.  An allowed floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1.  A parking ratio of one parking space per unit or bedroom count, whichever is greater.  A restriction on unit size of up to 750 square feet.  Deed restrictions to 150 percent of AMI on 20 percent of the provided housing.  Transit demand management plan requirements.  Preferential rental to those living or working within the City of Palo Alto or within 0.5 miles of fixed rail transit platforms outside of the City. The combining district requires that any site applying these regulations in lieu of the underlying district’s regulations be required to deed restrict a minimum of 20 percent of the units at 150 percent of Area Median Income (AMI)1 or below as well as provide preferences during the application process for those that live and work locally. As specified in the ordinance, the project would be required to comply with the below market rate requirements for rental and ownership projects outlined in Section 16.65 of the municipal code in addition to the specified workforce housing requirements. Further analysis of the ordinance with a focus on these components is included below. In order for any other eligible parcel to apply these combining district regulations, a Zoning Map Amendment would similarly be required and subject to Council’s approval. Based on staff’s research, there are 65 eligible parcels, including the subject parcel.2 While in theory the owners of any of these parcels could apply for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district, there are few parcels that are developable as currently used/configured. A total of 51 1 The AMI for a family of four is used as a baseline and is currently $113,300. However, for smaller units with one or two person occupancy, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) calculates median income at $79,300 and $80,560, respectively. As discussed later in this report, there is no standard definition of “workforce housing” in State law, however California Government Code Section 65008 defines “middle income housing” as 150 percent of the median in the County and this has been considered synonymous with the term workforce housing in the proposed ordinance. 2 Note that this number is reduced in comparison to previous staff reports based on changes to the ordinance (e.g. removal of parks). City of Palo Alto Page 7 parcels are owned by the City or used as Caltrain ROW or associated Caltrain uses. Of the remaining fourteen, the majority are owned by other public agencies and used for public facilities (e.g. Post Offices; Museums; or Courthouse). Attachment H includes a map of eligible parcels as well as a table summarizing the actual current use for each of these 65 parcels. The land use designation on these parcels is typically MISP or CC (community commercial); however, some parcels are in the SOFA I CAP, Open Space or MF (multi-family) land use designation. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance To apply a new combing district to a site, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Therefore, the proposed ordinance in Attachment C would create the new combining district and the proposed ordinance in Attachment D would apply the new combining district to the subject property. Summary of Key Issues All written comments received to date are included in Attachment Q. Throughout the prescreening and formal application review process, councilmembers, the public, and recommending bodies commented in particular on the following key issues: 1. Rezoning of Public Facility Zoned Parcels 2. Affordability of Housing 3. Parking 4. Transit Demand Management Plan and Enforcement Rezoning of Public Facilities Zoned Parcels Councilmembers, commissioners, and members of the public have commented on the rezoning of Public Facilities (PF) zoned parcels. Comments ranged from general concerns about rezoning or losing PF zoned land in the city to potential impacts to future parkland. Specifically, a concern was raised that the overlay zone could impact the potential future expansion of Boulware Park and another concern that when the lease for the Mayfield Playing Fields expires, the site could be developed under the new ordinance. The proposed combining zone approach would retain the underlying zoning of the site but would allow residential uses on some PF zoned parcels, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and land use definitions. To address more specific concerns, the ordinance has been revised to exclude PF zoned parcels that are currently in park use, used for outdoor recreational facilities, or that have a lot line located within 25 feet of such uses at the time of adoption of the ordinance. Affordability of Housing City of Palo Alto Page 8 As stated in recent policy documents and community meetings, city leaders have expressed a strong interest in creating more housing units in the city. However, because the applicant is seeking significantly more development potential of the site than allowed under current zoning, comments received during the Council prescreening and during the study session with the PTC indicated an expectation that any ordinance allowing such an increase in development potential be coupled with some amount of deed restricted housing to provide more benefit to the community. Since this project has been presented and discussed as workforce housing, staff was interested in understanding the return on cost (ROC) on the proposed project and how that might inform a discussion to maximize the number of deed restricted housing units while still being an attractive investment opportunity for the applicant. To assess this, staff directed the preparation of a pro forma (financial) analysis for the project. The city’s economic consultant on this project is Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). This firm has stated, based on review of survey data, that similar development applicants would accept a ROC on their project between 3.75 and 4.50 percent; and that, more often, the expectation is at the higher end of this range. This is generally regarded as a low return, but it is offset by the expectation that the Palo Alto housing market will remain strong and see greater returns in subsequent years. The economic analysis prepared for this project (Attachment I) includes information on project construction costs, indirect costs, acquisition cost, and rental projections. Other scenarios that were considered included 100 percent deed restricted housing at 150 and 140 percent of AMI and various deed restricted housing options. All the various analyses are included in the attachment. The applicant proposes to deed restrict 12 of the 57 units to the 140 and 150 percent County AMI levels, a total of 20 percent of the units on site. This proposal was analyzed as one of the scenarios in the analysis and determined to have a 3.89 ROC. Additionally, the applicant states that the balance of the units would be more affordable than other housing opportunities in the city because the unit sizes are smaller (averaging 530 square feet) and; therefore, would command less rent. The proposed deed restriction requirement in the ordinance, including the total percentage required to be deed restricted and the level at which it should be deed restricted to accommodate workforce housing was based on review of the economic analysis for this project as well as research on workforce housing and what constitutes medium or middle income in the State of California. The proposed deed restriction level is consistent with California Government Code Section 65008, which defines “middle income housing” as 150 percent of the median in the County. Assembly Bill 1637, known as the “Missing Middle Housing Act”, which was signed into law in October 2017, uses this same definition for “persons and families of middle income.” One hundred and twenty percent (120%) of AMI is considered by the City and County to be below market rate housing. City of Palo Alto Page 9 There are two other aspects of the financial analysis that Council may want to consider. One has to do with financing a development project; the developer has indicated there are constraints in financing the proposed project if more units are deed restricted or if all units are deed restricted for a period greater than approximately five years. The second consideration relates to the cost of purchasing the property, which staff understands to have been negotiated at $7.5 million between the applicant and property owners. This land value appears very high and impacts the ROC for any development of this parcel, which in turn impacts the amount of deed restricted workforce housing that could be deed restricted in this project. Parking During the prescreening, Council requested that staff research other projects within the City of Palo Alto and nearby cities to better understand whether projects that have included lower parking ratios per unit have been successful. In particular, both members of Council and the commission were interested in whether any analysis had been conducted for the more recently occupied project within the City at 801 Alma. For reference, the 801 Alma Avenue project was a 100 percent affordable housing project with 50 units located in close proximity the University Avenue Caltrain Station and developed with a parking ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit. According to a parking occupancy study conducted through Transform’s GreenTRIP Program3, 1.02 parking spaces per unit are generally in use at 801 Alma Avenue; therefore, generally, 15 percent of spaces at the site are unused. In addition, Hexagon recently (2017) completed a parking occupancy ratio counts study for similar residential developments in transit, pedestrian, or bicycle oriented areas in the Peninsula to determine average peak parking occupancy rates. These counts were conducted for developments in Redwood City, Los Altos, and Foster City. The counts revealed that during peak parking times, the parking demand at these residential developments was less than one occupied space per bedroom. On average it was 0.82 spaces per bedroom and 0.9 spaces per bedroom at peak occupancy. Based on this ratio, the proposed project would expect a peak parking occupancy of 51 spaces. Additional information on these studies is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix G of the Environmental Analysis in Attachment P. Based on these studies and comments received from Council, the ordinance proposes a 1:1 ratio for parking spaces per bedroom or unit, whichever is greater, and the applicant proposes a slightly higher rate of approximately 1.2 parking spaces per unit. Since the PTC and ARB 3 TransForm’s GreenTRIP program was initiated through grants from the Bay Area Air Quality management District’s Climate Protection program. The GreenTRIP program is a certification program for new residential development focused on Traffic Reduction and Innovative Parking. GreenTRIP certifies projects that will allow new residents to drive less while increasing their mobility in a variety of ways. City of Palo Alto Page 10 reviews of the draft ordinance, the planning department released a parking study4 that was prepared to provide additional information regarding parking demand for certain housing types and proximity to transit, which is included in Attachment J. This discussion related to the housing work plan is ongoing and no adjustments to this ordinance have been made based on this recently available parking survey. Council, in its review, may decide to modify parking requirements as appropriate. On January 23, 2017 the City adopted the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). The subject property located at 2755 El Camino Real is not included in the RPP program boundaries; therefore, residents would not be eligible to purchase permits to park in the adjacent neighborhood. However, it should be noted that residents or guests of the proposed project could park on adjacent streets in two hour increments or after 6 P.M. and before 8 A.M. A Map of the boundaries of the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) is included in Attachment K. More analysis on parking related to the specific project is provided later in this report. Transit Demand Management Councilmembers, the PTC, and the ARB all expressed interest in a robust Transit Demand Management (TDM) plan to justify the reduced parking requirements to support the transit- oriented focus of the development. A TDM Program for the proposed development is included in Attachment M. The TDM program includes the following key components:  Caltrain GoPasses for all residents  Valley Transit Authority EcoPasses for all residents  Bicycles for resident use  Carpool Matching Services  Unbundled parking  Stipend ($100 monthly) to use toward transportation network companies (e.g. uber, Lyft) for those that do not own a car The URBEMIS5 model is used to analyze estimated potential trip reductions. As outlined in the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), a nine percent reduction in vehicle trips is assumed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority‘s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines based on the project’s proximity to transit. As stated in the TDM plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard, the TDM plan is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips by 35 percent as measured 4 A copy of this report was emailed to City Council members on May 4, 2018. 5 URBEMIS is an abbreviation for ‘URBAN EMISSIONS MODEL’, which is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California. The California Resources Board maintains the computer modeling program. City of Palo Alto Page 11 against the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (ITE) baseline established in the TIA for the proposed project. The local preference required in accordance with the new ordinance would likely further reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by requiring the applicant to lease to tenants based on proximity of the housing to the resident’s place of employment. The property owner or its designee would monitor vehicle trips and parking occupancy as well as conduct regular resident surveys of travel choices, in accordance with the methodology outlined in the TDM plan. The program would be evaluated and would include all of the TDM measures listed in this memo, to determine their effectiveness. With the required evaluation, progress of the TDM program on site can be tracked. If the TDM program is not achieving the total reduction of trips, additional and reasonable changes and new measures may be imposed, as required in accordance with the municipal code and discussed further in the TDM. As stated in the conditions of approval, administrative penalties may be imposed, as outlined in the City’s Administrative Fee Schedule6. Discussion With adoption of the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment in Attachment C establishing the new combining district and adoption of the Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance in Attachment D, which would apply the combining district to the subject parcel at 2755 El Camino Real, the proposed development would comply with all applicable plans, policies and regulations, as described further below. Neighborhood Context Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility with 81 residential units to the northwest and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northeast, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). The PC Ordinances for these adjacent developments allow for a higher density, height, and FAR than what would have been allowed under the previous zoning regulations at these sites. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines7 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan encourages housing, particularly higher density housing near transit centers, on a wider variety of land uses. The Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) land use designation allows for higher density multi-family housing close to transit centers. Therefore, the proposed multi-family housing building, which is located within the proximity of extensive transit options, including the California Avenue Caltrain Station and 7 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Page 12 several bus lines, is consistent with this land use designation. Density allowances for housing within this land use designation are not defined. The subject property is not publicly owned or operated by a non-profit organization; it is privately owned. The findings in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E include a complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the adopted City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030. The proposed project, as conditioned, was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed further below and outlined in the RLUA, the project with conditions was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance8 The project site is in the Public Facilities (PF) zone district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. However, as discussed above, the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan encourages housing, particularly higher density housing near transit centers on a wider variety of land uses. In addition, the Housing Work Plan identifies the subject zoning code text amendment as an ongoing initiative to help achieve goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. With adoption of the ordinances in Attachments C and D to establish the workforce combining district and apply the combining district to the project site through a Zoning Map Amendment, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the municipal code. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the development standards of the new combining district is included in Attachment G. Context-based Design Criteria, Performance Criteria, South El Camino and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is required to comply with the context-based design criteria for multi-family residential developments, which are outlined in PAMC Section 18.13.060; the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23.010; the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the context -based design criteria is included in Attachment M; a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Performance Criteria is included in Attachment N; and an analysis of the project’s consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and El Camino Real design guidelines is included in Attachment O. As detailed in each of these attachments, staff concludes that the proposed development is 8 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto ca City of Palo Alto Page 13 consistent with these guidelines and design criteria. Parking The appropriate parking count and, more specifically, the potential for parking spillover if insufficient parking is provided, was a key issue raised during the Council prescreening and throughout the formal application process. Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Count Under the current zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 94 parking spaces (75 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 19 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]). However, the current code does allow up to a 30 percent parking adjustment for a combination of housing near transit and/or for transportation and parking alternatives. Therefore, the applicant would be required to provide anywhere from 65 (with a 30 percent reduction) to 94 parking spaces under the current code requirements. The workforce housing combining district regulations would reduce this required parking per unit ratio to one space per unit or bedroom, which is lower, and ten percent guest parking. Based on this approach, 63 parking spaces are required for the proposed development; 68 parking spaces are proposed. Sixty-four (64) of these spaces would be used for residences and four of these spaces would be for guests. This is equivalent to 1.2 spaces per unit. A total of 57 long-term and six short-term bicycle parking spaces are required under PAMC 18.52 and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant exceeds this requirement, providing 69 long-term bike parking spaces, including one cargo bicycle parking space, and sixteen short-term spaces. All bicycle parking is provided at grade, which was recommended by the ARB to ensure the convenient use of bicycles to and from this transit-oriented development. Vehicle Parking Design Sixty of the vehicle spaces are provided via three individual lift systems located below-grade. The separate lift systems allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. PAMC Section 18.54.020(b) allows for off-street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. The project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.54.020(b)(4)(D), additional information is required to be submitted to address proposed maintenance, emergency procedures, and backup systems for the lift system. Condition of Approval 13 is included to address this requirement. Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access on El Camino Real via a drive aisle. The City of Palo Alto Page 14 proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real and the curb cut at Page Mill Road would be removed. The main entrance is at grade and activates the main corner immediately adjacent the bus stop, making it pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly. The applicant has voluntarily proposed to dedicate a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and to upgrade the curb to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County. These improvements on Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway include adding a new right-turn lane and a new bicycle lane. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby creating more sidewalk space for pedestrians and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. This change also reduces pedestrian crossing time at this intersection. It would not affect any current or planned bicycle lanes, nor would it affect traffic patterns on El Camino, which is already wide enough to allow parking and a bus stop in front of the project site. As discussed in the TIA and shown in the project plans, the project will also improve the existing bus stop along the El Camino Real frontage, placing it slightly closer to the intersection, which is preferred by VTA. An improved bus stop bench with a shelter is also proposed by the applicant to replace the existing bus stop bench. The location, use, and off-site improvements associated with the proposed project are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15 percent and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Mixed-use development located near transit and housing allows persons to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided for both commercial and residential uses, promoting increased bicycle and pedestrian use both from residents and those accessing the site from surrounding areas. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is included as Appendix G of the environmental analysis in Attachment P. As summarized in the TIA and incorporated into the environmental analysis, the project would not have a significant impact on traffic or circulation. Policy Implications The proposed project supports the City’s efforts to implement goals and policies outlined in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, focusing on addressing what Council has identified as three key issues in the community: housing, traffic, and air quality. Housing Goals and programs outlined in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourage City of Palo Alto Page 15 housing within proximity to public transit, employment opportunities, and commercial areas as well as a range in types of units to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. In particular, Housing Program H2.1.1 encourages consideration of amendments to the zoning code to allow high-density residential for mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half mile of fixed rail stations. The project would encourage high-density housing within one-half mile of transit and in close proximity to adjacent commercial uses, consistent with this program goal. In addition, Program H2.1.2 encourages high density residential development close to urban amentities and where there is sufficient roadway capacity. The proposed development would be located within close proximity to a wide variety of urban amenities, transit, and employment opportunities. The proposed ordinance would mandate a local preference requirement for all developments seeking to utilize the development standards under the new combining district and would include a deed restriction requiring 20 percent of units be provided at 150 percent of AMI or below. The preference requirement and deed restriction support the City’s goals of reducing the job/housing imbalance within the City, providing more affordable options to middle income earners that do not qualify for affordable housing, allowing them the opportunity to live and work locally. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Regional Air Quality The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These goals are consistent with state mandates under legislation such as Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council has also identified that the primary goal of the City of Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan is to achieve an 80 percent reduction in GHGs below 1990 levels by 2030, which exceeds these state mandates. A key initiative in achieving these goals is reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips. The proposed ordinance supports living and working locally and the proposed development supports reduced single-occupancy vehicle use through design. The Transportation Element in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies that a key to a sustantiable transportation system lies in providing more options and more convenience so that people will more readily choose not to drive. The proposed ordinance as well as the building design and TDM plan for the proposed development would allow increased housing density in areas close to transit, amenities, and employment opportunities in an effort to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. These would, in turn, serve to reduce traffic congestion during peak commute periods and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled which would help to achieve city, regional, and state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Resource Impact There are no fiscal or budgetary impacts to the City associated with this private development or ordinance. If any future developer proposes a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district, costs would be recovered from the applicant for that project, similar to the proposed project. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $1,235,900 would further fund infrastructure improvements such as transportation and parks. Residential In-lieu fees, currently estimated in the amount of $602,920.00 would further fund affordable housing. And a public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, would further fund public art projects. Timeline Following Council’s decision, if approved, a second reading of the Zoning Code Text Amendment Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for June 18, 2018. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on January 19, 2018 and circulation ended on February 20, 2018. Two comments were received during the comment period related to the environmental review, including a letter from the Valley Transit Authority and a comment from a commissioner during the formal PTC hearing. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including formal responses to these comments, is included in Attachment P. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included as Exhibit A in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to reduce construction noise, to ensure the proper closure of monitoring wells on the project site; and to ensure the proper treatment of any cultural or tribal cultural resources in the unlikely event that they are found to present during construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. The potential application of the new combining district and subsequent development of any sites other than the subject development at 2755 El Camino Real is considered speculative and, therefore, is not included in the environmental analysis. Any future proposal to apply the new combining district to another property would require discretionary approvals and would therefore be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on that proposal. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 17 Attachment C: Zoning Code Text Amendment Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment D: Proposed Ordinance Zoning Map Amendment (DOC) Attachment E: Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment F: Housing Colleagues Memo (PDF) Attachment G: Zoning Consistency Analysis (DOCX) Attachment H: PF Zoned Parcels within 0.5 miles of Fixed Rail Transit Station Platforms (PDF) Attachment I: Economic Analysis (PDF) Attachment J: Parking Study (PDF) Attachment K: Evergreen Park Mayfield RPP Map (PDF) Attachment L: Transit Demand Management Plan (PDF) Attachment M: Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency Analysis (DOCX) Attachment N: Performance Criteria Consistency Analysis (DOCX) Attachment O: South El Camino Real Design Guidelines Consistency Analysis (DOCX) Attachment P: Environmental Analysis (DOCX) Attachment Q: Public Comments (PDF) Attachment R: Project Description (DOCX) Attachment S: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment A RESO MND 2755 El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential Project 1 Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration for which an Initial Study was Prepared, in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and Adopting a Related Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program R E C I T A L S A. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Palo Alto prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi- Family Residential Project (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”). B.The 2755 El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential Project (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would involve the construction of a four-story multi- family residential building with 57 dwelling units and one level of below grade parking on a 0.45 acre site located at 2755 El Camino Real. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. C.The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from January 19, 2018 through February 20, 2018. D.The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. E.The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level. F. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level. G. Whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires the lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has Attachment B RESO MND 2755 El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential Project 2 Not Yet Approved been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-making body of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” or “MMRP”). H. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project. I. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, together with comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and intends to take action on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA. J. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Office of Planning and Community Environment, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location, and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto, as lead agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Director of Planning and Community Environment, at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based. SECTION 2. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. RESO MND 2755 El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential Project 3 Not Yet Approved The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for viewing at City of Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor – Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ _______________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved DRAFT Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to Add a New Subchapter 18.30(K) Creating the Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District and Establishing Regulations The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The cost of development, construction, and operation of housing projects, especially mixed-income projects, has discouraged developers from developing housing projects, impacting the ability to provide for a continuum of housing at various income levels. Allowing higher density housing, reduced parking requirements, and an increase in the allowable gross floor area in appropriate locations improves the economic feasibility of housing projects, particularly mixed-income projects. B. The resident workforce is leaving the city, and new employees are deterred by the high cost of living. The creation of additional middle-income housing would allow for the development of housing for persons who work in and serve the community in which they live. C. Encouraging the development of transit-oriented multi-family housing affordable and available to local employees and available to the local workforce supports City and State goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas and other air emissions. D. Encouraging the development of higher density housing in appropriate locations furthers the goals and policies of the City’s Adopted Housing Element. E. Encouraging higher density transit oriented development with local preference requirements in conjunction with specific monitoring and reporting requirements will provide the City with valuable data regarding parking use, traffic, and tenant demographics. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subchapter 18.30(K) to read as follows: Not Yet Approved DRAFT 2 Chapter 18.30(K) WORKFORCE HOUSING (WH) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18.30(K).010 Specific Purpose The purpose of the workforce housing combining district is to incentivize development of new housing that is affordable to the local workforce. This combining district promotes the development of such housing projects located within one-half mile radius of a major fixed-rail transit stop by providing flexible development standards and modifying the uses allowed in the Public Facilities (PF) district. 18.30(K).020 Applicability of Regulations The workforce housing combining district may be combined with the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District set forth in Chapter 18.28 of this Title, in accord with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80, on any parcel that is located within one-half mile radius of a major fixed-rail transit station platform with the exception of sites in park use or being used for outdoor recreational purpose or within 25 feet of such a use at the time of adoption of this ordinance. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shall apply for workforce housing projects in lieu of the uses allowed and development standards and procedures applied in the underlying PF district. A property owner may elect to use the parcel consistent with the underlying district, in which case the regulations in Chapter 18.28 for the PF district shall apply. 18.30(K).030 Definitions For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) “Workforce housing” means a multi-family rental housing project in which at least twenty percent (20%) of the units, excluding any required below-market-rate units, are affordable to households earning more than 120 percent of area median income (AMI) up to and including 150 percent of AMI. 18.30(K). 040 Zoning Map Designation The workforce housing combining district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “WH” within parentheses, following the public facilities (PF) district designation with which it is combined. 18.30(K).050 Site Development Review Process All projects shall be subject to architectural review as provided in Section 18.76.020 except that projects proposing nine units or more shall be subject to site and design review under Chapter 18.30(G). 18.30(K).060 Permitted Uses (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the WH combining district: Not Yet Approved DRAFT (1) Workforce housing; (2) incidental retail and/or community center space on the ground floor only when provided in conjunction with workforce housing and not to exceed 10 percent of the total gross floor area of the site; (3) All other uses permitted in the underlying district, subject to the development standards for the underlying district. (b) The uses in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) above shall not be used in combination with (a)(3). 18.30(K).070 Development Standards (a) Where the WH combining district is combined with the public facilities district, the following development standards shall apply for workforce housing projects, including permitted incidental uses, in lieu of the development standards for the underlying PF zoning district: Table 1 Development Standards WH Combining District Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in: Site Area (ft) None required Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) 10 feet; may be increased to 20 feet by decisionmaking body �1J Rear Yard (ft) 10'121 Interior Side Yard 5'izi Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zoning district (ft) (other than an RM-40 or PC 101(2) Not Yet Approved DRAFT 4 zone) Street Side Yard (ft) 5 feet; may be increased to 10 feet by decisionmaking body (1) Maximum Site Coverage None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% (3) Usable Open Space(4) 75 square feet (sf) per unit Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50’ Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35’, except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential-Only or Mixed Use Projects 2.0:1 Maximum Unit Size 750 sf Vehicle Parking Parking requirements shall be no less than one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is greater. The decisionmaking body may reduce this standard based on a parking study. Any incidental retail or community center space shall be subject to the parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 18.52.040. TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required and shall comply with the TDM pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d), associated administrative guidelines, and the decisionmaking body. Notes: Not Yet Approved DRAFT 5 1. A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 2. In order to encourage below-grade parking, garage ramps and subterranean structures may encroach into the required setback provided that sufficient landscaping is still provided between the project site and adjacent properties. 3. Landscape/Open space may be any combination of landscaping or private and common open spaces. 4. Useable open space includes a combination of common and private open space. (b) These developments shall be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.090 for residential projects, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 18.30(K).090 Additional WH Combining District Regulations (a) Affordability Requirement. At least 20 percent of the units in a workforce housing project, excluding any required below-market-rate units, shall be affordable to households earning up to and including 150 percent of area median income (AMI). (b) BMR Provisions Applicable. The Below Market Rate Housing requirements set forth in Chapter 16.65 of Title 16 of this Code shall apply to workforce housing projects. Any BMR units provided will not be counted toward the total number of units in a workforce housing project for purposes of calculating the number of workforce affordable units required under subsection (a) above. (c) Continued Affordability. All workforce housing units provided under subsection (a) above shall be subject to a deed of trust or regulatory agreement recorded against the property for execution by the City Manager in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the workforce housing units. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable to the targeted income group for 99 years. (d) Local Workforce Preference. All residential units within a workforce housing project shall be offered first to eligible households with at least one household member who currently lives or whose place of employment is within the City of Palo Alto. If units remain unoccupied after offers are made to this first category, those units shall be offered to eligible households with at least one household member whose place of employment is within one-half mile of a major fixed-rail transit stop. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the Not Yet Approved DRAFT 6 fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Ordinance were evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project (MND)(SCH# 2018012024), which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) on June 4, 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded, and the Council finds consistent therewith, that the proposed ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed and adopted. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for Approximately 0.49 Acres at 2755 El Camino Real to Add the Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District to the Existing Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 31, 2018, at which it reviewed, considered, and recommended Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended to rezone that certain real property fronting El Camino Real and Page Mill Road (commonly known as 2755 El Camino Real and more particularly described in Exhibit 1) to add the Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District. B. The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2018, and considered the subject amendment of the Zoning Map, including the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and all public comments received prior to or at the hearing. C. The proposed Ordinance promotes the development of housing in a transit- oriented area close to jobs and services, in accordance with the goals and policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. D. The environmental impacts of the subject amendment of the Zoning Map was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project (MND), which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), on June 4, 2018, prior to taking action on this ordinance. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by applying the Workforce Housing (WH) combining district to all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit 1 (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 2755 El Camino Real SECTION 3. Based on the MND and the administrative record as a whole, the City Council hereby finds that this rezoning will have no significant effect on the environment. Attachment C Not Yet Approved SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 Attachment D Attachment E APPROVAL NO. 2018- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2755 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN [FILE NO 16PLN-00434] On June 4, 2018, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the Site and Design Review to allow construction of a multi-family residential housing building totaling 39,220 square feet (sf) with both below and at-grade parking located at 2755 El Camino Real making the following findings, determination, and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 23, 2016, Windy Hill Property Venture applied for a Site and Design review [16PLN-00464] for the development of an exclusively multi-family residential building on a 0.449 acre parcel (APN 132-36-084) to replace a vacant parking lot formerly used by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as a park- and-ride lot. Surrounding uses include office, retail, public recreation (soccer fields), and multi-family residential housing primarily in areas Zoned Planned Community (PC). B. Staff has determined that, with adoption of the Ordinance in Attachment C, which creates a new Workforce Housing Combining District under 18.30(J) and applies that combining district to the project site at 2755 El Camino Real through a Zoning Map Amendment, the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on January 31, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. D. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP on March 15, 2018 subject to conditions of approval. E. On June 4, 2018, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on June 4, 2018. The MND concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND, dated May 2018, is available for review in Attachment O of Agenda of the June 4, 2018 Council Agenda and all mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Surrounding uses immediately adjacent to the site include a higher density multi-family residential condominium complex and a higher density senior living facility both zoned Planned Community (PC). Uses across Page Mill Road and El Camino Real include soccer fields as well as office and retail uses, including Palo Alto Square and the nearby Stanford Research Park, both of which provide extensive job opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. The project site is also located within close proximity (200 feet or less) of extensive bus services provided primarily by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as well as within 0.5 miles of the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The proposed project is consistent with objective (a) because it provides higher density housing in an area adjacent similar higher density uses as well as in close proximity to transit opportunities, services, and job opportunities, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Use of this transit- oriented site for multi-family residential housing with lower parking requirements reduces anticipated traffic that would be generated from most other potential uses of the site such as office or retail. Given the high density uses surrounding the site, this use would be very compatible with other adjacent uses. In addition, most parking is provided below ground and vegetation screening space is provided between the project and adjacent sites. The project also dedicates land needed by the County of Santa Clara to develop a long-sought right-hand turn lane from Page Mill Road onto El Camino Real and a potential future bike lane along Page Mill Road. Revisions to the curb along El Camino Real and Page Mill would also create a tighter turn radius to slow traffic turning onto El Camino Real and provide more sidewalk area, making the intersection safer for pedestrians. The street trees, wider sidewalk area, seating, vegetation planting on site, and improved bus stop also improve the pedestrian experience at this corner. The building also activates this corner, a long-sought goal in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for the continuation of the pedestrian experience between pedestrian nodes and corridors. Therefore, construction and operation of the use would be in a manner that is orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing developed uses of adjoining and nearby sites. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. As currently zoned, the project site has limited uses and the site is used as a parking lot for surplus parking. High density multi-family housing in close proximity to existing business would generate greater use of retail services and provide opportunities for nearby office employees to live in close proximity to work, ensuring the desirability of investment, as well as the conduct of business and research in adjacent areas. Further, workforce housing, as proposed by the applicant, provides an opportunity for more affordable housing within the City for those that would typically have to live and spend money in nearby cities with more affordable housing opportunities. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective (c) in that the project situates housing in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled from the project site. A Transit Demand Management plan encourages increased transit use by providing VTA EcoPasses and the Caltain GoPass to all residents, as well as a bike share program, carpool matching services, and other services. The project has reduced parking that is leased separately from residential units (unbundled), in order to discourage residents from having more than one vehicle, again reducing overall vehicle miles traveled to and from the project site. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen Tier 2 requirements and includes drought resistant, low water -use plantings. The project will comply with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, none are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code and more trees will be added. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective (d) in that the project promotes higher density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. As outlined in Table 1 below, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval, which require design features to reduce exposure to air contaminants from the California -Olive - Emerson plume and air contaminants from vehicles and generators on El Camino Real, the project would be consistent with Policy N-5.4, which requires that toxic air contaminants be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed use of the site, with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Analysis Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) In accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update, appropriate land uses in the MISP designation include higher density multi -family residential uses in some locations, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's encouragement of housing near transit centers. The proposed development includes a higher density multi -family residential use on a site zoned MISP that is located in close proximity to extensive VTA transit opportunities and within 0.5 mile of a Caltrain station stop. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed -use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed -income housing to support the City's fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City's population remains economically diverse. The proposed municipal code amendment included as part of the project would eliminate the maximum housing density requirement for projects on PF zoned parcels within specific transit oriented areas. The proposed development includes 57 small sized residential units in a transit rich area with nearby community services. It also includes a workforce housing component which would make at least some of the units more affordable to residents. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit higher density residential in mixed -use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50 -foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one - quarter mile of fixed rail stations. The project includes an amendment to the zoning code to permit high density residential on PF Zoned properties. The project site is located adjacent to the California Avenue Business District and within one-half a mile of fixed rail transit. Therefore, the project is consistent with this program. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project allows for increased residential densities in close proximity to urban services and amenities. Additionally, the project will improve the existing road conditions by dedicated a new right turn lane. Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The proposed code amendment would eliminate the maximum density requirements for exclusively residential projects in some areas while still limiting FAR and height in order to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units. Other flexible development standards include such things as reduced parking requirements in comparison to current standards and more flexibility in setbacks based on adjacent uses. Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. The project is located in one of the key nodes identified in the South El Camino Real design guidelines as a target area for improving pedestrian connections and increasing pedestrian activity. The proposed project would increase density at this node consistent with this policy. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.1: Limit future Urban development to currently development lands within the urban service area. The proposed project includes urban development for a desired use within the city within the urban service area. Policy L-1.5: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project encourages the development of multi -family housing units that are smaller and that include a workforce housing component in order to make housing more affordable. More affordable housing addresses a need of the community. The project, including the ordinance and the development, is also designed to reduce single -occupancy vehicle use, a benefit to the community. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for a greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, cottages, clustered housing... The proposed project includes smaller, and therefore presumably more affordable, units. Although this housing type may not be desirable to all types of residents, it includes housing sought by some demographics, for example, tech workers that may be employed nearby at Stanford Research Park. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi -family housing density near multi -modal transit centers. Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project is a mechanism for increasing multi -family housing near multi -modal transit centers. Although the project as proposed does not include a preference to specific employees, it includes housing units offered at lower than market rate prices and includes preference for local employees or students. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi -family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The proposed development includes an entry located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, activating the corner in a manner consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The planned outdoor space also increases eyes on the street. Policy L-4.13: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The project includes proposed housing in an area with extensive service and office uses along El Camino Real. Policy L-6.1: Promote high -quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is located in an area with adjacent, similar, high density residential uses as well as extensive services and employment opportunities. The project includes landscape screening between uses and is oriented toward the street with parking provided below ground or behind the building. Therefore the project is compatible with surrounding development. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible...encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project creatively integrates parking by providing it primarily underground, with a few at -grade parking spaces provided for guest use behind the building. The project lowers parking requirements based on the use and encourages the minimization of parking in transit - oriented areas, offering a robust TDM program and methods to both discourage use of a car while encouraging use of alternate transportation. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Transportation Element Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per -mile emissions through increasing transit options and through the use of zero -emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. The proposed project encourages transit -oriented development and preference to local employees/students/retired individuals to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-1.9: Continue to encourage the provisions of amenities such as seating, lighting and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety and convenience. The project includes improvements to the existing bus VTA bus stop in front of the project site. Policy T1.19.1: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The proposed development encourages and supports bicycling and walking by providing housing in a transit oriented location close to nearby services and employment. It also includes both long-term and short- term bicycle parking that is provided at grade and includes a robust TDM plan that includes transit passes and other methods to encourage alternative methods of transportation. Policy T-3.11: Consider the objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Boulevard Design Guidelines when designing roadway and pedestrian improvements along El Camino Real. The proposed project includes increased street trees, wider sidewalks, a tighter curb radius, and overall activates the corner in a manner that is consistent with specific goals outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for this specific site. The above mentioned right-of-way improvements are called out as encouraged improvements the Green Boulevard initiative and the South El Camino Real Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these policies. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on -street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. Program T5.1.1: Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different user's needs and baseline parking need. Allow the use of parking lifts for office/R&D and multi -family housing as appropriate. Program T5.1.4: Study the feasibility of unbundled parking for...multi-family residential developments that are well -served by transit and demonstrated walking and bicycle connections Based on research of other similar projects in the region, including one within the City of Palo Alto transit oriented development needs less parking than that required currently by the City of Palo Alto. The proposed project includes reduced parking requirements that are still projected to be higher than the actual project need. The project includes unbundled parking in order to further discourage residents from owning a vehicle and encourage their use of provided, free transit services. Program T6.6.6: Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including blub outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks and landscaping. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-21: Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. The project includes improvements to the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road the provide for more visibility for pedestrians while also serving to calm traffic turning onto El Camino Real from Page Mill Road. Therefore the . ro ect is consistent with this . ro- ram. The project is required to comply with the all public works engineering requirements with respect to soil management prior to and during construction to ensure that stormwater runoff does not degrade water quality in the area. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As detailed above under Objective (d) of the Site and Design Findings, the proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element emphasizes the need to explore and implement strategies that increase housing densities in close proximity to services as well as in close proximity to transit. The Housing Element also encourages amendments to the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet. The proposed project includes smaller units, a workforce housing component, and reduced parking requirements with unbundled parking, all of which serve to make units more affordable and available to local workers. The proposed project requires Zoning Code Text Amendments to create a new combining district as well as a Zoning Map Amendment to apply that combining district to the project site as detailed in the staff report. With adoption of the ordinance in Attachment B, the proposed project would be consistent with the zoning code. There are no coordinated area plans that encompass the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, the performance criteria in PAMC Section 18.23 and the context-based design criteria for multi-family housing. Although not a requirement, the project is also consistent with recommendations outlined in the Grand Boulevard Initiative for development along El Camino Real, an initiative led by Caltrans. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed development activates a high-visibility corner of the City within an identified transit-oriented pedestrian node along El Camino Real, converting a completely paved parking lot to a high-density multi- family residential use and thereby enhancing living conditions on the site. The proposed development includes a four- story building with 57 units. Adjacent uses include high density residential condominiums and senior living complexes that are zoned PC. These are three and four stories high, respectively, and therefore similar in height to the proposed development. Across El Camino and Page Mill the Palo Alto Square Complex is ten stories in height. Landscape screening is provided between adjacent uses and above grade portions of the building are set back approximately 20 feet or more in most locations from the adjacent development. Therefore, the proposed project provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land sues and land use designations. The existing conditions on site include some non- native species of trees that would be replaced with lower water use trees and landscaping. As discussed above, outlined in the staff report, and detailed in Attachment G, the proposed project is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zoning district. The design of the proposed project also creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that it includes increased perimeter landscaping along the street and interior lot lines, activates the corner with a clearly defined entrance, provides extensive at grade bicycle parking to encourage bicycle use, and provides for housing close to transit, services and job opportunities. Although the total amount of open space is lower than what is typically required, the space provided is quality and appropriate for the site, based on its location. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is of high aesthetic quality, utilizing quality materials and incorporating greenery, where appropriate to reduce massing. The colors are not bright, in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the main entry, sidewalks, and landscaping reinforce the pedestrian scale of the project. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site as discussed further under criteria #2 and the brick provides a design linkage to the Sunrise housing complex next door. Construction techniques avoid the use of pile driving, opting for less noise alternatives to construction of the below-grade parking, as discussed further in the environmental analysis. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The proposed project design is functional and allows for ease and safety of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Specifically the project includes all bicycle parking at grade and includes shared bicycles for resident’s use. In addition, the project includes pedestrian friendly features such as wider sidewalks and a tighter curb radius at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino, which provide better safety and visibility for pedestrians. It also includes a TDM program to incentivize use of transit and makes improvements to a bus stop currently located at the site. The property includes vehicle access to the site in the same location it is currently provided. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis, this location is appropriate to ensure the safe circulation of vehicles entering and exiting onto El Camino Real. Most parking is provided below grade and lift system parking has been provided in three separate systems to allow for multiple cars to be accessed simultaneously. The open space is proposed in a manner that helps to reduce massing and increases eyes on the street. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. All of the plant material proposed will be drought tolerant and locally adaptive to the region. Proposed native grasses provide a design linkage to the grasses at the Mayfield playing fields across the street. The planting plan will comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and water budget, to include Maximum Applied Water Allowance and Estimated Total Water Use calculations. Native species will be included and used appropriately as well as a few non-native species to reflect suitable site conditions and hydrozones. The extensive number of proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species as well as screening in desired locations on site. Low waste, drip irrigation for shrub planting and bubblers for trees will be the standard of care for irrigation procedures Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on February 20, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If, during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. WORKFORCE HOUSING: The applicant shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at rates affordable to households earning 140% of Area Median Income (AMI) and shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at rates affordable to households earning 150% of AMI. As required in accordance with the 18.30(J).090, all workforce housing units provided shall be subject to a deed of trust, and/or regulatory agreement recorded against the property for execution by the City Manager in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the workforce housing units. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable to the targeted income group for 99 years. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCAL PREFERENCE: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall agree to a process for monitoring, reporting, and validating workforce housing obligation in compliance with Condition of Approval 6 as well as the preferential leasing requirements, as required in compliance with the workforce housing combining district ordinance. The requirements for monitoring, reporting, and validating workforce housing obligations and preferential leasing requirements shall be documented in an agreement that shall be recorded against the property. At minimum, the following shall be documented in the agreement: a. The applicant will annually contract with a qualified third party, subject to the Planning Director’s approval, to certify compliance with the initial and continued eligibility of residents for deed restricted units and report their findings to the City. b. Identification of outreach efforts that will be taken to offer preferences in accordance with the tiered preferences program, as required in accordance with the workforce housing combining district ordinance. c. Identification of information that will be provided to the City in order for the City to independently verify compliance with the implementation of the tiered local preference system. The applicant shall monitor and report on these requirements, as agreed upon, annually for no less than five years. After five (5) years of successful monitoring, the applicant may request, in writing, from the Director of Planning and Community Environment a modified reporting schedule for compliance. 8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall implement the approved TDM plan, dated November 2017, in order to achieve the goal of reducing motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 35% in comparison to the baseline ITE, as established in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon, dated January 2018. As outlined in the plan, the applicant shall submit monitoring reports to the Transportation Division to show compliance. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. 9. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE: Failure to meet any code requirements or conditions of approval of this project shall be considered a violation of Chapter 18.01 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and may result in daily penalties pursuant to the City of Palo Alto’s Administrative Penalty Schedule. 10. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.4 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project. e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 11. VAPOR MITIGATION SYSTEM: The developer shall comply with the recommendations in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Study) to mitigate vapor intrusion and reduce exposure to future occupants. These include: a. Installation of a vapor membrane system that envelops the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table. b. Design and operation of the HVAC system to control air flows from sub-grade parking levels upward into occupied levels. c. Ventilation of the sub-grade parking level with a fan triggered by CO sensors d. Maintaining a positive pressure in the residential space relative to the sub-grade parking levels e. Design and build elevator hoistways within the building to have air relief vents f. Conduct post-construction Indoor Air Monitoring, quarterly for a minimum of two years with potential to reduce frequency to semi-annually following the initial two years 12. GUEST PARKING: Lift parking shall be designed to accommodate at least two guest parking spaces and parking spaces at ground level shall not be assigned. 13. LIFT SYSTEM: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems prior to building permit issuance. 14. EASEMENT RECORDATION: The proposed dedication of an easement along Page Mill Road to the County of Santa Clara in order to accommodate a future right hand turn lane from Page Mill to El Camino Real shall be recorded with the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. SIDEWALKS: The applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, the County, and the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department, as appropriate, to reduce sidewalk closures during construction and ensure that a safe path of travel is maintained for pedestrians in this area. 16. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 17. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 18. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $1,235,900; Residential In-lieu fees, currently estimated in the amount of $602,920.00; plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 19. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 20. The gas meter location shall be revised to be set back adjacent the start of the port cochere. There shall be no other items placed in front of the meters and/or on top of the underground high pressure gas line. The gas meters shall meet required gas meters location standards – to be inspected and approved by CPAU inspector during construction). 21. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 22. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 23. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of- way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 24. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 25. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 26. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms and permits.asp 27. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand- alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 28. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 29. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on the City of Palo Alto website. 30. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 31. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 32. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 33. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 34. Applicant shall submit a copy from Caltrans and Santa Clara County for the work proposed within their right- of-way, prior to issuance of a City permit. 35. Based on the City’s Graphic Information System there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. However, based on coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), none of these wells are actively used for monitoring. Plot and label the wells on the plans and identify wells to be removed. Removal of these wells shall be done in coordination with the RWQCB and the SCVWD. Destruction of these wells shall be implemented by a qualified contractor and the applicant, owner, or designee shall file and obtain the required well destruction permits from the SCVWD for well destruction and provide evidence of said permits to Public Works Engineering prior to Building permit issuance. 36. Where applicable, call out the City standard detail number (i.e. “Palo Alto City Standard Detail 313 – Storm Manhole”), and include a sheet with all applicable City standard details in the plan set. 37. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with Hydraulic Grade Line’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The Intensity-duration- frequency tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto are available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 38. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 39. Provide VTA’s approval of proposed bus stop relocation on El Camino Real. PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 40. Proper clearance for the transformer, including 3 feet on each side and 8 feet at the front shall be provided. The plans shall be revised accordingly. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 41. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that they have; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 42. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. TREE REMOVAL OR PLANTING—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly- owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require authorization by a Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. This will also be referenced in a separate Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. Complete the applicant information portion, and sign the Public Tree Care Permit for planting of a new street tree. Submit via email or over the counter at the Development Center with an 8 ½” x 11” copy of the site plan for our records – this may be completed at building permit stage. Find the application here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/. c. ADD PLAN NOTE. For each tree to be removed or planted that states, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # (contract or to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” 43. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604a, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of- way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513a shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 44. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with a minimum volume of rootable soil area. Rootable soil shall mean compaction of less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. For trees in narrow parking lot islands, sidewalk or asphalt areas, mitigation may use an Alternative Base Material underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] method such as structural grid (Silva Cell) or engineered soil mix (ESM). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. 45. SPECIAL PLAN NOTES: In addition to showing Tree Protection Zone fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” DURING CONSTRUCTION 46. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 47. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 48. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (David L. Babby, arborresources@comcast.net), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 49. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 50. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 51. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 52. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 53. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 54. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. POST CONSTRUCTION 55. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 56. On the ground floor, the emergency escape for dwelling unit occupants with bedrooms facing the interior court will travel through the driveway tunnel. This will be allowed with the conditions that the tunnel is open on three sides to allow the escape of smoke and gases and is sprinklered and is built with fire-resistive construction consistent for an exit passage. The applicant will submit an Alternate Methods and Material application for the above conditions to the Building Division for review and approval. 57. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 58. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 59. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent of the facility. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 60. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 61. 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 (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]). 62. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 63. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 64. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 65. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 66. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 67. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. UTILITILES- WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 68. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 69. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 70. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 71. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 72. The applicant's engineer may require submitting flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main 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 Waste Gas Water engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 73. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 74. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 75. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 76. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 77. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 78. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 79. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 80. A new water service line installation for domestic usage may require. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 81. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 82. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 83. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities’ standard details. 84. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 85. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 86. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities’ procedures. 87. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters unless otherwise reviewed and approved by CPAU. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees unless otherwise approved by CPAU. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. Applicant’s engineer to provide profile drawings for all proposed WGW utility services/lateral crossing other existing utilities mains/services. 88. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 89. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 90. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 91. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Santa Clara county department of transportation for all utility work in the county road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 92. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district if required for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. GREEN BUILDING 93. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 94. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 95. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi- family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the Time Dependent Valuation Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) 96. CALGREEN CHECKLIST: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third- party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 97. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: If the new residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require a separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green building/outdoor water efficiency .asp 98. RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LANDSCAPE: the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 99. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION: the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. In accordance with PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) the project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 100. EVSE: The project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 101. EVSE TRANSFORMER LOCATION: the applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECT NAME APPLICANT MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM 2755 El Camino Real Multi -family Residential APPLICATION NUMBER 16PLN-00464 Project Windy Hill Property Ventures (Tod Spieker) DATE January 19, 2018 530 Emerson Street, Suite 150 Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi -family Residential Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, "... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Oversight of Implementation Compliance Implementation 610-1: Nesting Bird Protection BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 — August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto. to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presencei'absence. location. and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC. nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. CULTURAL RESOURCES Applicant or Prior to and CPA Planning designee/Construction during Department contractor Construction CR-1: Resource Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological Applicant or During CPA Planning Recovery Procedures or paleontological resources are unearthed during project designee/Construction Construction Department construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the contractor find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. CR-2: Human Remains Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are Applicant or During CPA Planning Recovery Procedures unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires designee/Construction Construction Department that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner contractor has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition City of Palo Alto • Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure I Responsible for Timing of Oversight of Implementation Compliance Implementation pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. TCR-1: Unanticipated Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the Applicant or During CPA Planning Discovery Procedures event that cultural resources of Native American origin are designee/Construction Construction Department identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within contractor the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations HAZ-1 Construction Risk Management Mitigation GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project applicant shall implement all measures and recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc. in January 2013. These include but are not limited to: • Foundation design (mat foundation, basement water proofing, lateral loads, and settlement) • Foundation hold down anchors • Basement walls • Slabs -on -grade (general slab considerations and exterior flatwork) Earthwork (clearing and subgrade preparation, material for fill, temporary slopes and excavations, basement excavation support, temporary dewatering for basement excavation, surface drainage, and compaction) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Construction Risk Management Mitigation. The developer shall comply with the recommendations and tasks in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Applicant or Prior to issuance CPA Public Works designee/Construction of the grading Department contractor permit; shall be shown on the building permit Applicant or Prior to building CPA Planning designee/Construction permit and during Department Contractor Construction City of Palo Alto • Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Oversight of Implementation Compliance Implementation N-1: Construction - Related Noise Reduction Measures Study) to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to contaminated on -site soil, groundwater and soil vapor during development. The developer shall: • Develop a Site Health and Safety Plan that includes provisions to monitor and protect construction workers from benzene or TCE-contaminated soil vapor exposure; • Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction to prevent or minimize potential contaminated runoff from on -site soils; • Obtain the relevant underground construction permits and approvals to ensure that dewatering of contaminated groundwater and subsequent disposal or reuse of groundwater is conducted in accordance with local and state regulations; • Follow recommended dust control measures to reduce worker and public exposure to on -site contaminants that may be attached to airborn dust particles; • Conduct recommended site preparation activities, including monitoring well destruction, in a mannerthat ensures cross -contamination of sites will not occur; • Comply with excavation and shoring guidelines regarding the proper handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated and/or wet impacted soil to ensure that workers or nearby residents would not be exposed should such soils be encountered; • Characterize and properly reuse or dispose of excavated soil to ensure that construction workers or nearby residents are not exposed to contaminated soil; Comply with groundwater extraction and disposal guidelines in order to minimize the volume of extracted groundwater and ensure that appropriate remediation occurs. NOISE Construction -Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project. • Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine Construction During CPA Planning contractor Construction Department City of Palo Alto • Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program 14 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Oversight of Implementation Compliance Implementation shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. • Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. • Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent senior living center and multi -family residential development as feasible. • Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. • Workers' Radios. All noise from workers' radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity. • Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction. • Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designatea disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. • Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building phases of construction, temporary sound barriers rated to Sound Transmission Class 20 or higher shall be City of Palo Alto • Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program 15 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Timing of Oversight of Implementation Compliance Implementation T-1: Bus Stop Relocation Coordination installed and maintained facing the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the project site. Temporary sound barriers shall block line of sight between noise - generating construction equipment and adjacent residential windows and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible. Mobile sound barriers may be used as appropriate to attenuate construction noise near the source equipment. During the building construction phase, temporary sound barriers shall be applied to generators and cranes used on -site. Monitoring. The applicant shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to monitor representative construction noise during all phases of construction. The acoustic engineer shall document hourly noise levels at the project site boundary adjacent to sensitive receptors and provide this data to the City. If measured hourly noise levels from construction activity exceed 70 dBA by at least 10 dBA for two or more hours in a day, the acoustic engineer shall notify the City within 24 hours, and the applicant shall implement additional noise attenuation measures sufficient to achieve this noise standard. TRAN SPORTAT ION/TRAF FIC Bus Stop Relocation Coordination. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Palo Alto, the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority, and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle operator to relocate the bus stop during construction activities to minimize disruption to transit operation. Applicant or designee Prior to and CPA Planning during Department construction City of Palo Alto • Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program 6 City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO November 06, 2017 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 8630) DATE: November 6, 2017 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Fine, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Member Wolbach SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO REGARDING ZONING UPDATES TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE HOUSING NEAR JOBS, TRANSIT, AND SERVICES Objectives: Palo Alto and the Bay Area region are experiencing a housing crisis, years in the making, which causes significant economic, social, and environmental harm. While Palo Alto may never be a truly affordable place to live, the City Council has an obligation to current and future residents to explore policies that expand housing choices for people of different incomes, generations, and needs. This memo intends to begin the process to: 1. Update and improve the zoning code and other regulations to facilitate a greater variety and quantity of both below market rate (BMR) and moderately-sized market-rate housing; and 2. Increase housing density near jobs, transit, and services; and 3. Streamline the approval process for new housing projects. Recommendation: We recommend our colleagues refer this memo to staff to return to Council with a Work Plan outlining the process and resources to study and implement the proposals listed in the Discussion section (and other relevant recommendations to support the Objectives). Followin g Council approval of the Work Plan, proposals should be reviewed by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and ultimately by Council for adoption. Some proposals will require less work than others, and so may be considered in advance of others. Discussion: There are many policy tools to promote additional moderately-sized and reasonably-priced homes, especially near job centers, transit, and services. The following suggestions should be considered by the PTC and staff as a starting point. Any changes should be appropriately applied in different areas of our community with sensitivity to location and current land use patterns. For example, CD, CN, CS, CC1, CC2 zones in Downtown should be treated differently than an RM zone in a predominantly residential neighborhood. ●Housing Floor Area Ratio (FAR): ○Increase housing FAR where appropriate. 10Attachment F November 06, 2017 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 8630) ○Allow non-retail commercial FAR to convert to residential FAR. ●Affordable Housing: ○Explore increasing affordable housing (Below Market Rate - BMR) percentage requirements in market-rate developments up to 20%, based on economic analysis. ○Explore implementing inclusionary BMR program for rental units. ○Height and density for BMR projects: Allow additional height (not exceeding the city-wide height limit) or FAR for projects that contain substantially more BMR units than required. ●Units/Acre: ○Explore eliminating housing unit limits where/when possible, and use FAR in place of units/acre. ○Explore housing unit minimums rather than unit maximums (e.g. require building at least 80% of the units allowed under applicable zoning or land use designation). ○Implement a no net-loss policy when housing is redeveloped and preserve existing non-conforming cottage clusters. ●Parking: ○Allow residential projects to consolidate parking and TDM efforts with other projects or the Palo Alto TMA. ○Explore bringing underutilized parking spaces into a public market. ○Car-light housing: Explore car-light housing with reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements. (e.g. TransForm’s GreenTRIP Certification) ○Transportation Demand Management (TDM): explore reducing residential parking requirements for projects which provide effective TDM measures. ●Retail/Residential Mixed-Use Projects: Encourage mixed-use zoning with ground-floor retail, community, or non-profit space; and one or more floors of housing; but no commercial office uses. ●Transit-Oriented Development: Expand and augment the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) zone. ●And other compatible housing-related implementation programs from the Comprehensive Plan update. Background: The current housing shortage is a threat to our city’s prosperity, diversity, stability, environment, and community character. In City-sponsored polling in 2016, 76% of Palo Alto residents indicated that housing was an “extremely serious” or “very serious” problem. Housing is one of our Council Priorities for 2017. Our new Comprehensive Plan will encourage exploration of policy changes to enable more housing. November 06, 2017 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 8630) The housing crisis has many symptoms including displacement, separated families, long commutes, lack of diversity, environmental impacts, etc. The City is attempting to address several of these. This memo’s recommendations focus on the central cause of these symptoms: the lack of adequate housing options to meet current and growing demand. Government and academic research consistently point to the need for more housing at a variety of price-points as essential to solving the housing crisis. To prevent urban sprawl and congestion, new housing is best located near transit, jobs, and services. Few Palo Altans prefer to see new office buildings instead of housing, or luxury penthouses instead of apartments which working professionals and families can afford. Rather than indefinitely continue the practice of responding to each site or housing proposal on its own - and rather than struggling to adapt our policies in each case - we suggest proactively identifying and changing policies which are counterproductive toward our housing goals. Palo Alto has made progress. We preserved Buena Vista and helped keep over 100 families in our community. We are considering new affordable and market-rate housing proposals. We have taken steps toward making permanent an annual office-cap. But we can still do more to address the other side of our jobs-housing imbalance. Doing so requires we understand and reduce some of the barriers to creating more housing. Some of Palo Alto’s regulations operate in practice to skew development away from reasonably-priced housing. Instead, we currently incentivize commercial development over housing, large housing units over smaller ones, and pricier housing over more affordable. Of particular concern are our consistently low limits on numbers of units per-acre, low-FAR allowances for housing (including in mixed-use projects), requirements for more parking than is used, and requirement for on-site (rather than adjacent or nearby) parking. Creating more housing for a range of ages and incomes is the most equitable and environmentally sustainable path for Palo Alto. As a collective-action problem, the housing crisis requires all cities to share in the solution. Cities which have added to the regional demand by creating jobs have a particular obligation to permit housing in a manner appropriate for their local character. Palo Alto’s housing production has lagged behind our commitments, while several neighboring communities have pursued new housing development near jobs, transit, and services. Palo Alto can do its part to address the housing shortage by increasing housing density in a responsible manner. Resource Impact: A modest amount of existing planning and legal staff and consultant resources will be required to develop the proposed Work Plan and return to Council. Development of a Work Plan can be accomplished within existing departmental budgets and staff capacity. The amount of detail and supporting analysis associated with elements of the Work Plan that may be required will November 06, 2017 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 8630) be dependent on the process and the time frame desired for this discussion and its return to Council. Thereafter, depending on what Council chooses to pursue and on what timeline, implementation of some or all of the proposals may require additional resources, such as consultants and specialists, and adjustments to other priorities and timelines. Staff will provide additional information in the initial Work Plan. ATTACHMENT G ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2755 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 1830(K) (WORKFORCE HOUSING COMBINING DISTRICT ) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft) None required 19,563 sf (.0049 ac) No change Site Width (ft) 113 No change Site Depth (ft) 188 No change Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) 10 feet; may be increased to 20 feet by decisionmaking body(1) No structures existing 11 feet, 9 inches Rear Yard (ft) 10 feet(2) N/A (parking lot) 18 feet, 9 inches to building; 3 feet to subterranean garage/ramp Interior Side Yard 5 feet" N/A 5 feet Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zone district (ft) (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 10 feet N/A N/A Street Side Yard (ft) 5 feet; may be increased to 10 feet by decisionmaking body (1) N/A 8 feet, 2 inches (at closest point) Maximum Site Coverage None Required None Required None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% (3' N/A 27% Usable Open Space 75 square feet (sf) per unit N/A 77 square feet per unit Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50' N/A 50' Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35’, except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements N/A N/A Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line N/A N/A Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required N/A None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential-Only Projects 2.0:1 Parking Lot 2.0:1 Vehicle Parking Parking requirements shall be no less than one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is greater. The decisionmaking body may reduce this standard based on a parking study. Any incidental retail or community center space shall be subject to the parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52. 34 existing 68 parking spaces provided (~1.2 per unit, inclusive of guest parking) Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 18.52.040. (for proposed project: 57 long-term; 6 short term) N/A 69 long term [including 1 cargo]; 16 short term TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required and shall comply with the TDM pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d), associated administrative guidelines, and the decisionmaking body. N/A See TDM plan in Attachment N Notes: 1. A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 2. In order to encourage below-grade parking, garage ramps and subterranean structures may encroach into the required setback provided that sufficient landscaping is still provided between the project site and adjacent properties. 3. Landscape/Open space may be any combination of landscaping or private and common open spaces. 4. Useable open space includes a combination of common and private open space. Attachment H Legend PF Zoned Parcels within Half Mile of Caltrain Station Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station Platforms Caltrain Station Platforms Caltrain Stations Facility Icons, Park City Jurisdictional Limits ( PF it,) . The City of Palo Alto Zoned Parcels within This map is a product of the city of Palo Alto GIS 0.5 Miles of the University Avenue Caltrain Station Platform 0 9x4 chunk! 201&45-21002t 23 Tins dm/mere s a maohc reoresentithon mlv d t5 avaiMle sources '3co-maWErroompassAann'PersanXPlanng.rodbl The City d Palo Pin assumes no raspmsihiry for ary eras 01982 to 2018 City of Palo Alto �r NN/ // Line i ` \t (Park 4\1 4, Legend II r,...r PF Zoned Parcels within Half Mile of Caltrain Station Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station Platforms Caltrain Station Platforms Caltrain Stations Facility Icons. Park City Jurisdictional Limits Mountain View / The City of Palo Alto PF Zoned Parcels within 0.5 Miles of the Alma Street Caltrain Station Platform This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS dpij i. 7018-05410i 2651 01cOinapslEmmrnpacslMmPersanXPlamngmdbi 923' his dmamru s aga diorepc�eri.m craw at best audable sauces. The Cty d assures Mo assur no spw y forribi an/ends M999 lo 2118 G y d Palo Ako Table 1: Summary of Existing Uses for PF Zoned Parcels within 0.5 Miles of Caltrain Stations Actual Use of Parcel Total Public Parking Lot/Garage 26 Caltrain Station 3 Caltrain Right-of-way 15 City owned public building (e.g. museum, city hall, library, community center, fire station) 6 County owned public building (e.g. courthouse, office of the public defender) 2 State owned public Building (post office) 2 Plaza 2 Other (VTA site, Ronald McDonald house, AT&T building, PAUSD) 4 Hospital 1 Vegetation screening/buffer area along roadway 4 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204  SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111  PHONE: 415 398 3050  FAX: 415 397 5065 001-001; jf WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 17175.012 ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAN FRANCISCO A. JERRY KEYSER TIMOTHY C. KELLY KATE EARLE FUNK DEBBIE M. KERN REED T. KAWAHARA DAVID DOEZEMA LOS ANGELES KATHLEEN H. HEAD JAMES A. RABE GREGORY D. SOO-HOO KEVIN E. ENGSTROM JULIE L. ROMEY SAN DIEGO PAUL C. MARRA To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Claire Hodgkins From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Date: January 17, 2018 Subject: Peer Review Technical Memorandum Financial Analysis for Proposed Project at 2755 El Camino Real The following technical memorandum summarizes Keyser Marston Associates’ (KMA’s) independent peer review financial analysis of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino. The financial analysis includes an independent assessment of construction costs, indirect costs, and rent projections. It also includes an evaluation of the project’s return on cost under various scenarios, including an all market rate development and assuming deed restrictions for all or part of the units at different levels of affordability, as detailed below. KMA’s review is based on current and recent data from other available projects, published articles, and recent similar project experience. Review factors include: income/revenue potential, hard and soft costs of development, and financing and return on cost based on industry sources. Conclusions are presented both in terms of projected developer return on cost and projected residual land value for the various scenarios outlined below. The conclusion also takes into account the context of available and pertinent land sale comparables in Palo Alto and the pertinent target market. Construction costs provided by the applicant’s construction contractor were independently peer reviewed on behalf of the City by TBD Construction Cost Management Consultants. KMA’s conclusions in this analysis are based on the conclusions from TBD’s peer review. KMA/TBD’s findings (rounded to the nearest $0.5M) are as follows: 1.Project Construction (hard) Cost Data: On behalf of the City, TBD’s peer review indicates a cost range low of $24.0 Million and a cost range high of $31.0 Million. Given there are many unknowns in the cost forecast (as would be expected at this stage of the design process), TBD also provided an average cost estimate at $27.5 Million. It should be noted that these construction cost estimates reflect Attachment I January 17, 2018 Page 2 001-001; jf 17175.012 relatively small units but each with the cost burden of bathroom and kitchen. Also, TBD’s estimates include an inflation contingency factor to account for the anticipated start of the project in July 2018. At this time, California and Silicon Valley in particular are witnessing “hot” market conditions that appear likely to continue into 2018 with subsequent rising costs. However, it appears appropriate for financial projections to assume the TBD cost estimate average between low and high, i.e., $27.5 Million. For that reason, the financial analysis herein is based on TBD’s cost estimate of $27.5 Million. 2. Indirect Cost Estimates: Indirect costs reflect costs from project start to when the project is complete and starts to produce income and include costs such as architecture and engineering, legal and marketing, developer fees and a small contingency. Estimated indirect costs (often referred as soft costs) are indicated in the proforma presented in this document, as are estimated costs for permits/fees and construction financing. Total indirect costs are estimated at $7.0 Million. With indirect costs estimated at $7.0 Million and direct construction costs at $27.5 Million, the estimate of the total development costs is $34.5 Million (Table 1). 3. Acquisition Cost: The final item taken into account in this analysis is the cost of acquiring the property. If the project is approved, the developer, Windy Hill, would exercise an option to acquire the property from Pollock FRB LLC. The currently negotiated price of the land is $7.5 Million (Table 1). 4. Rent Projection and Return on Cost Analyses: The Return on Cost Analyses that follows include an analysis of the return on cost if all units were offered at market rate as well as the financial impact of return on cost if selected workforce or affordable housing requirements are imposed or agreed to for the project, The proposed project consists of 57 units: 40 studios, 17 one bedroom units, with 68 parking spaces (out of which 60 are stackers). The financial analysis assumes market rate rents for the project based on project opening in early 2020, approximately 18 months after the assumed project construction start of July 2018. The projection of rents is based on the review of current market rent comparables (Table 2A), and then adjusted for a rent escalation factor to take into account the projected project opening in early 2020. The estimate assumes that the following four key factors would influence market rents: (a) the Palo Alto market is “Hot,” but (b) the project units at 502 SF for studios and 645 SF for one bedroom units are small; (c) the project is located adjacent to heavily travelled streets; and (d) the project has minimal amenities and stacked parking. With these January 17, 2018 Page 3 001-001; jf 17175.012 factors in mind, based on the review of the rents of comparable projects, the current estimate is that the studios would command $3,250 per month ($6.45/SF), and the one bedrooms would command $3500 per month ($5.45/SF). When adjusted for an escalation factor of 2.5% per year1, the projected rents during the assumed project opening year would be around $3,410 per month ($6.80/SF) for studios and $3,680 per month ($5.70/SF) for one bedroom units (Table 2B). Table 2C presents the 2017 rent limits 2 for workforce housing at 130% Area Median Income (AMI), 140% AMI and 150% AMI, and affordable housing at 120% AMI. These rents have been adjusted for an escalation factor of 2.5%3 per year to reflect a buildout date of 2019-2020 and are presented in Table 2B. These rents are utilized in the subsequent calculations of return on cost. 5. Return on Cost for All Market Rate Units: Per CBRE’s 2017 US Cap Rate Survey, for the first half of 2017, the expected return on cost for value-add multifamily infill properties (in vicinity of the subject site) is between 3.75% to 4.25% (Table 3A). (Although traditionally, KMA has seen a higher return on cost expectation for residential developments, frequently around 4.5%.) Utilizing the projected rents as discussed and other factors including an operating expense allowance of $13,000 per unit as presented in the attached financial analysis of an all market rate project, the return on cost is estimated at 3.91% (Table 3B). Thus, the expected return on cost, using the TBD development cost estimate, falls in the lower end of the target range noted in the CBRE report. 6. Return on Cost for Workforce Housing Project: The City has also requested financial analysis of the project if the following requirements are imposed or agreed to for the project. Four scenarios were evaluated, assuming rent limits in perpetuity as detailed in the alternatives below.  Alternative 1: ˗ 6 units @140% of AMI ˗ 6 units @ 150% of AMI ˗ Balance of units @ market rate  Alternative 2: 100% of units @ 150% of AMI  Alternative 3: 100% of units @ 140% of AMI  Alternative 4: 100% of units @ 130% of AMI The resulting restricted rents are presented in attached Table 2B, as are the return on cost calculations (Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7). Of course, these returns would 1 This is as per the rent escalation factor permitted by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. 2 Source: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/rentincome/17/rent/11-rent-limits-post-041417.pdf 3 This standard rent escalation factor is used for the purposes of this analysis. The 2017 rents are based on area median income calculations prepared annually by HCD. January 17, 2018 Page 4 001-001; jf 17175.012 be lower than for a market rate project. In this instance, the projected returns on cost decrease to 3.82% for Alternative 1, 3.70% for Alternative 2, 3.33% for Alternative 3 and 2.97 for Alternative 4. 7. Return on Cost for Project with Affordable Housing Requirements: The City has also requested financial analysis of the proposed project if the City imposed an affordable housing requirement limiting certain units to occupants whose income does not exceed 120% of AMI. The following table indicates reduced returns that would result if one of the following requirements were imposed: i.e. affordable units @ 10%, 15%, or 20% of total units as affordable units. All Market Rate Units 10% Afford. Units 15% Afford. Units 20% Afford. Units NOI (in M) $1.641 $1.582 $1.553 $1.534 ROC 3.91% 3.77% 3.70% 3.65% See attached Tables 8 – 10 for Return on Cost calculations for respective affordable requirements. 8. Residual Land Value Analyses: Finally, KMA has prepared residual land value analyses for the project. These analyses are attached, along with the respective return on cost analyses (Tables 3B to 10). As mentioned earlier, for an all-market rate unit project, the developer would have to accept a 3.91% return on cost to support a land value of $7.5 Million. The residual land value analyses indicate that a 4.0% return on cost requirement would reduce the justified land cost to $6.5 Million, and a 4.5% return on cost requirement would reduce it to $2.0 Million (Table 3B). Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Appendix 1/17/2018 Development Cost and Rent Estimates Table 1: Program and Development Cost Estimates Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 Table 2B: Market Rate and Affordable Rent Summary Table 2C: HCD Rent Limits 2017 Table 3A: CBRE 2017 CAP Rate Survey Return on Cost and Residual Land Value Analyses Table 3B: All Market Rate Units Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI) Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI) Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 1: Program and Development Cost Estimates Development Program Units NRSF GSF Estimate Site Area Residential - 4 levels 57 36,900 44,400 0.45 AC Parking - 68 spaces 15,600 19,602 SF 60,000 In Per Per % of Development Costs Millions NRSF DU Directs (rounded)(rounded) Total Direct Costs Per TBD Estimates $27.5 $745 $482,500 100% Total Indirect Costs1 $7.0 $190 $123,000 25.5% Total Development Costs Before Land (Direct + Indirect)$34.5 $935 $605,500 125.5% Land Costs $7.5 $203 $131,500 27.3% Total Development Costs (incl. Land)$42.0 $1,138 $737,000 152.7% Notes: 1. 1/17/2018 Indirect costs include architecture and engineering costs, permit fees, impact fees, legal and marketing fees, developer fees and a small contingency. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 1/17/2018 *using median asking rent / SF if a range & rounding up to next 5 # units Built Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Amenities 2755 ECR (Projection)502 $3,250 $6.45 645 $3,500 $5.45 Limited 1 The Marc 118 675 $3,875 $5.75 501 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Mia Palo Alto 1964 606 $3,560 $5.90 535 Everett Ave $3,275 - 3,850 Palo Alto, CA 94301 3 Parker Palo Alto 268 1963 695 $2,855 $4.10 Limited 1094 Tanland Dr.610 - 779 SF $2450 - $3260 Palo Alto, CA 94303 4 Palo Alto Place 45 1964 716 $3,225 $4.50 Limited 565 Arastradero Rd Palo Alto, CA 94306 5 Southwood 100 1985 750 $2,900 $3.90 2850 Middlefield Rd.$2800 - $3000 Palo Alto, CA 94306 6 Tan Plaza 61 1965 855 3440 $4.00 Limited 580 Arastradero Rd $3,225 – 3,660 Palo Alto, CA 94306 7 Oak Creek (Stanford affiliated)759 1969 530 $2,935 $5.55 865 3560 $4.10 1600 Sandhill Road 508- 559 $2735 - $3,135 670 - 1,060 SF $2800 - $4320 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Plentiful, including pool, sauna, clubhouse etc. Plentiful, including pool, fitness center etc. Plentiful including Sauna, Spa and Pool Plentiful including Pool, Gym, Spa etc. ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- Studios 1 bed/ 1 bath ---None--- Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 1/17/2018 *using median asking rent / SF if a range & rounding up to next 5 # units Built Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Amenities Studios 1 bed/ 1 bath 8 Montage 46 1999 700 $3,500 $5.00 Limited 4020 El Camino Real $3000 - $3100 Palo Alto, CA 94306 9 Stanford Villa 209 1960 595 $2,355 $4.00 780 $2,555 $3.30 Limited 3351 Alma Street $2450 - $2665 Palo Alto, CA 94306 OTHER CITIES 10 777 Hamilton 195 2017 725 $3,180 $4.40 777 Hamilton Ave 703 - 743 $3,154 – 3,210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 11 ELAN Menlo Park 146 2017 760 $3,405 $4.50 Limited 3645 Haven Ave 715 - 810 $3,190 – 3,620 Menlo Park, CA 94025 12 DOMUS on the Blvd 193 2015 800 $3,945 $4.95 2650 W El Camion Real 870 - 735 $3,468 – 4,418 Mountain View, CA 94040 Source: Apartments.com for all rents except The Marc and Stanford Villa for studio, November 2017 Plentiful including Fitness Center and Gym. Plentiful including Pool, Gym, Gameroom etc. ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2B: Market Rate and Affordable Rent Summary 1/17/2018 Dominant Size Month $/SF/Mo Month $/SF/Mo (rounded) Market Rate Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $3,250 $6.45 $3,410 $6.80 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,500 $5.45 $3,680 $5.70 120% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,508 $5.00 $2,630 $5.25 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $2,688 $4.15 $2,820 $4.35 130% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,717 $5.40 $2,850 $5.70 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $2,912 $4.50 $3,060 $4.75 140% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,926 $5.85 $3,070 $6.10 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,136 $4.85 $3,290 $5.10 150% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $3,135 $6.25 $3,290 $6.55 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,360 $5.20 $3,530 $5.45 Rents 2017-18 Escalated Rents 2019-20 Note: Expected 2019-20 rents have been calculated based on an escalation factor of 2.5% per year. This is similar to the rent escalation factor permitted by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. See Table 2C for 2017 rent limits for 120%, 130% and 140% AMI levels. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2C: HCD Rent Limits 2017 1/17/2018 Affordable Rents1 % AMI2 Affordability Category 1- Person (Studio) 2- Person (1 Bedroom) 150%Workforce Income $3,135 $3,360 140%Workforce Income $2,926 $3,136 130%Workforce Income $2,717 $2,912 120%Moderate Income $2,508 $2,688 110%Moderate Income $2,299 $2,464 100%Area Median Income1 $2,090 $2,240 Source of AMI: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/rentincome/17/rent/11-rent-limits-post-041417.pdf Notes: Household Size 1. The rents presented here are 2017 rents, and do not include the escalation factor for 2019-2020. For escalated rents, please refer to Table 2B. 2. AMI = Area Median Income; The affordable rents are calculated based on the respective AMI. HCD calculates the AMI annually. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 3A: CBRE 2017 CAP Rate Survey 1/17/2018 Source: U.S Cap Rate Data, First Half 2017, CBRE, July 2017. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 3B: All Market Rate Units Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 40 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,637,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $751,000 $44,000 57 $2,388,000 Other Income $119,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,507,000 $44,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($125,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,382,000 100%$42,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-31%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,641,000 69%$29,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.91% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 3B: All Market Rate Units 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Example 1 Example 2 Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Examples 4.00%3.91% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,000,000 $42,000,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000)($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,500,000 $7,500,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 32 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,309,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 13 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $574,000 $44,000 45 $1,883,000 Units @150% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $3,290 $6.55 $158,000 $39,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $3,530 $5.45 $85,000 $42,000 6 $243,000 Units @140% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $3,070 $6.10 $147,000 $37,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $3,290 $5.10 $79,000 $39,000 6 $226,000 Other Income $118,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,470,000 $43,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($124,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,346,000 100%$41,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,605,000 68%$28,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.82% 1/17/2018 Rent Expectations (2019-2020) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $42,800,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $8,300,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $3,290 $6.55 $1,579,000 $39,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,530 $5.45 $720,000 $42,000 57 $2,299,000 Other Income $115,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,414,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($121,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,293,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,552,000 68%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.70% 1/17/2018 Rent Expectations (2019-2020) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,400,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,900,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $3,070 $6.10 $1,474,000 $37,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,290 $5.10 $671,000 $39,000 57 $2,145,000 Other Income $107,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,252,000 $40,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($113,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,139,000 100%$38,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-35%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,398,000 65%$25,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.33% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $37,300,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $2,800,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$8 -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $2,850 $5.70 $1,368,000 $34,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,060 $4.75 $624,000 $37,000 57 $1,992,000 Other Income $100,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,092,000 $37,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($105,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $1,987,000 100%$35,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-37%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,246,000 63%$22,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 2.97% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $33,200,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value -$1,300,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$12 -$7 -$2 $3 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 36 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,473,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 15 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $662,000 $44,000 51 $2,135,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $126,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $68,000 $34,000 6 $194,000 Other Income $116,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,445,000 $43,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($122,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,323,000 100%$41,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,582,000 68%$28,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.77% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $42,200,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $7,700,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 34 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,391,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 14 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $618,000 $44,000 48 $2,009,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 6 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $189,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 3 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $102,000 $34,000 9 $291,000 Other Income $115,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,415,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($121,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,294,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,553,000 68%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.70% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,400,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,900,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 32 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,309,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 14 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $618,000 $44,000 46 $1,927,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 8 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $252,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 3 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $102,000 $34,000 11 $354,000 Other Income $114,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,395,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($120,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,275,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-33%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,534,000 67%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.65% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $40,900,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,400,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RLV ( M i l l i o n s ) City of Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rates Prepared for: City of Palo Alto April 2018 SJ16-1668 Attachment J Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2. Available Reports and Studies ........................................................................................................... 4 3. Parking Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 9 Previous Parking Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 9 New Parking Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Selected Survey Sites .................................................................................................................................. 13 Methodology & Results ............................................................................................................................... 13 Trends .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................18 Appendices Appendix A: Summary Tables from Previous Parking Studies Appendix B: New Parking Survey Results List of Figures Figure 1: Previous Parking Survey Locations ........................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: New Parking Survey Locations .................................................................................................................. 17 List of Tables Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results ...................................................................... 10 Table 2: Selected Multi-Family Complexes .............................................................................................................. 13 Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites............................................................................................................ 14 Table 4: New Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results .............................................................................. 16 Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. FEHR i PEERS Executive Summary Fehr & Peers conducted this study to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate data for multi- family developments including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects at sites located at varying distances to fixed rail transit stations and major bus routes. The following parking rate trends were observed from the results of the parking surveys conducted at nine sites in Palo Alto: • The Affordable complexes have a higher proportion of two and three -bedroom units, the Market Rate complexes have more one -bedroom then two+ bedroom units, and the Senior Housing complexes are comprise primarily one -bedroom units. These unit mix differences are not taken into consideration in the parking demand per unit results, but are in the rate per bedroom results. • The lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing complexes and the highest at a Market Rate complex. • The parking demand rates seem to be correlated to proximity to transit for both Affordable and Market Rate apartments. (Results are inconclusive for Senior Housing.) Using the survey results, and the results of other parking studies and available surveys, Fehr & Peers reached several conclusions. For Affordable Housing, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.55 spaces per bedroom. For Market Rate units, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.75 spaces per bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the parking demand by approximately 25 percent for both Affordable Housing and Market Rate units. Senior Housing has the lowest rates which ranged from 0.34 to 0.69 spaces per bedroom. Other available surveys had rates ranging from 0.39 to 0.49 spaces per bedroom. The variation in parking demand rates may indicate some self-selection occurring and residents with vehicles choosing complexes with higher supplies. Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 1. Introduction This study was conducted to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate data for multi -family developments including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects at sites located at varying distances to fixed rail transit stations and major bus routes. This study includes information from available reports, documents, studies, and the results of surveys conducted as part of this study. Fehr & Peers was also able to obtain the results of previous surveys conducted at various apartment complexes in the South Bay, and included them in this report. FEHR k' PEERS 2. Available Reports and Studies Fehr & Peers reviewed several reports and studies that included parking demand rates for multi -family market rate, affordable, and senior residential developments in the Bay Area near rail stations (Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and light rail transit (LRT)). Industry standard parking generation sources and studies from Los Angeles and San Diego that include parking data for affordable housing were also reviewed. These reports and studies are: • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit - Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth • Transform's GreenTRIP Parking Database • Robert Cervero, et al, University of California Transportation Center, UCTC Research Paper No. 882 Are TODs Over -Parked? • Los Angeles Department of City Planning's Local Trip Generation Study • City of San Diego's San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study • Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 4th edition These reports and the general results that are applicable to parking demand rates for the City of Palo Alto are summarized in the following sections. A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit -Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County This research project was completed by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Jose State University in 2010. Twelve TOD residential properties near light rail and Caltrain stations in Santa Clara County were surveyed as part of the study. (A table from this report summarizing the results included in Appendix A.) The study does not specify whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or senior housing; it is likely that they are market rate properties. The parking supply rates ranged from 1.31 to 2.31 spaces per unit with an average of 1.68 spaces per unit, whereas the peak parking demand rates ranged from 0.84 to 1.54 spaces per unit with an average of 1.31 spaces per unit. The study found that the parking supply exceeded the parking demand at every site surveyed indicating that the code requirements for the city they are located in may be too high. This research project shows overall that parking demand at residences near a transit station is less than current zoning code requirements. Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) developed this handbook to help city officials, politicians, and planners with the planning and implementation of parking policies and programs that will support transit —oriented development (TOD). The document is intended to allow users to explore potential parking strategies that have been shown to work in different types of communities, identify best practices about policies and programs, and establish implementation guidelines to best gain the support of the public. It includes representative parking requirements for four types of land uses in five different location types. The rates for residential units in suburban centers/town centers range from 1.00 to 1.50 spaces per unit. Although the report does not differentiate among market rate, affordable, or senior housing, it is likely that these rates are for market rate properties. TransForm's GreenTRIP Parking Database TransForm's GreenTRIP Parking Database (http://database.greentrip.orct/) is a compilation of data gathered at approximately 80 multi -family residential sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. It includes the building location, place type (e.g. transit town center or city center), type of residence (family, senior, diverse abilities, condominium), percent of units below market rate, number of units, number of parking spaces, parking utilization, parking supply rate, parking demand rate, and traffic reduction strategies in place. The database can provide insight into why parking use fluctuates based on location, transit access, and TDM strategies. The GreenTRIP Parking Database allows data filtering for the study site parameters listed above. For the all - residential, senior housing study sites in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.27 to 0.71 spaces per unit. For the all -residential, non -senior housing study sites that are 50 to 100% below market rate (affordable housing) in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.96 to 1.34 spaces per unit. Some other relevant example results are: • 801 Alma in Palo Alto (0.3 miles from a Caltrain station) with 50 units, 60 parking spaces (1.20 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.02 spaces per unit, • Madera Apartments in Mountain View (0.1 miles from a Caltrain station) with 203 units, 279 parking spaces (1.37 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.88 spaces per unit, and • Arbor Terrace Apartments in Sunnyvale (0.2 miles froma VTA Rapid 522 stop) with 175 units, 359 parking spaces (2.05 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.37 spaces per unit FEHR k' PEERS Are TODs Over -Parked Robert Cervero at the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) led this study with the University of California, Berkeley. The study finds that parking demand rates for residential units at transit -oriented developments (TODs) in the San Francisco Bay Area ranged from 0.74 to 1.69 spaces per unit, averaging 1.20 spaces per unit. For all surveyed sites, the average parking supply was 1.59 spaces per dwelling unit. (A table from this report summarizing the results is included in Appendix A.) The study does not specify whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or senior housing; based on a review of the survey locations, most, if not all, are market rate properties. Varying development contexts explains the range in peak parking demand rates. Well -established sites with complementary land uses (such as office, restaurant, health club, hotel, and retail uses) had lower parking demand rates, while less dense and less diverse sites had higher parking demand rates. Los Angeles Trip Generation Study In 2015 Fehr & Peers conducted a parking study in conjunction with a trip generation study for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning. The study surveyed 42 affordable housing sites inside and outside Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Los Angeles (20 inside a TPA, 22 outside a TPA). The study compared the observed parking demand rates to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) parking requirements. All observed parking demand rates were lower than LAMC requirements. (A table from this report summarizing the results is attached.) Some relevant parking rates and results are: • Affordable family housing within a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.15 spaces per unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.85 spaces per unit • Affordable family housing outside a TPA (6 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.17 spaces per unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.82 spaces per unit • Affordable senior housing within a TPA (5 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.60 spaces per unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.44 spaces per unit • Affordable senior housing outside a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.70 spaces per unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.48 spaces per unit San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study In 2011 the City of San Diego conducted a parking study for affordable housing in various contexts throughout the city. The study documented parking rates for 21 housing developments to develop a citywide parking demand model. Variables considered includes walkability, access to transit, and housing type (e.g. single-family, senior, etc.). The parking study concluded that parking demand for affordable projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego, with almost half of all units surveyed having Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 no vehicle. Parking demand was generally associated with larger unit size and higher income for affordable housing developments. (A table from this report summarizing the results is attached.) In all projects surveyed, the amount of peak parking used was less than the amount supplied. Some relevant parking rates are: • Villa Harvey Mandel Affordable Rentals located 1,500 feet from the 12th & Imperial Transit Center in San Diego with 90 units, 26 parking spaces (0.29 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.28 spaces per unit • Windwood Village Apartments in San Diego (not located near major transit service) with 92 units, 195 parking spaces (2.10 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.56 spaces per unit • Renaissance Senior Apartments in San Diego with 96 units, 103 parking spaces (1.07 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.39 spaces per unit Parking Generation, 4th Edition The Institute of Transportation Engineers published Parking Generation, 4th edition in 2004 to provide parking demand rates for various land uses based on survey data collected in primarily suburban, low - density areas. While the report does not provide authoritative findings, recommendations, or standards on parking demand, it is often referenced by planners and designers in making parking supply estimations and decisions. Some relevant results are: • Low/Mid-Rise Apartment (Land Use 221) has an average weekday peak parking demand of 1.23 spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context and 0.42 spaces per dwelling unit in urban context • Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use 230) has an average peak parking demand of 1.38 spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context • Senior Adult Housing — Attached (Land Use 252) has an average peak period parking demand of 0.59 spaces per dwelling unit City of Palo Alto Municipal Code The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements outlines the current parking supply requirements for multi -family residential units. Based on Table 1 in Section 18.52.040 Off - Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements, market -rate multi -family residential complexes should have: • 1.25 parking spaces per studio unit, • 1.5 parking spaces per 1 -bedroom unit, • 2 parking spaces per 2 -bedroom or larger unit, and • 1 guest parking spaces per project plus 10% of total number of units. FEHRt PEERS Additionally, the following parking supply reductions may be taken: • Housing for seniors may be reduced by up to 50% of the total spaces required for the site, subject to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction. • Affordable housing may be reduced by up to 20% for low income units, up to 30% for very low income units, and 40% for extremely low income and single room occupancy units. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and traffic demand management measures may be required. • Up to 20% reduction for housing near transit facilities and approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 3. Parking Surveys Fehr & Peers gathered the results of previous parking surveys for multi -family residential developments within and near Palo Alto and conducted new parking surveys. This section presents the survey methodology and results. Previous Parking Surveys The results of previous parking surveys conducted for market rate multi -family developments in the South Bay from other Fehr & Peers studies, TransForm, and studies conducted by other consultants were compiled. Available information about each site, such as the number of units, walking distance to the nearest rail station, type of rail service, peak parking demand, parking supply and demand rates, is presented in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the locations of each development. All developments are market -rate, except for Madera Apartments in Mountain View which has seven affordable -housing units and 196 market -rate units. Some of the developments may not be directly applicable to Palo Alto but the information can be used for comparison purposes. The parking supply rates ranged from 1.20 to 1.97 spaces per unit and the parking demand rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.41 spaces per unit, which indicates that the developments generally had enough parking to meet demand. The highest parking demand rate is from a complex that is not near a rail station or major bus route, suggesting that complexes far from transit require more parking than those close to transit. FEHR k' PEERS Table 1: Available Multi -Family Residential Parking Survey Results Name of Complex Address Distance to Rail Station Type of Rail Number of Units 3+ Total Units BR (Bedrooms) No. of Occupied Units Supply Rate No. of Rate Per Spaces Per Bedroom Unit Demand Peak Rate Rate Per Parking Per Occupied Rate Per Demand Unit Unit Bedroom Over- supply' 801 Alma Park Place Apartments Avalon Mountain View Avalon Bay Creekside Avalon Towers (on the Peninsula, ATOP) Madera Apartments 801 Alma St., Palo Alto 851 Church St., Mountain View 1600 Villa St., Mountain View 0.3 miles 0.7 miles 0.8 miles 151 Calderon Ave., 0.4 miles Mountain View 2400 West El Camino Real, Mountain View 0.8 miles 455 W. Evelyn Ave, 0.2 miles Mountain View Caltrain (PA) Caltrain/ LRT (MV) Caltrain/ LRT (MV) Caltrain/ LRT (MV) Caltrain/ LRT (MV) Caltrain/ LRT (MV) 10 24 16 181 186 6 117 75 56 n/a n/a n/a 90 115 6 n/a n/a n/a 50 (106) 373 (571) 248 (435) 294 (n/a) 211 (338) 2032 (n/a) 50 60 1.20 0.57 51 1.02 1.02 0.48 18% n/a 511 1.37 0.89 339 0.91 n/a 0.59 51% n/a 426 1.72 0.98 301 1.21 n/a 0.69 42% 288 436 1.48 n/a 365 1.24 1.27 n/a 19% 203 262 1.24 0.78 258 1.22 1.27 0.76 2% n/a 279 1.37 n/a 179 0.88 n/a n/a 56% Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study March 2018 Table 1: Available Multi -Family Residential Parking Survey Results Name of Complex Address Distance to Rail Station Type of Rail Number of Units 354 No. of Occupied Units No. of Spaces Supply Rate Rate Per Per Unit Bedroom Peak Parking Demand Demand Rate Rate Per Per Occupied Unit Unit Over - Rate Per supply' Bedroom 100 N. Central Whisman Park Rd., 0.3 miles Apartments Mountain View LRT (Whisman) 1220 N. Kensington Fair Oaks LRT (Fair Apartments Ave., Oaks) Sunnyvale Source: Fehr & Peers, TransForm, and Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 1. Oversupply = (Supply — Demand) / Demand 2. Madera Apartments has seven affordable -housing units and 196 market -rate units. 68 204 82 (722) 0.2 miles n/a n/a n/a 186 (n/a) n/a 696 1.97 0.96 490 1.38 n/a 0.68 42% 182 317 1.70 n/a 262 1.41 1.44 n/a 21% FEHR i PEERS Menlo Park a s P -4i %,a � Sr San Antonio Station Footh///F *Ay Los Altos Hills Surveyed Sites Caltrain Station Caltrain Route t Avalon Towers LRT Station East Palo Alto Palo Alto Station i101(. +Q� 801 Alma oc t a, California California Ave. Station Palo Alto a, Q .0 0 h Mountain View Avalon Mountain View Park Place Apartments Los Altos Light Rail Train (902) Madera Apartments Mountain View AvalonBay Creekside San Jose Kensington Apartments Santa Clara • Tasman Dr . Fair Oaks Light Rail Station a . , ,. ansit Center ro Sunnyvale Whisman Light Rail Station Central Park Apartments Cam/no Rea al c Q v Scott Blvd v J Central Expl, Figure 1 Previous Parking Survey Locations N 1Prgects1_SJ16_Projects1SJ16_1668_Palo_.4tto_On_Call1Phase 12 - TO1t, Multifamily Parking Demand\Graphics\G1S1MXO'SJ16_1668_FigOx_Parking Study Locations mx Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 New Parking Surveys During November and December, 2017, surveys were conducted at nine apartment complexes in Palo Alto to measure their parking demand during various days of the week and times of day. Selected Survey Sites The nine multi -family complexes were selected in concert with City staff based on development type (i.e. Market Rate, Affordable Housing, or Senior Community) and distance from transit, where transit is defined as fixed rail stations (primarily Caltrain stations) and/or major bus routes (primarily El Camino Real) so that the effects of transit proximity can be discerned. Table 2 lists the locations of the properties along with their types and distance -to -transit categories. Figure 2 shows their locations in relation to nearby Caltrain stations (Palo Alto, California, and San Antonio). Table 2: Selected Multi -Family Complexes Type Affordable Housing Market Rate Housing Senior Housing Near Transit (<0.5 miles) Mid -Distance to Transit (0.75 to 1.25 miles) California Park Apartments Oak Court Apartments (2301 Park Boulevard) (845 Ramona Street) The Marc Midtown Court Apartments (507 Forest Avenue) (2727 Midtown Court) Sheridan Apartments' Lytton Gardens (360 Sheridan Avenue) (330 Everett Avenue) Far from Transit (>1.5 miles) Colorado Park Apartments (1141 Colorado Avenue) Tan Plaza Apartments (580 Arastradero Road) Stevenson House (455 E. Charleston Road) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. 1. Sheridan Apartments is an affordable housing complex for senior & disabled residents. For the purposes of this analysis, Sheridan Apartments was considered as a Senior Housing complex. All observed sites have dedicated parking facilities for residents, visitors, and staff where the number of parked vehicles could be counted (no private one and two -car garages). No observed sites offer unbundled parking. The number of units by bedroom count, number of parking spaces, and parking supply rates per unit and per bedroom are presented in Table 4. The properties also have at least 45 units, with unit occupancy at or above 95%. Methodology & Results A parking inventory was conducted at each selected survey site to verify the parking supply. The inventory included counts of the numbers of spaces and how they were identified, e.g., reserved, visitor, staff, office, FEHR PEERS Americans with disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant, etc. Spaces that had no identification were designated as "general". The parking inventories are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites Name of Complex General Reserved Number of Parking Stalls ADA- Compliant Office/ Visitor Staff/ Vendor Future Neighbor EV Total Affordable Housing California Park 67 Apartments 3 Oak Court 85 2 20 Apartments Colorado Park 86 2 Apartments Market Rate Housing The Marc 153 2 2 70 107 90 2 157 Midtown Court 58 10 1 69 Apartments Tan Plaza 65 10 2 2 5 84 Apartments Senior Housing Sheridan 20 1 Apartments Lytton 3 38 5 5 Gardens Stevenson House 35, 2 3 6 4 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. 21 51 50 Parking occupancy surveys were conducted to count the numbers of parked vehicles by space type on a weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) at three time periods (midday, evening, and late night - after midnight) and on a weekend day at two time periods (midday and late night). The summarized results of the parking surveys showing the numbers of parked vehicles, space occupancy (percent of spaces occupied by a parked vehicle), and parking demand rates per unit, per occupied unit, and per bedroom are summarized in Table 4. (More detailed survey results are included in Appendix B.) Palo Alto Multi -Family Parking Demand Rate Study April 2018 Most of the complexes achieved their peak parking demand on weekdays during the late night period. Two had identical peak parking demands during the late night period on weekdays and on weekends (California Park Apartments and Tan Plaza). One of the senior housing complexes reached its peak parking demand during the late night weekend period (Stevenson House). Only three of the complexes, Oak Court Apartments, Lytton Courtyard, and Stevenson House, have designated visitor spaces. Oak Court Apartment has 20 visitor spaces and the number of vehicles parked in those spaces remained at 6 or 7 throughout the survey period. Lytton Courtyard has 5 visitor spaces with 1 or 2 parked vehicles. The number of vehicle in the six visitor spaces at Stevenson House ranged from 2 to 5. Trends The following trends from the surveys are noted: • The Affordable complexes have a higher proportion of two and three -bedroom units, the Market Rate complexes have more one -bedroom then two+ bedroom units, and the Senior Housing complexes are comprised of primarily one -bedroom units. These unit mix differences are not taken into consideration in the parking demand per unit results, but are in the rate per bedroom results. • The lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing complexes and the highest at a Market Rate complex. • The parking demand rates seem to be correlated to proximity to transit for both Affordable and Market Rate apartments. (Results are inconclusive for Senior Housing.) FEHRt PEERS Table 4: New Multi -Family Residential Parking Survey Results Name of Complex Distance to Rail Station Number of Units Type of Rail 1 2 BR BR 3+ Total Units BR (Total Bedrooms) No. of Occupied Units No. of Spaces Supply Supply Rate per Unit Supply Rate per Bedroom Peak Parking Demand (Time1) Demand Rate Per Unit Over- Supply2 Rate Per Occupied Unit Rate Per Bedroom Affordable Housing California Park Apts. Oak Court Apts. 0.1 miles 0.8 miles Caltrain (CA) Caltrain (PA) 1 31 13 45 (102) 45 70 9 18 26 53 (123) 53 107 1.56 0.69 2.02 0.87 41 (WD,L) 66 (WD,L) 0.91 0.91 0.40 71% 1.25 1.25 0.54 62% Colorado Park Apts. 2.4 miles Caltrain 8 24 28 60 (140) (CA) 60 90 1.50 0.64 78 130 (WD,L) 1.30 0.56 15% Market Rate Housing The Marc 0.5 miles Midtown Court Apts. 1.2 miles Caltrain (PA) 70 44 4 118(170) 114 157 Caltrain 31 15 0 46 (61) (CA) 44 69 1.33 0.92 1.50 1.13 90 (WD,L) 46 (WD,L) 0.79 0.79 0.53 74% 1.00 1.05 0.75 50% Tan Plaza 1.6 miles Caltrain 6 50 5 61 (121) Apts. (SA) 60 84 1.38 0.69 70 1.15 1.17 0.58 20% (WD,L) Senior Housing Sheridan Apts. Lytton Gardens 0.3 miles 0.8 miles Caltrain (CA) Caltrain (PA) 57 0 0 57 (57) 51 0 0 51 (51) 57 21 51 51 0.37 0.37 1.00 1.00 20 (WD,L) 35 (WE,L) 0.35 0.35 0.35 5% 0.69 0.69 0.69 46% Stevenson House 1.9 miles C (SA)fn 120 0 0 120 (120) 120 50 0.42 0.42 41 0.34 0.34 0.34 22% (WD,L) Notes: Complexes are color coded by distance to transit, with darker colors indicating higher distance to transit. 1. WD,L=Weekday, Late Night; WE,L=Weekend, Late Night 2. Oversupply = (Supply - Demand) / Demand Sources: City of Palo Alto, Fehr & Peers. 16 Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park Lytton Gardens Palo Alto Station 4 N ° pero Sera New Parking Survey Locations • Affordable Housing • Market Rate Housing • Senior Housing 10 - Palo Alto Caltrain Station Caltrain Route 4J The Marc i Oak Court J Apartments California Park Apartments �J Sheridan Apartments East Palo Alto _10 t'j Colorado Park Apartments Midtown Court Apartments California Ave. Station Los Altos Hills alo Alto �J Stevenson House Q 0 1,1 0 C C Mountain View San Antonio Station �FjC Los Altos h'izo 'Pew Sunnyvale Figure 2 New Parking Survey Locations N 1Proiects1_SJ16_Projects1SJ16_1668_Palo_.Alto_On_CaIllPhase 12 - 7011, Multifamily Parking DemandlGraptscsIGIS1MXD\SJ16_1668_FigOx_Parking Study Locations mx 4. Conclusions Conclusions were drawn from the survey results and other reports regarding the parking demand rates for multi -family residential developments and the effect of proximity to transit: • For Affordable Housing, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.55 spaces per bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the rate by approximately 25 percent. • For Market Rate units, the surveyed parking demand rate is approximately 0.75 spaces per bedroom. Proximity to transit can reduce the rate by approximately 25 percent. o These rates are supported by other studies conducted for sites near South Bay Caltrain stations. • Senior housing has the lowest rates which ranged from 0.34 to 0.69 spaces per bedroom. Other available surveys had rates ranging from 0.39 to 0.49 spaces per bedroom. o Many of these complexes also had low parking supply rates. The variation in parking demand rates may indicate some self-selection occurring and residents with vehicles choosing complexes with higher supplies. • Surveys conducted at additional locations would provide more information to refine results. They could be focused on the weekday late night period when the majority of the peak demands occurred. Appendix A: Summary Tables from Previous Parking Studies Summary Table from “A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County” Summary Table from “Are TODs Over-Parked?” Site Supply per Unit Peak Demand per Unit Demand: % diff. from Supply Demand: % diff. from ITE Rate Walnut Creek: Pleasant Hill BART Station Diablo Oaks 1.05 0.74 -29.5% -38.3% Iron Horse Park 1.42 0.80 -43.7% -33.3% Archstone Walnut Creek 1.12 0.92 -17.9% -23.3% Park Regency 1.47 1.06 -27.9% -11.7% Archstone Walnut Creek Stat. 1.29 1.09 -15.5% -9.2% Villa Montanaro 2.05 1.23 -40.0% 2.5% San Leandro: Bayfair BART Station The Hamlet 1.28 1.07 _ -16.4% _ -10.8% Union City BART Station Verandas 1.50 1.11 -26.0% -7.5% Parkside 1.46 1.13 -22.6% -5.8% Fremont BART Station Presidio 1.82 1.23 -32.4% 2.5% Watermark Place 1.84 1.27 -31.0% 5.8% Mission Peaks 1.75 1.35 -22.9% 12.5% Archstone Fremont 1.98 1.45 -26.8% 20.8% Sun Pointe Village 1.98 1.47 -25.8% 22.5% Park Vista Apartments 1.97 1.48 -24.9% 23.3% Alborada 1.78 1.69 -5.1% 40.8% ALL 16 EAST BAY STATIONS Weighted Average I 1.59 I 1.20 I- -24.7% I 0.0% Figure 2. East Bay Results: Peak Parking Generation Rates (Parked Vehicles per Dwelling Unit) Relative to Supply Levels and ITE Standard Summary Table from “Los Angeles Trip Generation Study” Summary Table from “San Diego Affordable Housing Study” Appendix B: New Parking Survey Results Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate California Park 45 45 70 1.56 0.91 19 0.27 0.42 28 0.40 0.62 41 0.59 0.91 27 0.39 0.60 41 0.59 0.91 Oak Court 53 53 107 2.02 1.25 36 0.34 0.68 43 0.40 0.81 66 0.62 1.25 46 0.43 0.87 59 0.55 1.11 Colorado Park 60 60 90 1.50 1.30 36 0.40 0.60 56 0.62 0.93 78 0.87 1.30 44 0.49 0.73 70 0.78 1.17 1.69 1.15 -- 0.34 0.57 -- 0.47 0.79 -- 0.69 1.15 -- 0.43 0.73 -- 0.64 1.06 The Marc 118 114 157 1.33 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 64 0.41 0.56 90 0.57 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 79 0.50 0.69 Midtown Court 46 44 69 1.50 1.05 22 0.32 0.50 27 0.39 0.61 46 0.67 1.05 28 0.41 0.64 42 0.61 0.95 Tan Plaza 61 60 84 1.38 1.17 38 0.45 0.63 39 0.46 0.65 70 0.83 1.17 49 0.58 0.82 70 0.83 1.17 1.40 1.00 -- 0.38 0.55 -- 0.42 0.61 -- 0.69 1.00 -- 0.45 0.66 -- 0.65 0.94 Sheridan 57 57 21 0.37 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 19 0.90 0.33 20 0.95 0.35 16 0.76 0.28 18 0.86 0.32 Lytton 51 51 51 1.00 0.69 31 0.61 0.61 26 0.51 0.51 25 0.49 0.49 23 0.45 0.45 35 0.69 0.69 Stevenson 120 120 50 0.42 0.34 33 0.66 0.28 39 0.78 0.33 41 0.82 0.34 35 0.70 0.29 36 0.72 0.30 0.60 0.46 -- 0.69 0.39 -- 0.73 0.39 -- 0.75 0.39 -- 0.64 0.34 -- 0.75 0.43 Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate Stalls Occupied Parking Occupancy Demand Rate California Park 45 45 70 1.56 0.91 19 0.27 0.42 28 0.40 0.62 41 0.59 0.91 27 0.39 0.60 41 0.59 0.91 The Marc 118 114 157 1.33 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 64 0.41 0.56 90 0.57 0.79 59 0.38 0.52 79 0.50 0.69 Sheridan 57 57 21 0.37 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 19 0.90 0.33 20 0.95 0.35 16 0.76 0.28 18 0.86 0.32 1.08 0.68 -- 0.49 0.41 -- 0.57 0.51 -- 0.70 0.68 -- 0.51 0.47 -- 0.65 0.64 Oak Court 53 53 107 2.02 1.25 36 0.34 0.68 43 0.40 0.81 66 0.62 1.25 46 0.43 0.87 59 0.55 1.11 Midtown Court 46 44 69 1.50 1.05 22 0.32 0.50 27 0.39 0.61 46 0.67 1.05 28 0.41 0.64 42 0.61 0.95 Lytton 51 51 51 1.00 0.69 31 0.61 0.61 26 0.51 0.51 25 0.49 0.49 23 0.45 0.45 35 0.69 0.69 1.51 0.99 -- 0.42 0.60 -- 0.43 0.64 -- 0.59 0.93 -- 0.43 0.65 -- 0.62 0.92 Colorado Park 60 60 90 1.50 1.30 36 0.40 0.60 56 0.62 0.93 78 0.87 1.30 44 0.49 0.73 70 0.78 1.17 Tan Plaza 61 60 84 1.38 1.17 38 0.45 0.63 39 0.46 0.65 70 0.83 1.17 49 0.58 0.82 70 0.83 1.17 Stevenson 120 120 50 0.42 0.34 33 0.66 0.28 39 0.78 0.33 41 0.82 0.34 35 0.70 0.29 36 0.72 0.30 1.10 0.94 -- 0.50 0.50 -- 0.62 0.64 -- 0.84 0.94 -- 0.59 0.61 -- 0.78 0.88 Near to Transit Average: Medium to Transit Average: Far from Transit Average: Late Palo Alto Parking Survey Results (By Location Type) Site Total units Occupied units Capacity (Spaces) Supply Rate Maximum Demand Weekday Weekend Midday Evening Late Midday Late Maximum Demand Occupied units Market Rate Average: Senior Average: Affordable Average: Palo Alto Parking Survey Results (By Housing Type) Midday Late WeekendWeekday Supply RateSite Capacity (Spaces)Total units Midday Evening Attachment K Attachment L INTRODUCTION The purpose of this plan is to support a robust and context-sensitive transit-oriented development at 2755 El Camino Real. This will be achieved by: §Establishing a baseline understanding of the using conventional (ITE) suburban trip and parking generation modelling; §Reducing those baseline figures in consideration of the transit-oriented location of the site in Palo Alto and the greater Peninsula transportation network; §Proposing the specific transportation demand management (TDM) programs and policies for the development given its context; and, §Modelling the impacts of the aforementioned location and TDM programs utilizing the URBEMIS and GreenTRIP models, which adjust conventional average rates to quantify the impact of a development’s location, physical characteristics and any demand management programs. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Proposed Project and Site Plans Windy Hill Property Ventures (WHPV) is planning to construct 57 new housing units in Palo Alto at the 19,563 square-foot lot situated at 2755 El Camino Real. Proposed for the site are 39 studio units and 18 1-bedroom units, all of which are rentals. The site, a former park-and-ride facility for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) transit service, is at the northwestern corner of the intersection of El Camino Real (California State Route 82) and Page Mill Road (Santa Clara County Route G3). The project also includes a variety of off-site improvements including an improved bus shelter located at the front of the project along El Camino Real and the restriping a portion of the red curbing along EL Camino Real north of the project site to include additional loading space in the project area. Proposed Parking The current vehicle parking requirement for multi-family residential land use in Palo Alto is set at 1.25 parking spaces for each studio, 1.5 parking spaces for each 1-bedroom unit and 19 parking spaces for guests (33 percent if parking is assigned), for a total requiring a minimum of 94 parking spaces for the site. The Municipal Code also allows for reductions in requirements due to proximity to transit as well as transportation and parking alternatives.1 Combined, these reductions can add up to 30%, reducing the required number of spaces to 65. The developer has proposed to build 68 parking spaces, including ADA-compliant spaces and spaces for electric vehicle charging. The remaining 60 spaces would be consolidated by a “stacker” system. The majority of spaces would be one floor underground in the basement level, with guest parking spaces at grade level. 1 See Appendix A for Code language. 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 For bicycle parking, the current requirement is one long-term (Class I) space per dwelling unit and 0.1 short-term (Class II) space per dwelling unit. The developer has proposed a total of 76 bicycle parking spaces, including 68 long-term spaces and 8 short-term spaces. The bike room would be located on the first floor of the building. Baseline Vehicle Trip and Parking Generation The baseline figure was informed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual’s 9th Edition. The average rate of total weekday trips per dwelling unit for low- rise apartments2 is 6.59. Therefore, the baseline estimation of this site’s weekday trip generation totals 376 trips. This figure is certainly a ceiling to the possible number of trips, because that average figure, which is set at 50% entries and 50% exits, implies that, if visitors are not included, the average resident will leave their home location at least 3 times on a weekday. When applying ITE parking generation standards using the same quantity and land use code from the Parking Generation Manual (4th Edition), the traditional model will generate 70 parking spaces. Existing Context On a regional scale, the lot is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the California Avenue Priority Development Area (PDA). The area, defined originally in 2006 by the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit-Oriented District3, is one of many PDAs identified by regional planners as areas of focused job and housing growth throughout the Bay Area due to their proximity to high- capacity transit nodes. Existing Transit Service The site of the proposed project is along El Camino Real, the main arterial road serving the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The site is a ½-mile walk to the southbound platform of the California Avenue Caltrain station. From the California Avenue station, Caltrain provides direct connections to San Francisco, San Jose, and many cities along the Peninsula. On a weekday, 28 northbound and 29 southbound trains stop at California Avenue. The site is also immediately adjacent to northbound buses running along the El Camino Real Corridor. Transit services available on site include the following: Figure 1 Transit Service Summary Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop Caltrain Local and Limited- Stop Series San Francisco (King and 4th) to San Jose Weekdays (5:47 am – 1:07 am) Saturdays etc. Sundays etc. 11 to 60 minutes 0.5 miles (California Avenue) 2 ITE Code 221 3 The property is not subject to the overlay district. 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 (100 and 200) (Diridon and Tamien) and Gilroy VTA Rapid 522 Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center Weekdays (5:40 am – 10:57 pm) Saturday (8:00 am – 11:05 pm) Sunday/Holiday (9:04 am – 7:29 pm) 10 to 28 minutes (Weekdays) 13 to 30 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 22 (Local) Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week 10 to 60 minutes (Weekdays) 15 to 80 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) Immediately outside VTA 89 California Avenue Caltrain Station to Palo Alto Veterans Hospital Weekdays (6:43 am- 6:37 pm) 13 to 45 minutes 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 102 (Express) South San Jose to Palo Alto Weekdays (Northbound 6:44-9:01 am; Southbound 3:15-5:33 pm) 10 to 30 minutes Immediately outside VTA 104 (Express) Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto Weekdays (Westbound 6:45-7:35 am; Eastbound 4:22- 4:52 pm) 30 to 50 minutes 0.05 miles (across El Camino Real) VTA 182 (Express) Palo Alto to IBM/Bailer Avenue Weekdays (Southbound departure at 7:29 am; Northbound arrival at 6:14) N/A (Only one run in each direction) Immediately outside Dumbarton Express DB1 Stanford Research Park to Union City BART Station Weekdays (5:26 am – 8:43 pm) 17 to 60 minutes 0.05 miles (across Page Mill) Stanford University Marguerite Research Park (RP) Palo Alto Transit Center to Research Park (Peak Direction) Weekdays (6:31 am – 10:18 am and 3:23 – 7:33 p.m.) 20 to 40 minutes Immediately outside Stanford University Marguerite Shopping Express (SE) Palo Alto Transit Center to San Academic Year Weekdays (3:15 pm – 10:35) and Academic 50 to 60 minutes for regular service; 2 hours for summer/holidays Immediately outside 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 Antonio Shopping Center Year Weekends (9:35 am – 11:08 pm) Summer weekends and Academic holidays (9:45 am – 11:08 pm) Currently, the bus stop immediately outside the project site consists of the minimum requisite signage and sidewalk width. It includes a bench and additional waiting area setback from the sidewalk. The development and design team is interested in working with the Palo Alto Transportation Division (PATD) and the VTA about new and revitalized amenities for the bus stop. Future Transit Service The recently approved VTA Transit Service Redesign will have very slight changes to the site’s transit service. Average weekday frequency of the 22 will decrease to an average of 15-minute headways, while average weekday frequency of the 522-Rapid will improve to an average of 12- minute headways.4 Otherwise, there are no changes for the alignments and frequencies of any other routes serving the site. The site is in the realm of two of the most prominent and consequential transit capital projects in the Bay Area. The first, the Caltrain Modernization Program entails the electrification of Caltrain’s trunk line, a major component across multiple strategic plans. Based on a prototypical schedule analysis, California Avenue would see a total of 66 average weekday daily trains5. This would be a 15.8% increase over the current number of weekday trains serving the station. The second project is the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit along El Camino Real, which is being incrementally rolled out, beginning in San Jose and Santa Clara in 2017-2018. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are multiple bicycle facilities, going in multiple directions, in proximity to the site. They include: •A Class II bike lane on Park Boulevard and Serra Boulevard connecting California Avenue/Page Mill Road with Stanford’s campus •A Class II bike lane on California Avenue extending north from Caltrain towards Louis Road •A Class III facility along the main commercial area of California Avenue •A Class II bike lane along California Avenue south of El Camino Real 4 http://nextnetwork.vta.org/route-info 5 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.14+Transportation.pdf, 3.14-34 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures TDM PROGRAM A TDM program can encourage the site's residents to use the most environmentally friendly and spatially efficient mode possible for each trip, with an emphasis on transit, bicycling, walking, and shared rides. The strategies outlined below are designed to work together to affect site users' travel habits. Targeted programs strengthen the benefits of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the site's proximity to major transit nodes by reinforcing awareness of these options, breaking down barriers to incorporating them in travel routines, and incentivizing habitual use. Figure 2 TDM Strategy Summary TDM Strategy Description Caltrain Go Pass provision Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. VTA EcoPass provision Provide unlimited VTA bus rides for all residents. Bike share Provide shared bicycles onsite for the use of residents. Carpool Ride- Matching Services Tenant ride -matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Improved Bus Shelter Upgrades to on -street bus shelter to encourage transit ridership Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. On -site Transportation Coordinator On -site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Monitoring program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the strategies etc. in order to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. Unbundling parking Pricing separately for all parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in a dense and transit - oriented environment. Based on a monthly fee of $200. TNC Subsidy Tenants who commit to not owning a motor vehicle will receive a monthly stipend of $100 to be used towards a transportation network company (TNC) (e.g. Lyft, Uber) in order to reduce parking demand. Anticipated TDM Program Impact In order to verify the potential impact of the TDM package presented above, this memo examined two separate models — the URBEMIS model (traditionally used for vehicle trip impacts) and the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model used by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 URBEMIS The URBEMIS model is used in this analysis to estimate an appropriate potential trip percent reduction impact from the stated baseline (being generated by Hexagon Consultants). This estimate is designed to be conservative in nature given that the Hexagon analysis already includes a 9% trip reduction adjustment due to proximity to transit. Based on the TDM program above, a 35% reduction in trips (above and beyond the 9% reduction) is feasible and would help justify a proportionate reduction in the parking requirement. GreenTRIP To estimate parking demand for the project, the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was used. The GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a national nonprofit organization focused on developing research and modeling tools for city planning. The model’s equations were developed and calibrated using parking demand data from 71 transit-oriented developments throughout the Bay Area.6 The model is similar to those produced by CNT for King County, Washington state (RightSizeParking.org) and Washington, D.C. (ParkRightDC.org). The model’s calculations are based on local data and include several variables such as parking supply, average rent, parking price, average bedrooms per unit, presence of transit passes or carshare memberships, availability of affordable units, and neighborhood variables (walkability, job density and frequency of transit). Due to the local variables used in it, the GreenTRIP model only applies in the San Francisco Bay Area. These variables demonstrate the critical relationship between parking and vehicle trip generation. Parking supply and parking pricing are two of the most important factors to consider when determining ultimate vehicle trip generation. They are also the primary reasons why there is such a strong nexus between reductions in parking demand and vehicle trip generation – by limiting the former, lower vehicle trip generation naturally follows (whereas having TDM programs such as transit passes with free and abundant parking oftentimes has limited success in reducing vehicle trips). For transit-oriented developments in particular, the model is more appropriate than relying on more generic parking demand data from sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (4th Edition) report, which provides data gathered at isolated suburban sites around the United States with free parking and little or no transit. While data from the ITE Parking Generation report is valuable for estimating demand at conventional auto-oriented sites, it is inappropriate for transit-oriented sites such as the 2755 El Camino Real project site, unless substantial adjustments are made to account for factors such as transit service levels, neighborhood character, parking prices, and other factors that affect parking demand. When factoring in the site, context, and proposed strategies (including unbundled parking, resident transit passes, , and bike share programs), the GreenTRIP model estimates a predicted rate of 0.65 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, is substantially less than the 6 http://www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP-Connect/Methodology. http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Parking%20Model%20July%202016.pdf 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures recommendation for a generic location in Santa Clara County on average (0.99 spaces per unit). This 0.65 rate equates to approximately 37 parking spaces7. Therefore, the proposed 68 spaces is sufficient for this site. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN The TDM program for the site as proposed will be implemented by the applicant, future property management and/or by each tenant. The TDM program as currently proposed, includes measures that maximize project trip reduction. It is anticipated that WHPV will continue to modify and refine the TDM program over time, to best achieve the required trip reduction target, address market conditions and respond to employee and tenant needs. As such, WHPV and its tenants may implement TDM measures that are not currently listed in the checklist, since potential new measures may be found to be more effective in reducing vehicle trips Data Collection Vehicle Trips The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using a hose or electronic count managed and overseen by a designated site -wide TDM coordinator, per the standards set by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.050 (d)(3)(4), as discussed below . The purpose of the count is to determine how many vehicles are entering and exiting the site during the peak hour. The count would typically be conducted over a 3 -day period; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a normal business week during the Stanford University academic year. Data on vehicle entries and exits is collected at all entry and exit points to the site continuously over the 3- day period. An average of the peak hour data for the three days is taken to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The counts are conducted during the same month each year and the initial count should commence within a two years of the certificate of occupancy. Parking Occupancy Parking occupancy counts will be conducted within the off-street parking garage and, if required by the Chief Transportation Official, all on -street parking stalls within 750 -feet of the project. Data collection activities will be done twice during each of the morning (7:oo-9:ooAM), midday (12:oo-2:ooPM), and evening (5:oo-7:ooPM) peak periods and once during the overnight period (11:3oPM). Graphical figures and data tables shall be submitted as part this task Graphical figures shall indicate the parking occupancy rates and parking restrictions along each block face, and the on -site parking lot, within the study area for each of the peak periods. The parking count survey shall indicate the occupancy rate of the apartments when the surveys were conducted. 7 htto://connect.areentria.ora/ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 17 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8 Resident Surveys Surveys of the residents and their travel choices shall be a required component of the monitoring program with methods consistent with ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 10th Ed. or similar resource. All monitoring activities will be undertaken by a qualified third party transportation planning or engineering firm and a scope of work shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official for review and approval prior to conducting the necessary monitoring tasks. Program Evaluation The program would be evaluated and would include all of the TDM measures listed in this memo, to determine their effectiveness. Vehicle trip data counted would be measured against the ITE baseline as established by the Hexagon analysis. With the required evaluation, one can then easily track progress of the TDM program on site. If the TDM program is not achieving the total reduction of trips, additional and reasonable changes and new measures may be imposed. APPENDIX A - PALO ALTO CITY CODE 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director Automobile parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations in Table 4, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. The following are adjustments that apply to developments not located within a parking assessment district. Adjustments within the parking assessment districts are contained in Section 18.52.080. The decision of the regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction a On-Site Employee Amenities Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements 100% of requirement for on-site employee amenities Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 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 or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program 1to further assure parking reductions are achieved. 20% of total spaces required for the site [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Housing for Seniors The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing facilities for seniors, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction proposed. 50% of the total spaces required for the site Affordable Housing Units and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units The total number of spaces required may be reduced for affordable housing and single room occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and the director may require traffic demand management measures 1 in conjunction with any approval. a. 40% for Extremely Low Income and SRO Units b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low Income Units Housing Near Transit Facilities The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing located within a designated Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a TDM program.1 20% of the total spaces required for the site. Transportation and Parking Alternatives Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted). 20% of the total spaces required for the site Combined Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above circumstances as prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations on the combined total reduction allowed. a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required b. 40% reduction for [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 affordable housing projects c. 50% reduction for senior housing projects 1. See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs. 2. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. (a) Combining Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of circumstances, prescribed by this chapter, so long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for affordable housing projects (including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units), or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects. (b) Deferral of Meeting Full Requirement by Landscape Reserve Where the expected need for off-street parking or bicycle facilities for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use and unavailability of comparable data to establish need, the director, upon recommendation of the architectural review board, may authorize that construction and provision of not more than fifty percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not more than twenty-five percent of the bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The number of bicycle parking spaces deferred shall be apportioned by construction type (long term or short term) in the same percentages as indicated in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040. The director may set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces whenever the director determines the need to exist. Land area required for provision of deferred parking or bicycle spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this chapter. Upon use of the parking area at near build-out (at least 90% occupancy) over a period of at least ten years, the director may allow the reserve area to be used for other uses that do not generate parking demand, subject to restrictions and conditions to prevent conversion to a more intense use unless sufficient additional on-site parking is provided. (c) Off-Site Parking Except in parking assessment areas, the director may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on the site not more than 500 feet from the site of the use for which such parking is required, where in the director's judgment, such authorization will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter. The distance to the off-site parking shall be measured from the nearest corner of the parking facility to the nearest public entrance to the building via the shortest pedestrian route. (d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (1) A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program may be proposed by an applicant, or may be required by the director for any project requesting a reduction in parking, or may be required as CEQA mitigation for identified potential significant parking impacts. [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 (2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash- out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car-sharing, traffic-reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or "green" vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug-in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. (3) Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director two years after building occupancy and again five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (4) Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. (Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007) Attachment M Context -Based Design Criteria 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context -based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context -based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi -family residential district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi- family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Project Consistency Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods and to provide a relationship with street(s) Given the busy roadways adjacent the project site, the project is appropriately set back from both Page Mill Road and El Camino Real in a manner that is consistent with recommendations for exclusively residential projects along El Camino Real, as outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The building orients the main entrance and entrance courtyard toward the corner to activate it, as is recommended in the guidelines for this specific project site as well as other corner sites in general. Projecting porches provide a human scale and signify habitation; however, these are appropriately placed so as not to be located too close to the sidewalk, which could impact the privacy and safety of future residents. Landscaping provides appropriate buffering while still maintaining a human scale to these ground floor residences. The project includes a flat roof, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2. Low -Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower - scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project site is located adjacent PC Zoned properties that allow for higher density and higher Floor Area Ratio than in most areas of the city, similar to the proposed development. The projects adjacent the site are also three to four stories tall (approximately 45 feet and approximately 39 feet for the Sunrise Assisted Living and Silverwood condominiums, respectively), where the project is four stories tall (approximately 49 feet) with a portion of the fourth floor being a roof deck, which reduces massing along the frontage and adjacent to the three-story building along Page Mill Road. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for most of the residents and a large roof deck. The roof deck provides a better location for common open space than an at grade facility at the rear of the building because it provides more solar access and views of the City. The roof deck and balconies are oriented toward the street to increase eyes on the street in accordance with the context- based design criteria. Landscaping is provided along the north side adjacent the Silverwood condominiums to maintain privacy for residences at the condominium. Planters, trees, and use of colored pavers are all proposed as part of the common open space design. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Large Multi -Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small -lot detached units, rowhouses/townhouses, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect, and benefit from it. in general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high - quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project's parking is located and accessed at the rear of the site, and the majority of parking spaces are located within a below -grade garage. Existing landscape screening at the Sunrise Assisted Living Center complex site as well as the new proposed landscaping provided along the perimeter of the proposed development provides screening between these existing sites and the four above grade parking space proposed along the interior of the building. This finding does not apply; the project site is less than one-half acre. Not applicable. The project is a multi -story rental project located on a single existing lot rather than many units on individual lots. The proposed 49'3" tall building is in keeping with the scale of the adjacent Sheridan building at approximately 45 feet with a stair tower at a maximum height of 50' 3" and the adjacent Silverwood Condominium complex is approximately 40 feet. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. Attachment N Performance Criteria 18.23 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi -family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review or Site and Design review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes placement of the trash/recycling enclosure within the underground parking garage and within appropriately sized containers. This enclosure is located as far from abutting residences as reasonably possible. The site includes chutes for all three waste streams from all floors as well as accessible access to the enclosure for all users. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to adjacent residents. The footcandles along all property lines are generally 0.1 or less. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. The project is exclusively multi -family residential; therefore this requirement is not applicable. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to The project is adjacent to residential uses within nonresidential zones and therefore provides cypress trees along the interior lot lines between the site and adjacent uses. In addition, vines will be used along the rear of the building to increase greenery and visually reduce massing. Mechanical equipment is screened in that it is primarily located provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. within the building on the first floor/basement or otherwise located on the roof and screened by parapet walls 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking for the project is primarily located below ground with all lift systems enclosed so as to reduce noise for adjacent residential uses. All refuse storage and equipment is also located within the basement with only HVAC equipment provided on the roof. The CEQA analysis outlines noise levels and concludes that noise levels from this equipment would be less than significant; they would not have a distinguishable effect on existing noise levels at the site. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project's parking is located below grade with only guest parking provided at grade. These guest parking spots are located along the interior lot line and screened from adjacent uses with planned trees, as well as existing trees on the adjacent property. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short - term and long-term bike parking at grade. The project eliminates a curb cut along Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway creating a safer pedestrian experience. The project will also dedicate land to the right-of-way to facilitate the County's plan to include a new right turn lane and a new bike lane along Page Mill Road to improve bike safety. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/ortoxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on -site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 1. The proposed residential use does not include storage of hazardous materials. Attachment O South El Camino and El Camino Real Design Guidelines 2755 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00464 The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments along South El Camino Real. The purpose of both of these guidelines is primarily to provide a set of guiding principles to anticipate, evaluate, and encourage appropriate development. The guidelines are intended to create a dynamic mixed-use corridor that serves the diverse needs of the City and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users and for abutting neighbors and businesses. The project is subject to the requirements of both the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In particular, automobile parking and HVAC equipment is screened from the public right-of-way, the project does not use bright colors intended to attract attention, there is not superfluous detail added in the architecture, and perimeter landscaping as well as the required good neighbor fence is provided. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node and is specifically identified as a “strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road.” The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The proposed project does not include a mixed-use building but proposes a more intensive use of the site in a manner that is consistent with other City housing goals. The table below includes a complete analysis of consistency with these guidelines. South El Camino Real Guideline Project Consistency Section 2.2 Pedestrian Oriented Nodes, Section 2.2.1., California Avenue Area District Vision: Development in the California Avenue Segment of El Camino Real should reinforce the area's origin as an historical node with an urban, pedestrian -oriented design approach that takes advantage of California Avenue's relatively high levels of pedestrian activity. • New Buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Street level facades should have numerous pedestrian amenities. • Renovations of existing buildings should support the area as an activity node with carefully -conceived pedestrian amenities, and improved materials and signage. The proposed project is a new building along El Camino Real and includes a prominent entrance area at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill. The project includes balconies and windows facing El Camino Real though few are on the ground floor due to the proposed design. The project includes low planter walls that can also serve as seating areas as well as a new, sheltered bus stop. New street trees provide improvements to the pedestrian experience along the right-of-way. Section 2.2.1.2 California Avenue Area Strategic Sites: Page Mill Road/EI Camino Real Corner. Buildings should feature a prominent corner to anchor the large-scale intersection. The El Camino Real frontage should feature extensive windows, as well as pedestrian amenities such as an arcade or canopy, seating, and planters. Valley Transit Authority Transit Center at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real/Former Nursery site. Existing park -and -ride use should be incorporated into a more intensive use of the site that would take advantage of the prominent location. A mixed -use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. Aggregation of adjacent underutilized parcels such should be encouraged. The El Camino Real frontage at this site features planters and includes a canopy around the entrance area. The design also includes low planter walls that could serve as seats as well as an improved bus stop shelter with bench and a small bench at the entrance. The design does not include extensive windows along the El Camino Real frontage, which may be more desirable. Although there is no arcade proposed, the revised design includes a porte cochere that leads to parking in the rear instead of including a parking garage entrance, which is more desirable and breaks up massing along the frontage. Consistent with the recommendations for this specific lot, this is a more intensive use of the site. Although a mixed -use building was identified as being desirable, more recently, Council has expressed an interest in encouraging more residential uses at this site given the proximity to existing offices (PAS and SRP) and transit. Parking is subsurface, consistent with the guideline. Aggregation of adjacent parcels is unlikely given the existing active uses of adjacent sites. Section 3.1.1 Effective Sidewalk Width: In order to create a 12 -foot effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real, buildings should be set back from the El Camino Real property line sufficient to maintain 12 feet of effective sidewalk width, inclusive of the existing width of the public sidewalk (measured from the back -of -curb to the building face). The project provides an effective 12 foot sidewalk width, consistent with this policy. Note that the building is set back further in accordance with guidelines for exclusively residential projects. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.2 Sidewalk Setback Design: The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban "downtown" character. The sidewalk must be at least 12 feet wide, typically paved continuously from curb to building face. The sidewalk area should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates, planters, benches and removable cafe furniture. Tree wells with ADA-compatible metal grates should be consistently located within the effective sidewalk area adjacent to the buildings. Street trees with ADA compatible grates are provided both on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The bus stop is being relocated and improved along the El Camino Real frontage to provide covered seating for bus/shuttle users. A small gathering area identifies the entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real and provides planters, benches, and short-term bicycle parking. The building is set back further, consistent with guidelines for exclusively residential projects. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3 Build-to lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. It is recommended that buildings be designed with "build-to" lines, where the building mass/façade is built up to the setback line continuously, except for articulation such as doorways, recessed window bays, small plazas, driveways, and small parking areas to the sides of buildings. Where the facade is set back from the built-to line, low walls and hedges are encouraged to maintain the continuity of the streetscape. The project is not built up to the sidewalk; however, the project meets the guidelines under Section 7 for exclusively residential projects. The guidelines for exclusively residential projects require that the build-to line be set back 20 to 24 feet from El Camino Real. Landscaping and a defined entrance gathering area at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real help to maintain the continuity of the streetscape both along the frontage and along the street side yard facing Page Mill Road. Sufficient sidewalks as well as street trees improve the streetscape in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3a: On parcels located in node areas, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build-to/setback line. More than 75 percent of the El Camino Real frontage is built up to the build-to/setback line of 20-24 feet. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.4 Corner Parcels: For corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner. The remaining portion of the side street frontage should include features such as low walls, trellises and hedges to continue the street wall. The main entrance is located at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The building is built up to the exclusively residential setbacks at this corner and provides a well-defined entrance area with low planter wall seating and landscaping. Along the side street, low walls with landscaped planters provide privacy for the residential units while still defining the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.4a: In node areas, the building should continue at the side street setback line for a minimum of fifty percent of the side street setback property frontage The side street setback used for exclusively residential projects is between 8-12 feet for the first 50 feet and 16 feet thereafter. The project is located between 8-12 feet from the property line along Page Mill Road and then transitions further back as it transitions to the adjacent development. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.5 Minimum Height: Buildings should have a minimum height of 25 feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino real. The proposed building is 49’3” tall where the adjacent Sheridan building is approximately 45 feet with a stair tower at a maximum height of 50’ 3” and the adjacent Silverwood Condominium complex is approximately 40 feet. The project is consistent with this guideline in that the proposed project provides a presence along El Camino Real. Section 3.1.6 Entries: All buildings should have entries facing El Camino Real. Recessed entries that provide space for seating and gathering are encouraged. The entrance faces the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The entrance area includes landscaping and provides low planter walls that also serve as temporary seating area. Although this area could include more seating to better serve as a "gathering space" the proposed space is appropriate for the exclusively residential use given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.7. Increased setback: Increased setbacks are permitted only if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or outdoor dining. If a building is to be set back beyond the recommended dimension, the setback should not exceed 20 feet so that a comfortable pedestrian environment and well defined streetscape is established. Low walls should be used to define streetscape along the edge of the increased setback. The majority of the project is set back 20-24 feet along El Camino Real in accordance with Section 7 of the guidelines, which addresses exclusively residential projects. The majority of the building is set up to the 20- 24 foot build to line. A small portion of the frontage is dedicated to an activated corner with the entrance to the building, landscaping, a bench, and low walls to define the courtyard entrance area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.8 Relationship to context: New buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding buildings and street frontages. Projects should relate to adjacent buildings with complimentary building orientations and compatible landscaping Most of the building is set back approximately 20 feet or more from the adjacent residences to provide daylight/space between the existing adjacent buildings and the proposed project. This is also designed so that the building is built up to the recommended street setbacks in order to define the streetscape. The new building is similar in height to the adjacent buildings. Mature landscaping has been provided on adjacent residences and new landscaping is proposed along the streetscape and interior lot lines for screening purposes. This landscaping would be compatible with adjacent landscaping. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.1 Limited Driveway Access From El Camino Real: New developments should minimize driveways and curb cuts to reduce impacts on El Camino Real traffic flow and on-street parking. Where curb cuts are unavoidable, width should be minimized, and their impact lessened by extending the sidewalk paving material across the driveway. Although the project includes driveway access from El Camino Real, this would not be a change from existing conditions at the project site; which already include a curb cut to access the existing parking lot. The curb cut along Page Mill Road will be removed. Staff explored options for the driveway in coordination with transportation and determined that maintaining the driveway on El Camino Real was preferred for traffic flow. The curb cut for this drive aisle is the minimum necessary to accommodate access. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.2 Shared driveways: Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter into shared access agreements. The agreements must include deed restrictions so that the shared access is transferred to future owners Not applicable; the driveways for adjacent sites could not be shared with the proposed project. Section 3.2.3 Side Street Driveway Access: Where possible, driveway access to frontage properties should be from intersecting side streets Although the proposed project includes access to and from El Camino Real; the adjacent side street is also a major thruway rather than a smaller side street. Transportation evaluated traffic flow options and indicated that maintaining the access along El Camino Real rather than Oregon Expressway was preferred. Therefore, although a different location would be more consistent with the guidelines, it is not the preferred design choice for traffic flow and the project is still consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.5 Limitation on parking Lot frontage: Surface parking areas, including driveways, should not occupy more than 50 percent of a property frontage along El Camino Real, and continuous parking lot frontage may not exceed 120 feet. The project includes parking primarily below grade and the access driveway does not occupy more than 50 percent of the frontage along El Camino Real. Access to the garage and at grade parking would not be visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.6 Landscape Treatment of Parking Setback: The landscape setback for surface parking areas should be planted with trees and shrubbery that provide a strong visual edge along the street. Trees should be spaced no less than 20 feet on center to achieve a canopy effect. Low walls and shrubs can also provide an effective way to screen the lower portion of parked cars from the sidewalk. Not applicable. Only four parking spaces are provided at grade and these parking spaces are not visible from the street. The perimeter of the site is landscaped with trees to provide a visual buffer and greenery. Section 3.2.7 Ample Landscaping: landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover should permeate parking areas. Open parking areas should have a 6-foot landscape buffer along adjacent properties. Every six spaces should be separated by 4-foot minimum width landscape "fingers" planted with trees. Landscaping is provided along the property line. Only four surface parking spaces are proposed, therefore, landscape fingers are not necessary. Although six feet of landscaping would be preferred, it is not feasible, and the 5 foot landscaping buffer meets the intent of this guideline. Section 3.2.8 Architectural Elements: Architectural elements such as pergolas, arcades and low fences can further enhance the function and appearance of parking areas. Care should be taken to maintain sight lines within surface parking areas, with landscaping no higher than 30 inches in height. The design includes a porte cochère that leads to parking in the rear. Additional parking is provided below grade. Landscaping at the entrance maintains the line- of-sight triangle and provides only low shrubs or trees with a canopy taller than 10 feet to avoid line of site concerns. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.9 Easily Understood Wayfinding: Parking lots should be arranged so that drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians can find their ways easily. Generously scaled pathways should traverse parking areas so that pedestrian access is clear, safe, and pleasant. The grade level drive aisle and guest parking is located in an easily accessible area and all bicycle parking and pedestrian access is provided at grade. The four parking spots at grade level have easy access to the adjacent lobby and bike parking area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.10 Pedestrian Passageways: Pedestrian passageways leading from rear parking areas to the El Camino Real sidewalk are encouraged. Passageways should be animated with features that provide interest such as windows, trellises, benches and planting. The porte cochère that leads to the rear parking is also easily accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, urban forestry has recommended adding climbing vines to the exterior of the porte cochère. Landscaping is provided between the adjacent property and the proposed access from El Camino Real. Section 3.2.11 Shared Use Agreements: Property owners are encouraged to enter into agreements for the shared use of parking spaces. Where peak demand differs and spaces can be shared, the number of required spaces could be reduced at the discretion of the City, as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Where peak demand is effectively the same, the required number of spaces should still be provided, but by agreement, access between parking lots can be "shared" allowing people visiting one business to remain parked and walk to other businesses in the area. Not applicable; the proposed project does not include multiple uses to allow for shared parking. Immediately adjacent uses are similarly residential so shared use of those parking spaces would not be appropriate. Section 3.3.1 Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. Open Spaces such as plazas, seating areas and activity areas should be located at building entries, along or near well- travelled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Landscape and hardscape features create privacy for the residential use but also provide a relationship with the street. Although the project open space (other than landscaping) is not located on the ground level along well traveled pedestrian routes, the common space is appropriately designed given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The amenity space is functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, a BBQ, a fireplace, and landscaping. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.2 Site Landscaping: Landscaping should permeate the site, creating "outdoor rooms." The site plan should treat the site as an integrated building and landscape composition, rather than a building surrounded by obligatory strips of landscape buffer. Parking areas, spaces between buildings and property edges should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Given the size of the site and required setbacks, minimal space is available for creating "outdoor rooms." However, the applicant has created a useful entrance area that is defined through the use of a canopy, low planter walls with vegetation, and a bench. Landscaping screening is provided between interior lot lines and where more space is available at the rear a pet play area is provided. Street trees are also provided, consistent with these guidelines. Section 3.3.3 Property Edges: Property edges and spaces between buildings should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Consideration has been given to all sides of the property; however, staff would recommend increased greenery, particularly above the entrance and on the porte cochère, particularly between lot lines. Section 3.3.4 Screening: All mechanical equipment should be screened from view from all public right-of-ways, pedestrian paths and adjacent residences. Screens should be designed to be consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail, as well as the site's landscape elements. All mechanical equipment is well screened, with the exception of the transformer, which has been revised from its previous location on El Camino Real. The applicant has explored multiple locations for the transformer and has located as far from El Camino Real as feasible. Although further screening of the transformer from Page Mill would be desirable; the required eight feet of clearance in front of the transformer is required. Section 3.3.5 Low Walls: Low walls should be used for screening parking areas and mechanical equipment, for providing spacial definition and for providing seating areas near entries. Low walls provide spacial definition; creating privacy for residential units while still maintaining a connection with the streetscape. It can also be used for seating along the frontages and adjacent the site entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.6 Materials: Wall materials should be consistent and compatible with building materials. High quality, durable materials such as masonry, cement, stucco and decorative metal railing is encouraged. The project uses high quality building materials and materials for the low walls for planters throughout the project site. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.7 Paving: Accent paving at plazas, seating areas, driveway entries and pedestrian pathways is strongly encouraged. Internal streets and drives are encouraged to use pavers and other accent paving to minimize impervious surface and for visual appearance. Although the project does not include accent paving for the driveway entry; which could be an improvement, the project does include accent paving at the site entrance to improve and activate the corner. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.3.8 Cooperative Design Approach: A cooperative, rather than defensive design approach is encouraged when adjacent uses are compatible. As more properties engage in a cooperative design approach, areas will feel more like a neighborhood or district, as opposed to a collection of individual projects, and will experience more efficient and effective pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Given the design of the existing adjacent sites, a more cooperative design approach would be difficult while still providing appropriate screening. The applicant explored options for providing a pathway between the project site and Sheridan Avenue, connecting into the existing pathway at Sunrise Assisted Living; however, the owner at the adjacent property expressed concerns for the safety of their residents, some of which suffer from dementia, if gates are unsecured. 3.3.9 Privacy of Adjacent residential uses: Privacy of existing residential properties must be protected through screening and landscaping. Fencing, shrubbery, trellises and high windows should be used to protect views into residential properties. Fencing along the property line and screening trees help to protect views into residential properties. The common deck area also provides landscaping along the northeastern side facing the Silverwood condominiums to allow use of the deck without creating privacy concerns for adjacent residences. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.1 Rear daylight plane: Buildings abutting established residential areas shall have a rear daylight plane. For buildings abutting established residential areas, no structure except for television and radio antennas, chimneys and flues, shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane measured five feet above the rear property line and an angle of forty-five degrees (consistent with zoning regulations). Not applicable. Although the adjacent use along the rear of the property is residential; the site is not zoned residential. The adjacent property is a PC zone and the use of the site is high density and three levels. The building on the project site is set back further than the building on the adjacent property (10 feet) and no daylight plane is required for that adjacent property. The new ordinance would require that the daylight plan match those on adjacent properties (consistent with what is already required on PF Zoned properties). Section 4.1.2 Side and Front Daylight Planes-No requirement: it is recommended that buildings in the south El Camino Real area not to be required to have front and side daylight planes (this is a proposed modification to current zoning regulations). The project does not include a front or side daylight plane, consistent with the proposed zoning development standards. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.3 Reinforce the definition of the street: Building mass should reinforce the definition and importance of the street. Buildings shall conform to the build-to lines as outlined in Section 3 of the design guidelines to create a consistent streetwall. Not applicable. The project follows setbacks consistent with Section 7 of the design guidelines, which include different build-to lines for exclusively residential projects. Section 4.1.4 Building Composition: Building mass should be articulated to reflect a human scale, both horizontally and vertically. Examples of such building elements include articulated facades, corner elements, inset windows, highlighted entry features and prominent cornices and rooflines. There is a primary entry feature that reinforces the definition of the street and provides a human scale and easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists in particular. Some variation is provided along all sides of the building and balconies help to further break up the massing. Urban forestry has recommended that greenery, such as trellises/green walls be used more to break up the massing and provide further visual interest. Overall, the applicant has made significant improvements to break up massing on all four sides of the building through various approaches, including planters, variation at different levels, articulation, and variation in materials and color. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.5 Articulated facades: Base, Body and Roof: In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body and rood or parapet edge. This creates a shared point of reference that allows different buildings to relate to each other, regardless of individual architectural styles or approaches. The proposed project includes a canopy and landscaping at the ground level to define the base of the building. The roof deck on the third floor along page mill helps to provide definition from the fourth level and but the body and roof could use further definition. Section 4.1.6 Orientation: Buildings facing El Camino Real should be oriented parallel to the El Camino Real right -of-way to create a cohesive, well-defined streetscape. The project entrance opens to the corner to better define the corner, consistent with the guidelines. The building parallels both El Camino Real and Page Mill Road with a well-defined entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.7 Corners: Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing and architectural elements. As noted above, a well-defined entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real is provided. This is set apart through canopies, landscaping, low walls, and special paving materials. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.8 Expression of Use: Building forms should be articulated as an expression of the building use. For example, the various uses in a mixed-use building should be apparent through the pattern or scale of entries and windows, and through building elements such as arcades, awnings and balconies. The project is exclusively residential and balconies, windows and a large deck provide eyes on the street to show evidence of habitation. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.1 Relations of entries to the street: Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from El Camino Real. Buildings with the main entry on the side should include architectural elements that make the entry visible from El Camino Real and include a generously proportioned sidewalk from the street to the entry. In multi-use buildings, each building use and ground floor tenant space should have at least one functional entrance directly visible and accessible from the street. This exclusively residential building includes a clear entrance at the main intersection corner and generously proportioned sidewalks. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.2 Architectural expression of building entries: Entries should be marked by architectural features that emphasize their importance. Features such as tall building features, projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage can signify the location and importance of an entry. The entrance is clearly marked by a large projecting overhang and signage. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.1 Façade transparency: Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. "Transparency" means that one can see or have a sense of what is behind a building façade, creating an interesting and lively street face. The façade transparency could be improved, particularly along El Camino Real. However, it should be noted that windows along the El Camino Real frontage would show views into bicycle parking and a storage closet; which may not be desirable. Improved transparency into the bicycle shop may be more desirable though. Section 4.3.2 Wall Openings: Transparent doors and windows must extend at least 75% of ground floor facades facing El Camino Real or side streets, and 50% of second floor facades. Facades should have ample, articulated doors and windows to create visual interest and allow one to see inside. No more than 20% of window space may be covered by window signs. As outlined in the staff report, this project is not consistent with this guideline. However, the guideline appears to be oriented toward a commercial retail or office use rather than an exclusively residential use where transparency of this scale may not be as desirable. Section 4.3.3 Glazing: Glazing should not prevent one from seeing inside a building. The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass is discouraged, especially at ground level, because it prohibits transparency and lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. The project includes glazing in some locations on the ground floor. However, this seems appropriate in some locations based on the use. Staff will look to the architectural review board to provide further guidance on whether the project should be improved for better consistency with this guideline. Section 4.3.5 Expression of Habitation: Residential or mixed- use residential projects should incorporate elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street. This residential project includes elements that signal habitation, including entrances, balconies, and a deck. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.6 Design consistency on all facades: All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all sides, unless in a zero lot-line condition. The project considers all sides of the building, making them attractive and visually engaging. Improvements could be made to increase articulation through use of greenery or other methods, consistent with urban forestry’s recommendations. However, there is consistency in the quality of design on all facades. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.7 Architecturally Valid Details: Architectural details and features should be architecturally valid, not just decorative. Features should be related to the building's structure, function and/or engineering, rather than "tacked on" or arbitrary. The project does not include "tacked on" features. All balconies, windows, and other details of the façade are architecturally valid. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.8 Articulation and Depth: Building elevations should have variation and depth, rather than a false front treatment. Varied massing, projections and recesses can be used to create a sense of articulation and depth. Structural elements such as columns, parapets, rooflines and window fenestration can inform building design, as can functional elements such as location of entries, circulation spaces and special rooms. The building design includes varied massing and recesses to create articulation. The roofline could be improved to provide further articulation; however, overall the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.9 Rhythm and Scale: Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern measured according to human movement and scale. Architectural elements such as expressed structural bays and individual display windows (as opposed to continuous bands of glazing) can contribute to the rhythm and pattern of the facade, creating visual interest and an inviting pedestrian environment. Vertical proportions of doors, windows and projections should achieve human scale. Doors and windows achieve human scale and the project does not include continuous bands of glazing. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.10 Street Frontage Character: The street frontage should have continuous ground floor commercial uses characterized by display windows, recessed entries, and amenities such as arcades, awnings and seating areas. Grade- level and partially subgrade parking should be fronted with habitable building space such as storefront and building lobbies. The building lobby leads out to the main intersection corner and is clearly defined. The project is exclusively residential and therefore does not include ground floor commercial uses. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.1 Amenities: Building design should offer amenities to users and the public such as protection from t he elements and places for people to gather or retreat. Elements such as arcades, balconies, awnings, roof gardens and seating areas enhance the user's experience and provide architectural interest. The project includes a clear entrance with a green canopy above as well as an improved, covered bus stop bench and cover to protect transit users from the elements. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.3 Disabled Access: Disabled access should be seamlessly incorporated into the building design. Facilities should be designed to provide inviting access that all users will want to use. Disabled access is seamlessly incorporated into the design. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.4 Integral to Building Structure and Use: Amenities and functional requirements should be integrated into the overall project design. For example, awnings should be individually placed in bays and over windows, as opposed to a continuous horizontal awning that ignores building structure or use. Code and functional requirements such as life safety, disabled access, servicing and security provisions should blend into the overall design, rather than appearing added on as an afterthought. Awnings and disabled access seemed blended into the overall design rather than added as an afterthought. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.5 Screening of Service, Trash and Utility areas: Service, trash and utility areas should be screened or enclosed in structures that are consistent with the building design, in terms of materials and detailing. These are provided in the basement and will be wheeled out to a designated area at the front of the property for pickup and wheeled back down by property management. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.1 Flat roofs and parapets encouraged: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged. Gabled and hip roofs are generally discouraged except when mixed use or residential projects are reflecting an appropriate residential character based on surroundings or adjacent building forms. Although the project includes a parapet, as is encouraged, more articulation could be provided in the roofline to better reflect similar roofs at the two adjacent properties. Section 4.5.2 Parapet Design: Parapets should be provided to articulate flat roofs and hide roof mounted equipment. Parapets should have strong cornice detailing to provide scale and visual interest. A parapet roof is provided to hide HVAC equipment. However, strong cornice detailing does not appear to be provided. Section 4.5.3 Functional Integrity of roofline: Roofs and architectural elements should have functional integrity and should not be used primarily to create a "style" or "image." False roof structures such as mansards are strongly discouraged A false roof is not provided. The parapet hides HVAC equipment, providing a functional use. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.5.4 Roof Lines Consistent with Building and Context: Roof Lines and roof shapes should be consistent with the design and structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines of adjacent buildings. The roof line is consistent with the proposed style of the building, which has a more modern appearance; however, it is inconsistent with adjacent rooflines. Section 4.5.5 Roof Forms Reflect Façade Articulation: Roof forms should reflect the façade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof over an articulated façade. The proposed roof could be improved to provide better articulation. Section 4.5.6 Roof Materials: Roof materials should reflect the character and use of the buildings. Highly reflective or brightly colored roof materials are strongly discouraged. The project uses roof material that reflects the character of the building. No bright colors are used. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.7 Screening or Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop Mechanical equipment should be screened with either an equipment screen or penthouse. The Screen or penthouse should have a material and form similar to the building. The project includes HVAC equipment on the roof that is screened by a parapet. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.1 Materials Integrity and Durability: Exterior Building material and finishes should convey a sense of integrity, permanence and durability. The selection of appropriate materials and finishes has a powerful impact on the perception of quality. The project uses high quality building materials (See materials board). Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.2 Mix of Materials: Juxtaposition of contrasting materials, such as masonry and glass, can create interest when carefully integrated. Thoughtful attention should be given to the selection of the full range of materials in a project--from the wall finishes, paving and roofing to window frames and door hardware. The project uses quality materials and uses appropriate materials for windows, doors, and paving finishes. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.8.3 Materials Reflect Articulation of Building Elements: Change in materials should be used to articulate building elements such as base, body parapets caps, bays, arcades and structural elements. Change in materials should be integral with building facade and structure, rather than an application. Materials should not change at outside corners or in the same plane of the facade. The project includes changes in color and material along different planes of the façade to create visual interest. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 5, Signage Not Applicable. Signage is not currently proposed as part of the project; although the minimal signage being considered is shown for reference purposes. Any specific future signage proposed would be required to meet all of the guidelines under Section 5. Section 7.1 El Camino Real Residential Setback: Exclusively residential projects are required to be setback between 20 to 24 feet from the El Camino Real curb. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.2 El Camino Real Setback Design: The 20-foot El Camino Real setback on exclusively residential buildings shall include an effective sidewalk measuring at least twelve feet wide, lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. The project provides a 12' effective sidewalk width and includes street trees and low screen planter walls to define the sidewalk. Vegetation screening is also provided between property lines. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.3 El Camino Real Build-To Line: The 20 to 24-foot El Camino Real setback required for exclusively residential project shall also serve as the build to line. This will ensure that new projects contribute to the overall continuity of the streetscape. Buildings may only be set back from the setback/build-to line if the additional set-back provides amenities such as a wider sidewalk or outdoor seating. In no cases should an increased setback have a frontage greater than twenty feet. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.4 Sidestreet setback: on corner properties, exclusively residential projects are required to be setback 16 feet from the sidestreet property line, with a sidewalk measuring at least eight feet wide lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. Stoops and porches may project eight feet into the setback. Although the project is not built 16 feet from the side street property line, guideline 7.2.1 encourages the project to be built up to 8-12 feet from the property line for corner properties. The project is consistent with this guideline. Low screen walls are used to define the sidewalk. Section 7.1.5 Parking: Parking must be located behind buildings or in underground or podium structures. Parking should be accessed from side streets where possible, and should have a minimum appearance on streetscape and function. The proposed parking garage entrance is not visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. The at-grade parking spaces are also not visible from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline Section 7.2.1 50-foot "boulevard Character" Zone: The portion of a residential project within fifty feet of the El Camino Real setback shall have a prominent massing and presence appropriate to the scale and importance of the thoroughfare. Buildings in this zone should have a dignified character, with units grouped below a single or large scale roof forms. The side street build-to line within the Boulevard zone shall range from eight to twelve feet. The project provides an 8’7” setback along the Boulevard zone, consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.2. Transitional Zone: The portion of a residential project beyond the fifty-foot Urban Character Zone should be designed to provide a transition between the urban character of El Camino Real and the more residential character of adjacent neighborhoods. Buildings in this zone should transition from the scale of El Camino Real development to a scale compatible with adjacent existing residences. Row houses and apartments with balconies and stoops can provide an appropriate transition in many instances. Units may be grouped into a single building but should feature individual entries, porches and balconies. Where adjacent existing development is urban in character, this zone may take on a similarly urban character. Although the project does not transition to provide individual unit entrances, as outlined in this guideline, the project is consistent with the nature of the site. Adjacent uses along Page Mill Road are not low density residential neighborhoods. The adjacent use is similarly a high density residential use subject to PC zoning. In addition, the side street is a high traffic volume County thruway rather than a smaller, residential street. Therefore the project is appropriately designed based on the context of the site. Section 7.2.3 Side street Build-to lines: On Corner properties, the side street build-to line within the Boulevard Zone shall be 8 to 16 feet from the property line. The side street build-to line within the transitional zone shall be 16 feet. This will ensure that the corner is well defined and that a transition is made to existing adjacent residential properties. A request may be made for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the 8' to 16' setback. The portion of the project within the boulevard zone is located 8'7" from the property line, consistent with this guideline. Although the project does not transition to 16 feet, the adjacent use is similarly a high density residential use subject to PC zoning rather than a low density residential use. Therefore the project is appropriately designed based on the context of the site. Section 7.2.4 El Camino Real entryway: Exclusively residential buildings shall each have a prominent pedestrian entryway facing El Camino Real. The entryway should include elements such as overhangs, awnings, columns, low walls, steps and ramps to create a strong presence. The proposed project includes an entrance at the corner of the site. The entry includes a green canopy as well as low planter walls and decorative pavers to define the entrance and create a strong presence. The change in material at the entrance also helps to define the entrance. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.5 Entry design: Building and unit entries should be the most prominent feature of the façade. The importance of the entry should be emphasized through unique massing, level of detail, and materials. Design should be compatible with the overall building design. The project is designed such that the most prominent feature is the entrance at the corner at El Camino Real and Page Mill. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.6 Entry Scale: Building and unit entries should have a scale appropriate to the context and number of units provided access. Entries facing El Camino Real, providing access to a number of units, should have an appropriately prominent scale and high level of design. Side street and internal entries with access to a smaller number of units or just one unit, should have a more residential scale. The entry facing el Camino Real provides access to a number of units and, in turn, is prominent in scale and includes a high level of design. Other access points are more pedestrian in scale. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.7 Active Street frontage: Residential Project should maintain an active ground-floor street frontage. Uses such as lobbies, community rooms, and habitable outdoor terraces and plazas should be situated along ground floor street frontages. Windows and doorways should be designed to create an interesting streetscape. The lobby has been revised to be provided at grade and a large entrance area activates the corner. The entrance includes doorways to the bike kitchen and bicycle parking as well as the lobby. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.8 Architectural Character and Scale: The architecture which fronts El Camino Real in the Boulevard Zone should be substantial in character and scale with a strong presence. Buildings should have a dignified character, and should address the street to provide a strong street edge. Building and detail scale should be appropriate to the boulevard-scale of El Camino Real. The proposed project within the boulevard zone is built up to the recommended build-to line to define the streetscape. The detail scale is appropriate to the boulevard scale of El Camino Real. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.9 Roof Forms: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged along El Camino Real to provide a cohesive appearance. Roofs in the transitional zone may be either flat or gabled, depending on the neighborhood contact, and should be articulated to indicate individual units. Parapets on flat roofs should be articulated with well-designed details. Roofs over corners and major entries should be more strongly articulated for architectural legibility. The proposed project includes a flat roof, consistent with the recommendation of this guideline. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.10 Façade Articulation: Building massing should be articulated to create a strong rhythm in the building facades and should emphasize groupings of units. Typically, facades in the urban character zone will emphasize groups of units, while facades in the Transitional zone will emphasize individual units. Facades should be articulated with bays, terraces, balconies, awnings, stoops and recessed openings to provide visual interest and scale. The façade along both the El Camino Real right-of-way and the Page Mill Road right-of-way are articulated by balconies to provide visual interest and scale. And emphasize individual units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.11 Partially-Recessed or Underground Garage treatment: Where parking is provided in a partially- submerged/split-level garage, the ventilated garage façade should be completely screened with architectural and landscape devices. Ventilation opening size should be minimized and screened with decorative grillwork and landscaping. Stoops should extend beyond the garage facade, particularly on side street frontages, and be spaced no more than 50 feet apart. Screening of the podium should not rely entirely on landscaping. Exposed podiums may not extend more than 5 feet above grade along any frontage. The proposed project is raised four feet above grade at the residences. However, the entrance is provide at grade, consistent with staff’s recommendations. Landscaping and low walls screen the podium along the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.12 privacy of street-level residences: Residences at or near street level should be designed to ensure privacy of the residents from passersby. Low walls (no more than four feet in height), hedges and grade changes should be used to create privacy while maintaining a relationship to the street. Where the grade change (including partially submerged parking) is used, the raised portion should be designed to read as the base of the building, with an architectural treatment consistent with the rest of the building. The project includes a grade change, along with low walls and landscaping to create privacy between the ground level residences and the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Attachment P Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were provided to Councilmembers. These documents are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Current Planning” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending and Approved Projects”, then “View Pending Projects.” 4. Scroll to find “2755 El Camino Real” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the environmental analysis Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real sv@home Board of Directors Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Christine Carr Katie Ferrick Linkedln Arnie Fishman Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director Transmitted via email May 23, 2018 Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Councilmembers DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, and Wolbach, Re: 2755 El Camino Road On behalf of our members, SV@Home gives enthusiastic support to Windy Hills Property Investments' application to develop a 57 -unit workforce housing development in Palo Alto. Located on a surplus VTA parking lot, this project will provide needed below -market homes for moderate -income workers, allowing them to live close to their jobs and reducing transit time and costs. SV@Home advocates for housing affordability for all and we support developments that create naturally affordable housing that target the missing middle. "Missing Middle" can mean different things. It can describe the people— the teachers, nurses, construction workers, and others who don't qualify for traditional income -restricted housing but can't afford market rents. It can also describe the housing type-- smaller units, townhouses and row houses, stacked flats, duplexes and fourplexes, and even Accessory Dwelling Units. The Windy Hills development, with its small units that range from 502 to 645 square feet, is a great example of Missing Middle housing. Six of the units are restricted to individuals and families with incomes below 120% of Area Median Income, and the remaining units, while not restricted, will be more naturally affordable due to their size. It is not a secret that Palo Alto is one of the most expensive markets in the nation, with average home prices exceeding $3 million ($1,699 per square foot according to Zillow). Rental rates exceed $3,000 a month, requiring a six -figure income. Very few housing opportunities exist in the City for workers earning lower- and moderate -income wages. We urge the City Council to support this worthy project without delay. Sincerely, Pilar Lorenzana Deputy Director Cc: Claire Hodgkins 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San Jose, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathorne.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 February 1, 2018 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project. I am local and frequent the area nearby, especially Mayfield soccer fields and Stanford Research Park. This would serve as a big benefit to people like me that are looking for smaller, more affordable housing in the area. This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly, the City as a whole since it includes the following: • Work-Force Units - Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto • Income Restricted Units - 20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-150% AMI) • Palo Alto Employee Preferences - Palo Alto employees will be given a preference for a portion of the units, so that employees within the city have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city • Sustainable, High Quality Design - sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high- quality design at a very visible corner. • Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access to multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities. • Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project. TDM measures include Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a vehicle • GreenTRIP Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city Sincerely, Leo Vera Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 January 2018 RE:2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, As a Paly High graduate and native Palo Altan I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council,as they consider this project at future meetings.I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project. This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly,the City as a whole since it includes the following: • Work-‐Force Units -‐Smaller residential units,comprised of studios and one-‐bedroom units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto • Income Restricted Units -‐20% of the units will be income-‐restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-‐150% AMI) • Palo Alto Employee Preferences -‐Palo Alto employees will be given a preference for a portion of the units, so that employees within the city have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city • Sustainable, High Quality Design -‐sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high-‐quality design at a very visible corner. • Transit Proximity-‐Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station;direct access to multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities. • Robust TDM Plan-‐A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project.TDM measures include Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes;construction of a new Bus Shelter;a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a vehicle • GreenTRIP Certification –The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city. Sincerely, John Mcgraw John Mcgraw Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 January 2018 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, As a Palo Alto native, Paly graduate and former resident of 25 years with parents still living in nearby College Terrace, I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project. The project will be an asset to our community in that it promotes and supports our City’s goals as they pertain to the provision of additional housing in our community to serve our local workforce and developing housing in appropriate locations near transit to reduce vehicle trips and promote healthy lifestyle choices that include walking and bicycling. This project will also replace an existing parking lot with a sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high-quality design at a very visible corner. While providing for 57 new residential units, the building is also in context with height, massing and scale of the adjacent residential uses. This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly, the City as a whole since it includes the following components:  Work-Force Units-Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto.  Income Restricted Units-20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-150% AMI).  Palo Alto Employee Preferences- Palo Alto employees will be given a preference for a portion of the units, so that employees within the city have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city.  Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities.  Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project. A variety of measures TDM measures are included to maximize the use of adjacent transit amenities: including Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a vehicle.  GreenTrip Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city. Sincerely, From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:04:31 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: D Caleb Hauser [mailto:dcalebhauser@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:49 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino Real Dear Commission - Regarding the VTA property at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real. I urge you to not up-zone the property to allow multi family housing. The property should have 100% public benefit which I do not think more housing accomplishes. Please do not re-zone the property. Thank You, Caleb Hauser Ventura Neighborhood. January 31, 2018 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, The VTA lot is a sorely under-optimized site and there is certainly enthusiasm in the community to test the efficacy of a high density, small unit, car-light housing project. Nonetheless, I urge you to proceed carefully with an eye toward unintended consequences. Please remember that:  Public Facilities zoning serves important functions that cannot compete on the open market for land;  High density, car-light housing is but one piece of a complicated puzzle;  In good government, policy drives projects, not the other way around; and  Valid experiments demand careful controls. In that spirit, I share the concerns below and ask that you give them due consideration in your deliberations tonight. I know that many are anxious to move this “pilot” forward. But please take care to ensure that the solution fits the purpose, does not pre-empt other city priorities or deliberations, and moves forward in a manner that engenders public trust. I hope that you will resist premature PTC recommendations and focus your votes tonight on teeing up key considerations for refinement of the draft ordinance and project plan. Such an approach would be informative to the public and provide valuable insights to guide discussion and guidance related to Council’s draft Housing Work Plan. 1. PF zoning serves a critical public purpose, fundamental to the long term well-being of the community.  Long-term impacts: The combining district before you tonight creates a strong incentive to convert public facilities parcels to permanent housing use. As our population grows, so will the need for public facilities (schools, parks, municipal operations, etc.). If we convert PF parcels to housing, without setting aside other locations for needed facilities, we’ll be in a big bind down the road.  Schools: By conservative estimates, the Comp Plan housing targets will add up to 2,210 kids to PAUSD’s enrollment and Stanford’s expansion will add 550. Accommodating an additional 2,760 students (the total operational capacity of all our middle schools combined) will require creative solutions and use of sub- optimal sites. Reducing the availability of PF designated sites could severely limit our options in precisely the neighborhoods targeted for the most population (and therefore student) growth.  Parks: PF parcels available for conversion under the proposed combining district include, among others, the Stanford-Mayfield playing fields, the AT&T property abutting Boulware Park (under current negotiation for purchase to expand Boulware park in the underserved Ventura neighborhood) and a pocket park adjacent to the former North Face store. None of these sites are protected as dedicated parkland; the soccer fields and AT&T site are not owned by the city. If adopted, the monetary value of PF parcels in the proposed combining district would immediately jump, creating strong profit incentives to convert them to housing use. PAUSD would face greater cost and shrinking options to locate facilities near population growth. Stanford would have a strong disincentive to renew the city’s lease on the soccer fields. Purchase of the AT&T site for park use would be dead in the water. 2. Action on the combining district and recommendation of this site and design is premature. City Council has yet to have its first discussion of an ambitious draft Housing Work Plan. While a study session on the proposed zoning text amendment is a good way to kick off community conversation and can offer valuable insights to Council as it reviews the draft Work Plan, formal action by the PTC implicating so many elements of an un-approved work plan is inappropriate at this time.  BMR inclusionary requirements: A big piece of the Work Plan includes deciding whether to impose BMR requirements on rental projects – moving on this project in advance of that decision means we lose any opportunity to get meaningful BMR units out of it.  High densities, car-light housing, and public land: Another big piece of the Work Plan is to explore these types of incentives and opportunities for increasing housing supply. However explicit Council direction called for changes that are “appropriately applied in different areas of our community with sensitivity to location and current land use patterns.” Recommending this large combining district to accommodate a specific project, without Council guidance, (or even consideration) on a range of parameters, runs counter to that direction.  Fact-based parking decisions: A third big piece of the Work Plan includes research and data collection regarding parking demand for different housing types/locations in Palo Alto. The proposed one-size fits all approach before you extends the impact of an experimental car-light pilot to 77 parcels without the benefit of that data and analysis. 3. Unproven test case should inform, but not drive wide-reaching policy.  Who’s driving? According to the staff report, the applicant has proposed the combining district ordinance. An applicant is the epitome of an interested party. While it is helpful to have the specifics of this project to inform options, trade- offs and financial feasibility, a combining district that impacts so many parcels must be evaluated on its broad merits, independent of a specific project.  Urgency/efficiency undermines responsible process: PTC action on the map amendment and site and design is premature. Until a combining district ordinance is considered and approved by Council, the project remains illegal and action to recommend it is founded on hypotheticals. By putting the cart before the horse, formal action by the PTC weakens its legitimacy and undermines the goal of a fair hearing for both the applicant and the community. 4. Controls matter.  Pilot = Experiment. By designing a city-wide combining district to accommodate a single test project, the city risks perpetuating undesirable impacts should the experiment fail. Buildings are permanent. If the ordinance is driven by interest in testing an idea, shouldn’t it include extra checks and balances and/or flexibility to respond in the event of failure? For example, failure to implement the required TDM would be a code enforcement violation, but only subject to existing administrative penalties (which are almost never imposed). The draft ordinance offers strong incentives to build needed housing (density, parking, etc); shouldn’t there be commensurately strong penalties for failure to comply with TDM commitments that lie at the core of the concept? Are there adaptive design elements that should be included in projects eligible for the combining district? Good experiments require controls and public trust requires balanced incentives. Thank you for considering my comments. I look forward to a hearty discussion this evening. Sincerely, Jennifer Chang Hetterly From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: [PAcampaigns] PTC to vote on VTA lot project (car-light, 57 small units) Wednesday at 6pm Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:10:27 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: dskeehn@pacbell.net [mailto:dskeehn@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:54 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: FW: [PAcampaigns] PTC to vote on VTA lot project (car-light, 57 small units) Wednesday at 6pm I totally agree with both of these opinions. We need much more community discussion before changing any zoning regulations. It is too rushed, and will affect our city negatively, congestion, enough public facilities for our community. This need to be brought to the public and offer forums for information, and effects before decisions are made. Suzanne Keehn 4876 Orme St. 94306 : My email focuses on only one issue: EP/M RPP what is the opinion of Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods regarding Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP ordinance and car light project on VTA parking lot? Just for the record, I am not categorically against the housing project proposed for the VTA lot. I cannot support any project that created any spillover parking into the current boundaries of EP/M RPP These PTC considerations are not clearly presented in manageable context to your existing RPP. None of the terms for VTA lot should be acceptable to anyone without binding covenants [or some legal, binding restriction ] to assure that tenants/owners in the VTA Parking Lot workforce housing project are ineligible in perpetuity from inclusion as residents or workers in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP program. This inclusion any expansion of boundaries to incorporate this housing proposal. Enforcement over time is an issue requiring city attorney and planning staff assurance. Based on city staff and council's past record of poor enforcement and poorly written restrictions, staff and Council must be held accountable for negative parking impact upon existing EP/M RPP. Extreme stewardship should be expected from staff, Planning Commission and Council. It is not evident to me. This issue should be concern of every residential neighborhood in Palo Alto...especially multi-unit neighborhoods where parking shortages are more evident. Un-managed spillover parking will even greater negative impact. Furthermore, PTC should not take any action with full discussion of the recent state legislation and pending legislation SB827 and SB 828. The general public is not aware of existing legislation nor pending legislation. Only this week has the general public become aware of position taken by the California League of Cities. See attached document and link http://blob.capitoltrack.com/17blobs/315296bd-fe4c-4e2c-b021- f163c71f5e7e Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Here's the staff report. And here's a summary of what will be approved as well as some bullet points about issues of potential concern. It's worth noting that this project has tremendous momentum and substantial support in the community as a whole. Straight up opposition to the project will fall on deaf ears, but thoughtful attention to the issues below might create space for fuller consideration (i.e., a second hearing instead of action on all three items at one time) and incremental improvements. First, the PTC will vote on a zoning overlay (combining district) ordinance to create opportunity for high density, "workforce housing" on all PF (public facility) zoned properties within 1/2 mile of fixed rail transit (77 sites total, 43 owned by the city, 20 controlled by Caltrain). 20% must be available to households between 120 and 150% of Area Median Income (AMI), excluding any required BMR units. AMI is $79,300 for single occupancy, $80,560 for double occupancy, and $113,300 for family of four. Therefore 150% of AMI = $119k/yr for single, $121k/yr for couple, $170k/yr for family. 50 foot height limit, max unit size 750 sf, 2.0 FAR Parking requirement 1 space per unit or bedroom whichever is greater Must have TDM Preference must be given for potential tenants who work in the vicinity (within one mile of site, within three miles of site, or who's work is within 1/2 mile of major fixed rail transit station, in that order) Second, it will vote on a zoning map amendment ordinance granting this specific site the overlay benefits (primarily: reduced parking, higher density, FAR). Third, it will vote to recommend the site and design of this specific project: 57 rental units (40 studios, 17 one-bedrooms). Six of those would be deed restricted at 140% of AMI and six at 150% of AMI. 60 below ground puzzle lift parking spaces (unbundled = not included in rent), plus four (4) total guest parking spaces at grade. City's 15% inclusionary (BMR) requirement doesn't apply because city has not yet acted to apply it to rentals (newly allowed under state law.) Project is outside the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP, so tenants will NOT have access to permits. However, there is no RPP in the residential neighborhoods on the other side of Page Mill. Issues: - PF zoning serves critical purpose, fundamental to long term well-being of the community. Long term impacts: Combining district creates strong incentive to convert public facilities parcels to permanent housing use. As we build more housing, population will grow - therefore need for public facilities will also grow. If we convert those parcels to housing, without setting aside other locations for needed facilities, we'll be in a big bind down the road. Undermines other valued uses: Significantly raises the property value for effected PF parcels, putting them at greater risk of conversion (e.g., the Stanford-Mayfield soccer fields are not dedicated parkland - will increase resistance to dedication and perhaps make Stanford less inclined to renew/extend lease for current use (it'd be FAR more profitable for them to convert it to housing when lease runs out). Disrupts current negotiations to purchase AT&T property for parkland (expand Ventura's tiny Boulware park) - FAR more profitable for owner to hold out for higher price from housing developer. Gives up limited city leverage to extract community benefits: use and development options in PF zones is limited, thus limiting the value of the parcels. A housing overlay immediately changes that, offering significant profit potential, while giving up the ability to define and serve other public needs on those sites. Is the community getting a fair exchange appropriately targeted to community needs? - Premature to rush through new ordinance (combining district) prior even to Council's first discussion of it's proposed housing work plan. BMR Inclusionary requirements: Big piece of housing work plan includes deciding whether to impose inclusionary (BMR) requirements on rental projects - moving on this project in advance of that decision means we lose opportunity to get BMR out of it. Fact based parking decisions: Big piece of housing work plan includes research and data collection regarding parking demand for different housing types/locations in Palo Alto. This one-size fits all approach extends the impact of an experimental car-light pilot to 77 parcels without the benefit of that data and analysis. Is PF the right combining district: Big piece of housing work plan includes encouraging workforce housing near transit - designing the combining district to meet the needs of this single project limits the potential scope of workforce housing benefits. (though this is tricky, cuz could get even broader overlay that loosens development requirements for many more parcels). - Test case should not drive policy: New combining district/overlay ordinance is being rushed through to accommodate this specific project. Pilot = experiment. What is the recourse if the pilot fails? If an entire combining district/overlay ordinance is driven by interest in testing an idea, shouldn't it include extra checks and balances and/or flexibiilty to address failure? For example, failure to implement the required TDM is a code enforcement violation, but only subject to existing administrative penalties (which are almost never imposed). Staff is proposing strong incentives (density, parking, etc), should there be commensurately strong penalties for failure to comply with TDM commitments? Are there adaptive design elements that should be included in projects eligible for the overlay? Who's driving? According to the staff report, the applicant has proposed the zoning overlay (combining district) ordinance. Epitome of an interested party. Policy should drive proposals, not the other way around. PTC should hold study session to evaluate ordinance independent of the specific project. Taking into account not only the city's enthusiasm for this project, but also the issues described above. Urgency/efficiency undermines responsible process: No action should be taken on the specific project until after the combining district ordinance is approved. PTC action on map amendment and site and design is premature - until there's an ordinance, the project is illegal and action to recommend it is founded on hypotheticals. Magnitude of the benefit: Because all 57 units will be small, the price differential between the market-rate units and the 12 sub-market rate units is small, on the magnitude of a $200-$400 per month for singles earning $119k/yr. - Misleading terminology: In the public mind, workforce housing has become almost a term of art synonymous with housing for teachers, firefighters and local service workers. There's lots of political support for housing those populations, but this "Workforce housing" combining district does NOT prioritize those groups. Set-asides are based only on income, not occupation, and nearby workforce attachment is a preference, not a requirement. Income targets are important and good, as is local workforce attachment, but the city should be proactively clear and specific to ensure that the public doesn't think it's getting one thing when in fact it gets another. If possible, come and voice your concerns, in person, about this project. <blocked.gif> _______________________________________________ PAcampaigns mailing list PAcampaigns@lists.sonic.net https://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/pacampaigns From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: in favor of proposed project at 2755 El Camino Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:10:04 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ingle [mailto:frankwingle@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:12 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: in favor of proposed project at 2755 El Camino I recommend approval of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino. “Residentialists" such as myself are most concerned about privacy, traffic congestion, and parking. This project scores well on these issues. Privacy: The residents next door will have less noise than before because of less exposure to Page Mill and El Camino traffic noise. Traffic congestion: It is time for more very small apartments next to public transit. This location is close to California Avenue and not far from downtown, by walking or bike. Also close to Caltrain for trips to San Francisco where use of a car is a liability. Parking: Limited parking in this project, but residents in this project could save money by doing without a car. Only entry level single residents are likely to want to rent such small spaces, and it will be convenient for them to walk or bike if they work in Palo Alto, or commute by rail or bus to another nearby location. Young singles would enjoy proximity to Palo Alto downtown, California Avenue, and nearby Stanford University and shopping center. I wish there were dozens more projects like this one along El Camino. Frank Ingle 814 Richardson Ct Palo Alto From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Opposition to up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:54:43 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Neva Hauser [mailto:hauser.neva@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:30 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: Opposition to up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Ventura, I oppose the current proposed up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to the zoning code or to extract a real public benefit from the developers in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF property sets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zoned property is offered for sale. If 2755 ECRis up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zoned property outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. It is very important to develop DIVERSITY in a community and I implore you to fight for that. Thank you. Neva Hauser Ventura resident From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Fate of VTA Lot Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:55:52 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Simon Hauser [mailto:simondhauser@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:48 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: Fate of VTA Lot Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Ventura, I oppose the current proposed up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to the zoning code or to extract a real public benefit from the developers in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF property sets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zoned property is offered for sale. If 2755 ECR is up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zoned property outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. Thank you. YOUR NAME -- Simon Hauser simondhauser@gmail.com From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 123 people in support of the project at 2755 El Camino Real Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:54:13 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Eric Rosenblum [mailto:mitericr@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:21 AM To: Planning Commission Cc: board@paloaltoforward.com; Grant Dasher; Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Subject: 123 people in support of the project at 2755 El Camino Real To the Planning and Transportation Commission-- Palo Alto Forward strongly supports the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real, and hopes that you recommend Council approve it. This is the sort of project that Palo Alto Forward was formed around: · Smaller unit size = more affordable, adding to Palo Alto's housing diversity · Transit centric: located 0.5 miles from Caltrain with a host of TDM benefits · High affordability: 20% of units are "deed restricted", which puts restrictions on the income level for potential renters This is the sort of project that Palo Alto should be building, and the fact that the developer will be giving preference to Palo Alto employees makes it all the sweeter (also, making it more likely that car-light lifestyles can be attained). We thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will recommend this project. Sincerely, Eric Rosenblum President, Palo Alto Forward The following 123 individuals have signed on to this letter: A.C. Johnston Aasim Jukaku Adrienne Lee Akash Jain Aleksandar Totic Amber Kerr amie ashton Amy Sung Andrea Arjona Amador Andrew Brackenbury Anna Tchetchetkine Annette Isaacson Baq Haidri Barbara Hing Barbara Kingsley Barbara Turner Becky Richardson Betsy Bechtel Bryan Silverthorn Carol Lamont Charles Salmon Clayton Nall Cynthia Lee Daniel Asmat David Foster David Kleiman Dean Samos Dena Mossar Diane Meier Diane Morin Donald Anthony Donald Barr Doug Radtke Drew Maran Ed Wu Elaine Uang Elizabeth Steinberg Eric Kwan Eric Nee Eric Rosenblum Evan Goldin Fred Glick Gary Fine Geoff Ball George Chippendale Geraldine Maro Gloria Burd Heidi Emberling Heidi yenney Iqbal Serang Jacob Vincent Jan Rubens Jared Bernstein Jeffrey Salzman Jeremy Hoffman Jessica Clark John Hamilton John Kelley Joy Sleizer Joyce Beattie Julan Chu Karen Kalinsky Karen Schlesser Kevin Keene Kevin Watts Kim Engie kumiko yoshinari Kyla Farrell Lawrence Garwin Lisa Ratner Lisa Bao Lisa Pschcke-Koedt Lynnie Melena Mallary Alcheck Marc Grinberg Margaret Rosenbloom marianne mueller Mark Kennedy Marly Carlisle Mary Gallagher Matthew Lewis Mehdi Alhassani Melonie Brophy Michael Cutchin Michael Kieschnick Mike Buchanan Mike Greenfield Naphtali Knox Neil Shea Nicole Lederer Olya Krasnykh Omar Diab Owen Byrd Ozzie Fallick Patricia Saffir Paul Goldstein Paul Heft Pavla Fryer Peter Rice Randy Mont-Reynaud Raul Rojas Rebecca Geraldi Roberta Ahlquist Sally Wood Sam Corbett-Davies Sandra Slater Sara Woodham Sarit Schube Snow Zhu Spencer Choi Stephanie Munoz Munoz stephen levy steve eittreim Steven Atneosen Steven Russell Stuart Bernstein Thomas Wasow Timothy Bauman Tricia Herrick Trina Lovercheck Urs Hoelzle Veselin Stoyanov Victor Siu From:Gitelman, Hillary To:Hodgkins, Claire; French, Amy Subject:FW: Public Input on the Public Safety Building and Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:19:17 AM Comments on both of your PTC items… Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:25 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Levinsky; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Public Input on the Public Safety Building and Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning My name is Hamilton Hitchings and I am a long time Palo Alto resident. I am very involved as an Emergency Services Volunteer and served on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan. Below are my personal comments on the Public Safety Building and proposed Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning. PTC Agenda Item #3 The original justification for the new Public Safety Building was to build a seismically safe building that could withstand a major earthquake. The San Andreas fault is 5 miles away and can experience up to a 7.9 magnitude earthquake and thus the new Stanford Hospital is being built to withstand an 8.0. Please ensure the Public Safety Building is designed to withstand an earthquake in the high 7s and still be operational thereafter. Based on the last discussion I was at, at a city council meeting it did not appear that city staff was planning on designing to this high level of resilience so please ensure they do. As a Palo Alto Emergency Services volunteer, one of the most important pieces of infrastructure during an earthquake is the communications infrastructure. Thus I support the Public Safety building having a very tall communications tower. In addition, below ground parking is important to park all their vehicles without consuming public parking. They also need space to park some very large vehicles and that's supported in their plan. PTC Agenda Item 2 Public Facilities Zoned Properties enable broad based community services such as animal shelters, medical facilities, etc… Rezoning a public facilities property for housing benefits a select few and thus it is critical that if this is done, it be for moderate income who provide critical public services such as teachers, nurses, EMTs, young police officers and public safety officers as well as community service and health care workers. In addition, the owner paid for a property restricted to public facility and this upzoning results in a large financial winfall for the property owner/developer resulting in a large financial giveaway. Upzoning is the property of the city of Palo Alto and its residents. Thus while the developer deserves to make a reasonable profit for their investment and risk, the majority of the value of this upzone should be used to subsidize the housing. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not deed restrict the 40 of the 57 units, which is far too low. Keep in mind in San Antonio Shopping Center apartments that 535 to 638 square feet were renting for $3,000 to $5,500 so when the applicant says that because these are smaller apartments they will be cheaper but please keep in mind that does not mean they will be particularly affordable. No In Lieu of fees should be approved and instead the BMR should be provided via units in this project. The upzoning should not exceed the height limit for this area, which I believe is 35 feet and should not be 50 feet as currently proposed. Sufficient parking should be provided so there is not spillover parking into the local neighborhoods. The city has consistently underestimated and inadequately zoned the amount of parking needed which is why we are one of the only cities in the Bay Area that allows employees to park in residential neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhoods are currently underparked so a parking permit program has been implemented. In addition, the staff report compares this site to 801 Alma which is 100% low and very low income which is not comparable with the current proposed renter profile, which likely will have a higher percentage car ownership. I am also opposed to ground floor retail as the need for more housing is far greater than the need for more retail. In terms of roof garden, etc… please be careful it doesn’t allow people to look down into neighbors windows from above or cause excess light at night. Thank you for your consideration. Hamilton Hitchings From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:22:15 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: David Adams [mailto:david_94306@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:06 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino Real Dear Commissioners: Having lived on Olive Avenue for over 20 years I would like to make the following points regarding this project: 1. At a rate of 1.2 parking spaces/unit, inclusive of guest parking, I feel that there will not be enough parking for residents. Even though i ride a bike to work and do many errands by bike, it still is not possible to live in this area without a car. For example, the bike shop at the end of the road was evicted, the pet food shop around the corner closed down and many of the neighborhood shops on Cali Ave have been turned into restaurants or beauty salons. To travel by public transport at the weekend is to spend the whole day getting there and back. For these reasons, I would like to see the parking increased. However, instead of taking my word for it there should have been an analysis of car ownership of local residents included in the report so that it could be guided by data rather than wishful thinking. 2. Given the shortfall of parking I am concerned that residents will park their cars in the Pepper/Olive area. This is more predictable given that Evergreen/Park Mayfield have an RPP but the Ventura area doesn't. 3. I am deeply concerned about any new developments that increase traffic on Park Blvd between Lambert and Cali Ave. This project will cause the ECR/Page Mill intersection to get even worse and hence create more cut-through traffic on Park. I feel there is no coordinated plan for all of the developments in this area, notwithstanding the recently announced NVCAP. Each development has increased traffic on Park which is now a bike boulevard in name only. How about some traffic calming on Park as a prerequisite for any new developments. 4. I do not agree that this site should be re-zoned. This would set a very bad precedent and encourage developers to buy up all PF zoned property in the city. Regards David Adams Olive Ave Palo Alto From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Project Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:58 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Angie Evans [mailto:angiebevans@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:50 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino Real Project Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I am writing in support of the 2755 El Camino Real project. I will be sending a similarletter to the associate planner as well. I live in Palo Alto with my husband, our daughter,and our dog. I also work for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County andhave worked on housing related issues since moving here in 2014. When we moved heremy expertise was in organizing advocacy groups around federal budget andappropriations but my focus quickly changed. If you live in the Bay Area then you can’tescape talking about the cost of living. For longtime residents I often hear frustrationabout where their kids will live, or how their kids are still living at home, or how theywill have to leave the area when they retire because downsizing here isn’t an option. Fornewer residents like myself, the option of homeownership will never be within grasp. Wehave very few effective, local tenant protections and so the stability that most of us seekis also out of grasp. While your decision-making body cannot change the cost of housingovernight or pass a measure to stabilize rents, you can approve strong projects, like thisone, that will benefit our community. Next door in Menlo Park we just learned thatquality of life has gone down by 14% in just 2 years because of housing costs and traffic.This project would allow Palo Alto to build some of the income-restricted units that weso badly need here, near public transit, and with a preference for local workers. Istrongly encourage you to support 2755 El Camino Real moving forward. Best,Angie Evans 860 Newell Road Palo Alto, California 94303 From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 ECR Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:32 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Rebecca Sanders [mailto:rebsanders@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:07 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 ECR Dear Commissioners: As moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, I have spoken twice against the "free" upzoning of the VTA lot over the past few years. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to the zoning code or to extract a meaningful development from Windy Hill in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF property sets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zoned property is offered for sale. If 2755 ECR is up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zoned property outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. Thank you. Becky Sanders Moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino - VTA Site (Micro Housing) Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:09 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 -----Original Message----- From: Loren Brown [mailto:loren.brown@vancebrown.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:02 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino - VTA Site (Micro Housing) 1-30-2018 Dear Planning Commission Members, We note that the proposed zoning amendments that will allow Work Force Housing at 2755 El Camino Real will also apply to parcels with underlying PF (Public Facility) zoning within 0.5 miles of fixed rail transit. Seemingly this has been done so the City is not just spot zoning one specific site in the City. The staff report notes that there are 77 such parcels that currently zoned PF located within 0.5 miles of a major fixed rail transit station (43 parcels owned by the City of Palo Alto and 20 parcels that are Caltrain right-ow-way or Caltrain station parcels). A list of these parcels is included in the staff report. Question: If housing in Palo Alto is in such short supply can you please consider and/or discuss conceptually whether this zoning amendment should be expanded beyond PF-zoned parcels? The reality is that the likelihood of additional Work Force housing being built on any of the PF zoned parcels is extremely small (because these PF- zoned parcels are already serving public functions that can’t/won't be changed/removed without significant negative impact). One could make a good argument that this zoning change is so restrictive, it is essentially spot zoning for the single parcel located at 2755 El Camino Real. If the Work Force Housing is such a good idea, why limit it to parcels that their existing use can’t/won’t ever be changed? Can you consider asking Planning Staff to consider allowing the Work Force Housing to be placed in other zoning designations? Doing so may have a greater future impact on addressing the housing shortage than only allowing the Work Force Housing on PF-zoned parcels. For example, we have a 0.50 acre acre (same size as 2755 El Camino) located on Park Blvd that is located within 0.5 miles of the Cal Train Station. The underlying zoning of our property is GM - which doesn’t allow housing uses. The GM zoning is antiquated and should be updated. Harold Hobach’s Park Plaza Apartments (2865 Park Blvd.) have an underlying GM zoning - which shows that the GM zone is not sacred for non-housing uses. Consistent with the evolution of the Park Blvd. corridor and Fry’s site future conversion to residential use, our site would actually be a great location for apartments or Work Force Housing and we would be willing to consider such an option, but only if we see some indication from the City that they are open to the concept. Thank you for your consideration. 3241 Park Blvd., LLC From:Angie Evans To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:2755 El Camino Real Project Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:53:23 PMDear Ms Hodgkins, I am writing in support of the 2755 El Camino Real project. I will be sending a similarletter to the planning commission as well. I live in Palo Alto with my husband, ourdaughter, and our dog. I also work for the Housing Leadership Council of San MateoCounty and have worked on housing related issues since moving here in 2014. When wemoved here my expertise was in organizing advocacy groups around federal budget andappropriations but my focus quickly changed. If you live in the Bay Area then you can’tescape talking about the cost of living. For longtime residents I often hear frustrationabout where their kids will live, or how their kids are still living at home, or how theywill have to leave the area when they retire because downsizing here isn’t an option. Fornewer residents like myself, the option of homeownership will never be within grasp. Wehave very few effective, local tenant protections and so the stability that most of us seekis also out of grasp. While your decision-making body cannot change the cost of housingovernight or pass a measure to stabilize rents, you can approve strong projects, like thisone, that will benefit our community. Next door in Menlo Park we just learned thatquality of life has gone down by 14% in just 2 years because of housing costs and traffic.This project would allow Palo Alto to build some of the income-restricted units that weso badly need here, near public transit, and with a preference for local workers. Istrongly encourage you to support 2755 El Camino Real moving forward. Best,Angie Evans 860 Newell RoadPalo Alto, California 94303 From:John Clayton Kunz To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Date:Monday, January 29, 2018 4:27:59 PM Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings. The project enables 57 people to walk or bicycle to work in the nearby Industrial Park, especially if the project includes formal incentives to rent to local workers. It is close to bus and train transit. It is consistent with the architectural character of the city. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city. Sincerely, john kunz 913 el Cajon Way Palo Alto From:Planning Commission To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino housing project Date:Monday, January 29, 2018 3:00:46 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: slevy@ccsce.com [mailto:slevy@ccsce.com] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 11:56 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino housing project I write in support of the project and the development of workforce housing combining district. This project and the workforce district address several important policy areas. The project meets three important policy objectives of the Comp Plan and the adopted Housing Element: --providing housing near services, shopping, jobs and transit --increasing housing options by providing smaller units --including a below market rate component in a market rate project And the project is a model for something that we do not have now and is a serious housing challenge in our city and region, that is Units that are affordable to middle income residents--not poor enough to qualify for traditional subsidized housing but not affluent enough to pay current full market rate rents. The focus on households earning between 120% and 150% of the area median income brings a sorely needed new tool to our housing affordability tool kit. I was on a panel on Wednesday for the teacher housing event at Gunn. Teachers are one example of a large number of middle income residents unable to quality for low-income housing and struggling with the region's high rents. Just as Supervisor Simiitian's proposal can be a model for one way of addressing this widespread challenge, this project and the proposed workforce housing district can be another model to address the "missing middle" housing challenge. Thanks to staff for bringing this forward and to the commission for, I hope, moving forward with the staff recommendation. I will bring this idea for workforce housing to the attention of the members of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA) as they are struggling with the same issue. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue September 12 Agenda Item 2 Concerns Regarding the 2755 El Camino Real Proposal September 8, 2016 Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager Keene, and Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman: We are concerned by many issues surrounding the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real and hope you’ll discuss these at your study session on Monday. Specifically: Zoning Issues  The project calls for “Another Zoning District” because Palo Alto has no zoning designation that allows such density. Putting 60 housing units on the 19,563 square foot site works out to approximately 134 units per acre. Given that 40 units per acre is our maximum in general, this would more than triple that and thus create an extraordinary change in Palo Alto zoning practice.  Because this proposal requires upzoning and spot zoning, it is basically PC zoning under a different plan. At least with PC zoning, you know precisely what you are getting. With this invent- a-zone approach, you don't.  RM-40 has a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0. This project is proposing double that.  RM-40 projects require 50 square feet of private open space per unit. Yet the plans do not show such space for all units.  Will the owners be able to apply for the state density bonuses as well, creating an even denser, under-parked configuration?  What will rents be for these units? The premise is that micro-units will create lower-cost housing, but what guarantee does the city have once it approves a zone change? No pro-forma financial information accompanies the proposal. Parking/Traffic Issues  The building is massively under-parked. Assuming the higher cited requirement of 102 parking spaces, the proposal would likely put 57 (102 minus 45) cars into an already crowded neighborhood. That is unacceptable.  The staff report mentions parking reductions might be possible via a TDM, but does not explain how that makes sense. Consider that: o No independent study has ever shown a TDM in Palo Alto works. o Palo Alto has no enforcement of TDMs. o A study of residents of Palo Alto Central, which is even nearer to the train, shows that 85% still commute by car. o TDMs offer shuttles, GoPasses, bikes, and such to encourage people not to commute by car but do not try to reduce car ownership. Given that the proposed building is massively underparked, a successful TDM for its residents would mean that more of their cars would not be used to commute but instead remain in neighborhood parking spaces during workdays. Why should that merit a parking requirement reduction? It instead would be a parking disaster.  Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman has acknowledged that increasing housing creates more traffic. Why put more traffic at such a busy intersection? Public Trust  This kind of up/spot zoning means neighbors can no longer know what will be next to them. That’s unfair and not good planning.  Spot zoning harms the city as a whole. When a developer and a bare majority of councilmembers can rezone a property to be worth millions of dollars more, confidence in our city government erodes.  Many are skeptical of the practice of rezoning for one use and then substituting another, such as the Ming's Restaurant site that was rezoned for a hotel but was then changed to a Mercedes dealership. This project is NOT really about micro-units. They’re already allowed in RM-40 zoning and mixed-use projects, as well as ADUs. Ultimately, it's about under-parked residences and allowing residential buildings to exceed 1.0 FAR. We urge you to ask the owners to consider alternatives that retain the current zoning, which provides them a number of ways to create investment value. Thank you. Signed, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Steering Committee PAN Housing Committee PAN Zoning Committee whose members include: Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Norman Beamer Annette Glanckopf Jeff Levinsky Roger Petersen Doria Summa 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou; Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Daniel Garber Subject: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet Dear City Council, You will be giving feedback on 2755 Page Mill Project Monday night. In the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and on the Land Use Subcommittee on which I also serve, we have talked about this type of project extensively, however, my comments below are my own and are not on behalf of nor represent either committee. This project is site appropriate and within walking distance of Stanford Research Park and Cal Ave. It is adjacent to other apartment buildings. Thus I support the design direction the project is taking and recommend modifications to the project. Specifically, the developer will get a large financial windfall by having the site upzoned thus it is incumbent upon the council to make sure it contributes sufficiently to the community. My recommendations are basically reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Note, these units will be expensive since, for example at Carmel The Village in San Antonio Shopping Center studio and one bedroom apartments that are 674+ square feet are renting for between $3000 and $6000 https://mycarmelthevillagecalifornia.prospectportal.com/Apartments/module/property info/ Note, the Page Mill / El Camino intersection is already at Level of Service D and parking around Cal Ave is seriously under parked. My specific recommendations are: * Require 25% below market housing. Since the demand far outstrips the price of building, there is still a healthy profit to be made. * Consider requiring some of the units to be for developmentally disabled (this will help an underserved population while reducing parking demand) * Do not require ground floor retail. El Camino already has plenty. * Limit the height to 40 feet (it's currently 50 feet). This will help reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure. * Make the units slightly bigger 600 - 700 square feet. This will also reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure, while not cutting into developer margins. * Add to the deed that apartments occupants cannot have more cars registered than spots (but be realistic that this will not be enforced by the owner) * Require significant extra guest parking as part of the exchange for upzoning and monitor whether those spots are used at night, which will indicate whether parking "light" really works * Ensure no delivery temporary parking occurs on either Page Mill or El Camino 2 * Have the developer contribute to the TDM under the existing program to help reduce spots * Don't allow an entrance from Page Mill to the garage as that intersection is already a LOS D * Ensure bike lockers and bike parking (not currently in the plan) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:letters@paweekly.com; tod@windyhillpv.com City Council members: Public Facility. The most important aspect of the former VTA property is its designation as "public facility." I think that calls for more than the usual public benefit which is understood to be only a fringe benefit, with the main purpose of development to 1)turn a good profit for the developer and 2) raise the value of Palo Alto property. I would suggest that the applicant is thinking in the right direction, but there needs, in this case, to be more benefit. I would suggest the entire first floor be dedicated to such community uses as child care, senior day care, senior nutrition program (a federally subsidized lunch for seniors costing, nominally, two or three dollars a meal but available at no charge to those who cannot pay. Locally, it's at Avenidas, Stevenson House, MV Senior Center), the Betty Wright therapeutic swim center---Senior directed programs might be particularly suitable because the location is ideal for senior micro housing, since it is on the 22/522 bus line, the longest and most frequent line in the VTA system, and seniors constitute the largest segment of non- drivers, and it seems a pity to waste the site on people who need or prefer to drive cars anyway. There need not be a preference for low income seniors, because they are already at the head of the line for low-income housing. Sherwood apartments opened its waiting list for the first time in years and people were waiting in line days ahead of the opening, but there might be others who are willing to forego automobile transportation, which is a considerable sacrifice, especially in the rain, and they need not be excluded. IS propose that unlimited storage space occupy the basement, and that the luxury of storing many possessions rent for twice as much per square foot as the rental for lodging persons. Note that it is the widowed , divorced ore single retirees who are the low low income; while the couples automatically have twice as much income. The better off could, therefore, rent two 200 square foot apartments instead of one, if they wished, or not. It's essential that everybody recognize that a 200 square foot "apartment" will be overwhelmingly tenanted by one person only and not contribute to the ill effects of density, whereas a six to eight hundred square foot apartment, two bedrooms, bathroom, full kitchen and living room, will house a whole family--three or four people. Although each dwelling would have its own refrigerator,microwave and sink, a communal kitchen would serve the needs for the residents' larger festive or family dinners. \ Balconies To preserve the FAR which is the foundation of Palo Alto's reputation of a beautiful, not too crowded city, every single unit should be an outside unit, with an entire room as an open, gardened balcony. There would be a garden maintenance person to see that the gardens were kept up. The model for this is the 50 year old building at 101 Alma, in which both the side facing the Bay and the side facing Stanford have eight foot wide balconies along their entire length., which works out to 80 square feet, an entire outdoor room. Rent Control 2 It is time to extend the protection of Prop 13 to renters, and this land, zoned "public facility" is a perfect place to begin. The City Council has it within its power to raise the height limit so that a larger number of low income units would still turn a respectable profit. I propose that someone like Councilman Schmidt cost out the number of units at, say, $00. a month, would produce a return on investment of one percent over current treasury bonds,, and that the rent be increased by one percent a year. Stephanie Munoz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patama Gur <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patamaroj@gmail.com <Patama Gur> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patama Gur 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Robert Taylor <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rob.k.taylor@gmail.com <Robert Taylor> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Robert Taylor 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Frank Dellaert <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Frank Dellaert 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarit Schube <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: saritschube@gmail.com <Sarit Schube> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarit Schube 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Scott Feeney <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: scott@oceanbase.org <Scott Feeney> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Scott Feeney 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Justine Burt <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: justineburt@alumni.tufts.edu <Justine Burt> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Justine Burt 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Michael Cutchin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mcutchin@gmail.com <Michael Cutchin> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Michael Cutchin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jen Pleasants <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jen@showthelove.com <Jen Pleasants> Message: thank you for considering helping make our community a healthier and happier place Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jen Pleasants 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Schlesser <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: k_schlesser@yahoo.com <Karen Schlesser> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Schlesser 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Greenfield <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike@mikegreenfield.com <Mike Greenfield> Message: After 50+ years with virtually no new housing, we need this and lots more like it -- please! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Greenfield 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Nguyen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: timmynguyen1@gmail.com <Tim Nguyen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tim Nguyen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tricia Herrick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tbtextra@gmail.com <Tricia Herrick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tricia Herrick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anna Tchetchetkine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anya.tche@gmail.com <Anna Tchetchetkine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anna Tchetchetkine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeff Rensch <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jrensch@gmail.com <Jeff Rensch> Message: With only 45 parking spaces, it will also be important to provide strong incentives not to own a car. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeff Rensch 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Huey Kwik <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Huey Kwik 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sam Corbett Davies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: samcorbettdavies@gmail.com <Sam Corbett Davies> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sam Corbett Davies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mila Zelkha <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mila.zelkha@gmail.com <Mila Zelkha> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mila Zelkha 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elizabeth Lasky <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laskyea@gmail.com <Elizabeth Lasky> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elizabeth Lasky 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maelig Morvan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melig@chez.com <Maelig Morvan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maelig Morvan 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Diego Aguilar Canabal [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:07 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: d.aguilarcanabal@gmail.com <Diego Aguilar Canabal> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Diego Aguilar Canabal 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cheryl Lilienstein [mailto:clilienstein@me.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 8:01 AM To: Council, City Subject: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments Dear Councilmembers, Possibly this information will be useful to you in responding to the proposal regarding the VTA lot. Recently my nephew disclosed he had looked at micro units in SF, and I asked him to describe his experience. Here is what he reported. The unit he was offered cost $2600/month and had 250 square feet, and shared a kitchen with 6 other inhabitants. It was in SOMA, within two or three blocks of bus lines, CalTrain, Bart, Trader Joe and Whole Foods. The building provided no parking. Renters with cars were told they could rent a spot in an uncovered lot several blocks away for $620/month. The agent told my nephew that most people lived there less than one year, and the vacancy rate was 10%. So: $2600 + $620 = $3220 for a 250 square foot apartment in SF. And: how is something like this going to do anything to make housing affordable? Some of you still insist “the market” will correct itself if you provide more housing, but where is the evidence to support this? Does paying $2600 plus $620 (for 250 square feet of shared space plus remote uncovered parking) match your idea of affordable? The proposal before you is for 60 units, with 45 parking spaces. Unlike transit‐rich San Francisco we have no other “lots” to offer parking except neighborhood streets… You already know that people have cars, use them, and park them in neighborhoods when no other parking is available, and that those neighborhoods impacted no longer feel like neighborhoods. Please don’t allow this! What is likely is that since housing is so expensive people will simply pack in together, and the people in 60 units will have MANY more cars than anticipated. Allowing under‐parking in a community that has inadequate transit is a gift to the developers and adversely affects the entire community, ESPECIALLY in that intersection. A better use might be an extension of Sunrise or another assisted living facility, in which the inhabitants don’t need transit, the bustle in and out is minimal, and (I assume) employees have adequate parking. There’s no question that there is a need for senior facilities in our area. Conversely, it would have a negative impact on every commuter and all residents in our community if this developer is allowed to underpark a high density development RIGHT ON an already terrible intersection. This is the wrong location to test that particular (and in my view wrong headed) experiment. One more thing to consider: Whatever happened to that toxic plume beneath the lot? And who would be liable if the city allowed the developer to unearth it and the adjacent inhabitants were affected? Thank you for your service, 2 Cheryl Lilienstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Marcello Golfieri [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: golfieri@gmail.com <Marcello Golfieri> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marcello Golfieri 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Saffir <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: opsaffir@mymailstation.com <Patricia Saffir> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Saffir 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jclark4@gmail.com <John Clark> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anne Lumerman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anne.lumerman@gamil.com <Anne Lumerman > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anne Lumerman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Stephen Reller <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sreller@randmproperties.com <Stephen Reller> Message: The only thing wrong with this project is the height - it should be 100' tall and 120 units. Do the right thing and approve this (and do not let the very vocal few misrepresent the majority of PA citizens.) Thank you Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Stephen Reller 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Debin Ji <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: debinji1983@gmail.com <Debin Ji> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Debin Ji 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tom Arnold <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tomarnold@gmail.com <Tom Arnold> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tom Arnold 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Christopher Colohan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paloaltoforward@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Christopher Colohan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kevin Watts <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kevinwwatts@gmail.com <Kevin Watts> Message: As a Palo Alto resident, these homes would help reduce traffic by creating housing near existing jobs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kevin Watts 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Dave Ashton <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: aashton@gmail.com <Dave Ashton> Message: We need housing near employment centers!!!!! And this is so close to the California Ave Caltain Station, a resident could walk. What a great project! More housing near transit and employment PLEASE. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Dave Ashton 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Charles Salmon <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: cssalmon@gmail.com <Charles Salmon> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Charles Salmon 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Isaac Rosenberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: irosenb7@gmail.com <Isaac Rosenberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Isaac Rosenberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Sung <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Sung 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Pierce <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: pierce@zanemac.com <Steve Pierce> Message: We are in a housing hole and need to work our way out at every opportunity. Diversity of housing types is a must. Reduced parking is appropriate for the Uber generation, particularly when proximate to Caltrain and VTA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Pierce 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Skotheim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: skotheim@stanford.edu <Jan Skotheim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Skotheim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Evan Goldin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: evan.goldin@gmail.com <Evan Goldin> Message: As a Palo Alto native, I'm a strong believer that we need more housing to make Palo Alto affordable again to my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Please support this development. Even though it's too late to save the Zebra Copy across the street, it's not too late to make that parking lot into homes for future residents! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Evan Goldin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Heidi Stein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: heidih.stein@gmail.com <Heidi Stein> Message: I will need to hear more about this specific project, but in general this is the kind of housing project I support. More density, more affordable - the opposite of what happened on Maybell! Heidi Stein Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Heidi Stein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rebecca Geraldi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: winterskeeper@yahoo.com <Rebecca Geraldi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rebecca Geraldi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Francis Viggiano <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fpviggiano@gmail.com <Francis Viggiano> Message: Please help assure our children and grandchildren will have reasonable housing options in this area by approving this project. We are on the cusp of a transition to shared, self-driving cars, so there will be decreased need for parking in the near future. Let's lead the way into the future. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Francis Viggiano 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ed Wu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: yiranwu@gmail.com <Ed Wu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ed Wu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Shelley Ratay <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shelleyratay@gmail.com <Shelley Ratay> Message: Thank you for considering this important project in our community! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Shelley Ratay 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lisa Forssell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lisa.forssell@gmail.com <Lisa Forssell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lisa Forssell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Owen Byrd <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: owenbyrd@gmail.com <Owen Byrd> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Owen Byrd 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nicole Lederer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nicole@nicolelederer.com <Nicole Lederer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nicole Lederer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Rubens <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Rubens 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Cassidy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellenwcassidy@gmail.com <Ellen Cassidy> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Cassidy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sara Woodham <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sawoodham@gmail.com <Sara Woodham> Message: Are you up we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto. In fact we just need more housing in general. Please approve increasing our inventory. This is close to public transportation which makes it ideal for individuals working in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sara Woodham 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Marc Grinberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marc Grinberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Paul Feng <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paulfeng@gmail.com <Paul Feng> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Paul Feng 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Margaret Rushing <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing> Message: I'm in favor of starting with 60 new affordable housing units and hoping that more will be added. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Margaret Rushing 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bryan Culbertson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bryan.culbertson@gmail.com <Bryan Culbertson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bryan Culbertson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Windy Hill Proposal I am pleased to see that Windy Hill has responded to the council's desire for housing on the Page Mill/ECR site. I am sure both tonight and going forward there will be lots of details to discuss. I am encouraged that the proposal meets many of the Housing Element goals especially those in favor of adding smaller units like the studios and one‐bedroom apartments proposed. The site also is close to everyday services and shopping and will support these activities in the California Avenue area, which I know is a council and resident priority. The project will be a test of the market for smaller well‐located housing in Palo Alto. The rents will be above what low‐ income families as all non subsidized housing on the peninsula is but the rents will welcome many individuals who can in now way afford median home prices here. So the project will expand supply and expand opportunities. I support the kind of housing being proposed and I hope the council and Windy Hill can develop a final proposal that does not raise costs and rents. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hannah Illathu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: illathu.hannah@gmail.com <Hannah Illathu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Hannah Illathu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeralyn Moran <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jeralyn.moran@gmail.com <Jeralyn Moran> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeralyn Moran 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Sack <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sack@stanford.edu <John Sack> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Sack 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Manu Sridharan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: msridhar@gmail.com <Manu Sridharan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Manu Sridharan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ilana Cohen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ieydus@gmail.com <Ilana Cohen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ilana Cohen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Mc Brayer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patricia@pmarchitect.net <Patricia Mc Brayer> Message: We must address the housing crisis in Palo Alto and the Peninsula at large immediately if we are to remain sustainable as a community for the long term. The proposed project provides a much needed diversity of housing type on a transit and work friendly site. Please move forward with the approvals process, allowing a zoning change and micro-housing overlay. As part of the approvals process, I urge you to require the developer to address affordability in a meaningful way by limiting rental rates and/or purchase price on a specified number of units to 50% of market rate, with priority given to people with residency in the Bay Area of 3 years or more making 50% or less than median income. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Mc Brayer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elaine Uang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elaine.uang@gmail.com <Elaine Uang> Message: 60 homes alone can't solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a good start to think about new ways to provide housing in the right places. While I hope some preference is given to city employees, teachers, nurses, or local workers, even market rate studios and 1-bdrms fill a need in our community and help relieve (somewhat) the competition for smaller affordable units. I hope you can work together with the applicant, community and staff to rezone this parcel and implement the right regulatory frameworks that will encourage more smaller unit projects like this proposal in service and transit rich areas such as Cal Ave and Downtown. Thank you for your attention to this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elaine Uang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elliot Margolies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elliotspark@yahoo.com <Elliot Margolies> Message: We have so much work to do to catch up with 3 decades of a lopsided jobs-housing ratio and the resulting unaffordability of our community. I appreciate your leadership in this arena. Elliot Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elliot Margolies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Snow Zhu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: snowxzhu@berkeley.edu <Snow Zhu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Snow Zhu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Molly W <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: meleleshopping@gmail.com <Molly W> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Molly W 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Daniel Walker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dan.walker1@gmail.com <Daniel Walker> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Daniel Walker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Randy Popp <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp> Message: This is the right time to consider changing the status quo for housing and parking requirements. Please approve this project without delay. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Randy Popp 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Liat Zavodivker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lzavod@gmail.com <Liat Zavodivker> Message: Build housing for the improvement of the environment! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Liat Zavodivker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Naphtali Knox <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: knoxnaph@gmail.com <Naphtali Knox> Message: If not here, where? If not now, when? Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Naphtali Knox 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeremy Hoffman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: hoffmanj@gmail.com <Jeremy Hoffman> Message: I used to live in the apartment complex that overlooked that empty parking lot. It'll be lovely to replace that lot with a useful building. And it's a great location for housing, being walking distance to the Cal Ave downtown and farmers market, the Caltrain stop, and being right next to the bus stop. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeremy Hoffman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah Bell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bell.sarah@gmail.com <Sarah Bell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarah Bell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Youseffi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jyouseffi@gmail.com <Jessica Youseffi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Youseffi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Barb Swenson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: swenson.barb@gmail.com <Barb Swenson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Barb Swenson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kyle Barrett <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kylembarrett@gmail.com <Kyle Barrett> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kyle Barrett 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nancy Olson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nso2431@icloud.com <Nancy Olson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nancy Olson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jermsica@comcast.net <Jessica Clark > Message: I support this but would also like to see some BMR's worked into this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Andrew Boone <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nauboone@gmail.com <Andrew Boone> Message: Dear Palo Alto City Council, More affordable housing near high-quality transit is key to creating a sustainable and equitable community. That's why I support the 60-unit Windy Hill apartments at 2755 El Camino Real. Higher-density housing and fewer car parking spaces are a common sense solution to providing more residents access to transit and good bicycling and walking opportunities. Vote YES for more homes for people! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Andrew Boone 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Fred Glick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fred@fredglick.com <Fred Glick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Fred Glick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Uhrbrock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com <Ellen Uhrbrock> Message: Instead of stopping them at the drawing board - encourage competition with a significant prize awarded the architect including a green light to build immediately, subject only to Council's and neighborhood's approval. Do not give city employees, or teachers priority - Give financial priority only to car less renters and owners. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Uhrbrock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jerry Schwarz <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jerry@acm.org <Jerry Schwarz> Message: There may be objection to the height of the building My own feeling about height is well known. Tall buildings can be attractive. And I like them. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jerry Schwarz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gary Fine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gary@finepoquet.com <Gary Fine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gary Fine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Melody Baumgartner <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melodybaumgartner@gmail.com <Melody Baumgartner> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Melody Baumgartner 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Neil Shea <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: neilshea@yahoo.com <Neil Shea> Message: Need to maximize centralized locations like this -- and make a dent in our housing/cost crisis Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Neil Shea 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Uyvova <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.uyvova@gmail.com <Jane Uyvova> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Uyvova 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Omar Diab <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: me@omardiab.com <Omar Diab> Message: The entire Sam Francisco Bay Area needs more housing and Palo Alto is ground zero of this crisis. This project must be built! It is in a prime transit corridor and just makes so much sense. Please construct it! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Omar Diab 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Kiefer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amy.kiefer@gmail.com <Amy Kiefer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Kiefer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ozzie Fallick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ozzie Fallick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Aleks Totic <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: a@totic.org <Aleks Totic> Message: Studios and one bedrooms would be a nice addition to PA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Aleks Totic 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erhyu Yuan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erhyoohoo@yahoo.com <Erhyu Yuan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erhyu Yuan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lauren Winslow <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lauren.winslow@gmail.com <Lauren Winslow> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lauren Winslow 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maristela Cardoso <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marismach@yahoo.com <Maristela Cardoso> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maristela Cardoso 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Keva Dine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kmdine@gmail.com <Keva Dine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Keva Dine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Edward Hillard <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: edhillard@gmail.com <Edward Hillard> Message: It is still painful to me that some sixty units of affordable housing for seniors were eliminated due to the political pressure of the Baron Park community. I believe we should be building multi-unit housing wherever possible in Palo Alto. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Edward Hillard 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Eittreim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: eitteeimcs@gmail.com <Steve Eittreim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Eittreim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Buchanan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike.r.buchanan@gmail.com <Mike Buchanan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Buchanan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Matt Austern <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: austern@gmail.com <Matt Austern> Message: We need more housing construction in Palo Alto to address the housing affordability crisis. There's no better place to build housing in the city than right next to a public transportation hub. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Matt Austern 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rohun Jauhar <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jauharro@gmail.com <Rohun Jauhar> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rohun Jauhar 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gail Price <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price > Message: We should take every opportunity possible to expand housing options throughout our community. Close to transit and the California corridor enhances the location ! More complexes like this are needed to make support our S-CAP plan. Frankly, one of the problems is simple: supply of housing vs. demand for housing. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gail Price 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ciera Jaspan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ciera.christopher@gmail.com <Ciera Jaspan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ciera Jaspan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Fingal Surma <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laura.surma@gmail.com <Laura Fingal Surma> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Laura Fingal Surma 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Huang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.x.huang@gmail.com <Jane Huang> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Huang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Becky Richardson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: becky.richardson@gmail.com <Becky Richardson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Becky Richardson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jared Bernstein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jared@erosenfeld.com <Jared Bernstein> Message: I would have written something a bit shorter. But the message is: I support dense housing at PageMill & El Camino. /Jared Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jared Bernstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kim Butts Pauly Ph.D. <kbpauly@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I read with great interest the story about the small housing units for El Camino and Page Mill. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is another group of people for whom small apartments and only bike parking would be perfect - the hundreds of postdoctoral fellows working at Stanford. As it is, they contribute to the hundreds of commute trips through Palo Alto to housing around the peninsula. These are people with advanced degrees, but little pay. This type of housing would fill a huge need and reduce commute trips. Thank you, -Kim ********************************** Kim Butts Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Susie Hwang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shwang@me.com <Susie Hwang > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Susie Hwang 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Anita Lusebrink [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:50 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anita@satakenursery.com <Anita Lusebrink> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anita Lusebrink 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erika Conley <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erikaconley@gmail.com <Erika Conley> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erika Conley 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bette Kiernan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: betteuk@aol.com <Bette Kiernan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bette Kiernan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Judy Adams <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: judyblueeyes1@gmail.com <Judy Adams> Message: In addition to including "affordable units" (below market rate), the project needs low-income units, probably the studio size. The use of the term affordable is not really accessible to low-income residents and there needs to be an element of truly low-income in ALL Palo Alto and all peninsula housing elements to serve community needs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Judy Adams 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Penstock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: karenpenstock@yahoo.com <Karen Penstock> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Penstock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mark Kennedy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mdavkennedy@gmail.com <Mark Kennedy> Message: You need to do this. If you do not, then you are the problem. MDK Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mark Kennedy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeffrey Salzman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jsalzman3@gmail.com <Jeffrey Salzman> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeffrey Salzman 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: Darryl Fenwick [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick> Message: In a time when everyone is complaining about lack of affordable housing, it would be a poor decision to not back this project! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Darryl Fenwick Project Description 2755 El Camino Real May 22, 2018 Project Description The project is proposing a new Combining District to Allow for High Density Multi- Family Housing that Includes a Workforce Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Transit. This new zoning district would be applied to the project site at 2755 El Camino Real to allow the development the proposed project as described below. The project proposes the construction of a 39,220 square foot building, containing 57 multi-family rental units. The building would be four-stories in height (50-foot tall), building and would be developed at a 2.0 FAR. The units include 40 studios and 17 one-bedroom units with an average size of 526 square feet. The building includes 68 parking spaces, 64 of which are located in the garage, 60 of the 64 below grade garage parking spaces are accessed via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. The four at-grade spaces are for guests and guest services. The building also includes a variety of resident amenities including a landscaped roof deck with outdoor cooking and dining area; a lounging roof deck with a shade structure; ground level patios and balconies, units with individual entries, convenient, abundant bicycle parking (69 long-term spaces), and a bicycle repair workshop. The project also includes landscaping, street trees, hardscape and widened sidewalks with public amenities to enhance both the project and the immediate project area. The planting specifically includes a mix of native and drought tolerant species that will provide for the optimum mix of color and hardiness. Project Benefits The project as proposed incorporates a variety of public benefits inherently incorporated into the design of the building and also includes active programs and management to enhance the resident experience and also benefit the project area as described below: Attachment R High Density-Transit Oriented Housing With the development of smaller and attainable units at the project site, which is located adjacent to mass transit, employment centers as well as restaurant and retail amenities, the project proposes to maximize its location to provide residential units that will serve the existing Palo Alto workforce population. As mentioned above, the project also incorporates physical project amenities such as secure and ample bicycle parking, bike repair workshop, as well as a new and enhanced bus shelter at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real to further the goals of vehicle trip reduction. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures The project proposes a robust Transit Demand Management (TDM) Program that includes the following measures that would reduce vehicle trips in the project area by 35% in accordance with the newly adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Caltrain GoPasses for all residents Valley Transit Authority EcoPasses for all residents Bicycles for resident use Bicycle Workshop Carpool Matching Services Unbundled parking Stipend ($100 monthly) to use toward transportation network companies (e.g. uber, Lyft) for employees opting not to own a car The project also incorporates these measures that would serve to reduce vehicle trips: New, Enhanced Bus Shelter-This includes a completely new bus shelter to be located at the corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino Real. This new facility will provide for a functional and aesthetically pleasing facility in accordance with VTA standards Loading Area along El Camino Real to accommodate pick-ups/drop offs and deliveries. This includes white striping along El Camino Real and will facilitate these activities while supporting the stipend TDM measure. Workforce & Affordable Housing/Employee Preferences The project proposes “Workforce” units that are specifically designed (in size and design) to provide for a unit type within the City of Palo Alto that will be more attainable than the typical rental unit and can serve a varied population seeking these types of units. In addition, 12 units or 21% of the project would be deed restricted for a period of 99 years to provide for units attainable to the “Missing Middle”, a segment of the population who’s income does not qualify for typical affordable housing programs, but is challenged to find market-rate housing that it can afford. Examples of this population are teachers and public service workers. As such, six units would be restricted at 140% of the County’s Average Median Income (AMI) and six would be restricted at 150% of AMI, thus providing an opportunity to this segment of the population that is not readily available in the project area. In addition to deed restricted units, the applicant would pay an affordable housing impact fee estimated to be approximately $603,000. To further address housing affordability in the project area, a preference for local eligible households with at least one household member working within the City is also included in the project. These eligible households would be given priority in leasing the units. Page Mill Easement/Dedication The applicant also proposes to dedicate an easement to the County of Santa Clara to allow for the future buildout of a right-hand turn lane and bike lane on Page Mill Road. This right turn lane serves to address project area goals for improved circulation in and around the project site as well as facilitating traffic flow at the intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Attachment S Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5 th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1.Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2.On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3.In the drop down window click “Pending Projects”, then “View Pending Projects.” 4.Scroll to find “2755 El Camino” and click the address link 5.On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real City of Palo Alto (ID # 9299) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PSB Project: Request for Continuance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI -JUDICIAL 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, Public Safety Building Project: Adoption of: 1) Resolution of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report for a New Publ ic Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Four -Story Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue; and 2) Ordinance Modifying the Public Facilities (PF) Zone Development Standards; and (3) Approval of the Record of Land Use Action Approving Architectu ral Review Application [File 17PLN -00257] for a new Four-story Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces Above and Below Grade. Planning and Transportation Commission Review Recommended Modification to PF Zoning Develop ment Standards on January 31, 2018 (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 2018) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council continue this item to the Council meeting of June 11, 2018. Background This item, advertised for Council consideration on June 4, 2018, is requested to be continued to the June 11, 2018 Council meeting. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9200) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cubberley Artist Studio Program Informational Report Title: Informational Report on the City of Palo Alto's Cubberley Artist Studio Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation This report is informational only and no action is required. Executive Summary The last informational update to Council on the status of the program took place in 2015. This CMR corresponds to the recent round of artist selection for the 2018-2022 term, and reports on achievements and accomplishments over the last four years. The Arts and Sciences Division recently completed the 2018 artist selection process for the Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) for 2018-2022. Out of 48 applicants (46 applications from individual artists and 2 applications from two-person collectives), 16 incumbent artists in residence applied for their second term; 6 new artists were approved to fill available studios, 13 new artists were put on the CASP waitlist, and 13 artists were not approved. In the last four years, CASP artists have made significant contributions to their field as well as provided more than 220 free public programs on the arts to benefit the community. For example, CASP was invited to show as a creative community in two San Francisco gallery exhibitions, and artist team t.w.five was awarded prestigious residencies at the de Young Museum and the Headlands Center for the Arts. This report summarizes significant awards, exhibitions, additional residencies, as well as CASP outreach to the community in the form of open studios, exhibitions, presentations, lectures and arts events. Background Originally founded in 1990, Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP), housed at the Cubberley Community Center, was established to provide subsidized studio space to Palo Alto and regional artists, for whom acceptance as artists in residence in this juried City of Palo Alto Page 2 program would make a significant impact on their careers. Between the years 1990 – 2014, a total of 61 local artists were juried into the studio program with residence terms ranging from 4 to 24 years. In 2014, the City, under the leadership of the Arts and Sciences Division and with community input and Council approval, revamped the program in order to reach a wider range of artists in various stages of their careers, and working in a wide array of media and approaches, from traditional fine arts to innovative mixed media, performance and social practice. At that time, the program also instituted term limits of up to two 4-year terms, in order to ensure equitability and accessibility to all artists in need of affordable studio space in a community environment. Staff implemented a gradual phase-out program in 2014, allowing the eleven incumbent artists who re-applied to remain with CASP for an additional 1-4 years into the 2014-18 term. The updated policy indicates the primary use of the studio must still be focused on the creation of new art work. While artists may sell their work from their studio or offer occasional classes or workshops in their studio, the focus must be on the creation of non-commercial, original work by the juried artists. Artists in residence must also meet community service requirements, intended to support and build the outreach component of the program. Toward this goal, a former studio was turned into the ArtLab, a free public programming space for artists to organize exhibitions, workshops, panels, etc. At that time, a small studio was also set aside for short-term residencies (up to 4 months) in order to support emerging and visiting artists, as well as intermittently practicing artists who seek to commit to art practice on a full-time basis, and artists or artist teams in need of short-term space for a special project. Discussion Today, CASP is a dynamic and highly competitive program that consists of:  22 individual and shared studios, currently housing 23 artists;  ArtLab, a space dedicated for community engagement programming and exhibition opportunities;  Rotating Artist Studio, a designated studio space for short-term studio rental opportunities to support emerging, visiting artists, and intermittently practicing artists in need of short-term space;  Paula Kirkeby Press, a fine art printmaking studio that hosts classes for all levels and a drop-in program for experienced printmakers, operated by the Palo Alto Art Center. (Began Summer 2017). CASP Mission The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by providing City-sponsored, affordable studio space for artists, building creative community and fostering public engagement with the arts and artists. City of Palo Alto Page 3 CASP Vision  Create an artist community that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.  Ensure the representation of a wide range of experience in terms of artistic disciplines, artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.  Create a dynamic and accessible cultural destination for the community, with economic value for the resident artists.  Foster active engagement and visibility with the Palo Alto and surrounding communities.  Continue to increase the prestigious and competitive reputation of the program. Ensure that the program is accessible, open, inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the community need for studio space. CASP Artist Selection As part of the 2018-2022 Artist Selection process, staff anticipated the availability of studio space to accommodate 6 artists applying for the first-time. A selection panel, made up of three artists and arts professionals reviewed and rated the applications. Panelists’ biographies can be viewed in Attachment A – CASP Selection Panel Bios.  52 artists applied by submitting 48 applications (staff received 46 applications from individual artists and 2 applications from two-person collectives 18 incumbent CASP artists eligible for the second four-year term (includes 16 individual artists and 2 two-person collectives);  6 emerging and mid-career first-time applicants;  13 artists were placed on the waitlist and will be offered short-term studio residencies (up to 3 months) in the Rotating Artist Studio;  13 artists were not selected and will be offered short-term studio residencies (up to 3 months) in the Rotating Artist Studio.  24 artists were accepted for immediate placement into studios. For the purposes of evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in serving the largest number of artists, please find the additional artist selection information: 2016 Limited Artist Selection to fill available studios and renew the CASP waitlist:  13 artists applied  5 artists were awarded residencies with CASP  4 artists were able to accept the residency City of Palo Alto Page 4 2014 Artist Selection:  52 artists applied  28 artists were awarded residencies with CASP  25 artists were able to accept the residency: 11 incumbent and 14 new artists. Total number of artists served 2014-2018 Term:  30 artists in residence  14 emerging and visiting artists, as well as artists on the CASP wait list, were provided short-term studio residencies (up to 4 months) in the Rotating Artist Studio In the last four years, 44 artists were served, as compared to 61 artists served in the prior twenty-four years. Staff projects that by the end of the 2018-2022 term, an additional 20 artists will be served, meaning that in the eight years between 2014 – 2022, the program will have exceeded the number of artists served in the prior twenty-four years. CASP Artists’ Achievement and Highlights CASP exists to support artists in the creation of new work. Accordingly, the benefit of working in a creative community is the tangible and intangible inspiration that artists tap into to further their own creative pursuits. Residency at CASP provides a significant impact on artistic careers and professional development of all participating artists. The complete listing of their diversity of artistic discipline, stage of career, and residency can be found in Attachment B: CASP Residencies 2014-18. CASP artists include curators, college lecturers, art educators, and winners of significant awards such as the Fleishhacker Eureka Fellowship, Silicon Valley Laureate, and Murphy Fellowship in the Fine Arts. Between 2014 – 2018, CASP artists took part in over 220 individual and group exhibitions including:  Ernest Regua: Shapes of Abstract, a solo exhibition at Telegraph Hill Gallery, San Francisco, 2018  Barbara Boissevain: Waterlines, a solo exhibition at the New Museum Los Gatos, Los Gatos, 2018  t.w.five: Tom Loeser: Please, Please, Please, a solo exhibition at Museum of Craft and Design, San Francisco, 2018  Pantea Karimi: Pantea Karimi: Blind Spot, a dialogue, a solo exhibition curated by Hanna Regev, Bethany Center Foundation, San Francisco, 2018  Sahba Shere: a solo exhibition at Themes + Projects Gallery, Minnesota Street Project, San Francisco, 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 5  Mel Day: Wall of Song, (Inauguration Day launch with Michael Namkung), San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art, San Jose, 2017; Code & Noise, a temporary installation for Currents: International New Media Festival, Santa Fe, 2016  Melissa Wyman: Eyes Knees Groin Throat with Jenifer Wofford, part of 100 Days Resistance, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco, 2017  Marianne Lettieri: Marianne Lettieri: Reflections, a solo exhibition at Museum of Craft and Design San Francisco, 2016-17  Linda Gass: Demarcate: Territorial shift in personal and societal mapping, Institute of Contemporary Art, San Jose, 2016  Pantea Karimi: No War, Niavaran Art Center, Tehran, Iran, 2014 Between 2014 – 2018, CASP artists concluded 12 residencies including:  Pantea Karimi: KALA Art Institute Fellowship Residency, Berkeley, 2017  Linda Gass: Creative Ecology Art + Science Residency, Palo Alto Art Center and Junior Museum and Zoo, 2016  t.w.five: De Young Museum, San Francisco, 2016 The Headlands Center for the Arts, Sausalito, 2015  Barbara Boissevain: Starry Night Artist Residency, New Mexico, 2015  Mel Day: Co-Founder, OpenIDEO Youth Artist Fellowship, Djerassi Resident Artist Program, Woodside, 2015  Melissa Wyman: Artist in Residence, Sedona Arts Center, Sedona, 2016  Artist in Residence, and Djerassi Resident Artist Program, Woodside, 2015  Barbara Boissevain: Commons Curatorial Residency, SOMArts Cultural Center, San Francisco, 2015  Charles Coates: Artist-In-Residence, MI-LAB Mokuhanga Innovation Lab, Lake Kawaguchi, Japan, 2014 CASP artists received awards and recognitions for their work including:  Lessa Bouchard: WAVE (Western Access Video Excellence) Finalist for Talk Art with Interdisciplinary Artist Lessa Bouchard (featuring interview with Thomas Mann at the Library of Congress, author of the Oxford Guide to Library Research), 2017.  Marianne Lettieri: SV Laureates Award, Off the Wall category, awarded by Silicon Valley Creates for artistic achievement and contribution to the cultural life of Silicon Valley, 2017.  Mel Day: 2016 Dean’s Grant, San Jose State University, San Jose,2016; Departmental Grant, Art & Art History Department, San Jose State University, San Jose, 2016; Paseo Public Prototyping Festival Grant, San Jose State City of Palo Alto Page 6 University, San Jose, Nominated by Squeak Carnwath for Tiffany Foundation Award, 2016.  Servane Briand: 4th Annual Juried Artists' Books Exhibition at WoCA Projects - Fort Worth, Texas - First Prize, 2016  Amy DiPlacido: Haystack Scholarship, Deer Isle, Maine. Mass Art Alumni Award, 2014 In addition to these individual achievements which build momentum and prestige for the program, CASP is strengthened by the proximity of the MakeX studio, which many artists access from time to time for their own work. CASP has expanded its programming in the last year with the advent of the Paula Kirkeby Press. The Paula Kirkeby Press is a new printmaking studio which was made possible thanks to a generous gift from the Kirkeby family. Paula Kirkeby, who passed away in 2016, had deep connections to Palo Alto and the printmaking community: a consultant, art dealer, community volunteer, and owner and operator of Smith Andersen Editions, Kirkeby, made a significant impact on the art world and the Bay Area art community. Kirkeby also served on the Palo Alto Public Art Commission and contributed and facilitated the contribution of more than 30 works of art to the Art in Public Places Collection of the City of Palo Alto. Since the Press opened at Cubberley during the summer of 2017, the Palo Alto Art Center has held 9 adult classes and workshops at Paula Kirkeby Press, serving 45 students. There was also a Children’s Fine Art teacher professional development monotype workshop serving nine of the Art Center’s teaching artists in that program. There are seven active volunteers, and 30 artists approved for the Press’ drop-in program. That program has a robust schedule, offering 54 drop-in opportunities since August of 2017. CASP Community Service Achievements and Highlights As a community that offers free arts programming, the larger community also receives benefits from the program. Beginning in 2014, CASP includes a Community Service requirement for all artists in residence. CASP artists are expected to actively contribute to the strengthening of CASP by creating or participating in diverse and high-caliber arts-oriented, community engagement events and activities. The majority of these programs are offered in the CASP ArtLab, a former art studio turned into a programming space for CASP. Through Community Service programming, CASP artists have made a positive and unique impact on the communities in Palo Alto and beyond by delivering an unparalleled high-quality artistic and educational programs and services, all free of City of Palo Alto Page 7 charge and accessible to all. CASP artists have produced stellar arts programs of public benefit, free of charge and accessible to all members of the public. Since 2014, CASP artists hosted 96 public-engagement programs and events (See Attachment C: CASP Community Service 2015-2018). Some of the programs curated by CASP artists and hosted in the ArtLab and beyond are:  RETROFIT 1.0 and RETROFIT 2.0: CASP artists were invited to show their work at the prestigious Telegraph Hill Gallery in San Francisco, May – July 2017 in two group shows.  Meet the Artists of CASP: Group presentation by CASP artists of their current and recent work and residency at CASP and pop-exhibition showcasing their recent work, with over 100 people in attendance in 2015 and 2017.  Public Alchemy: a biennial, community artist exhibition with over 120 local community artists displaying their work 2015 and 2017. Community artists were very grateful to have a chance to exhibit their work and over 400 people viewed the shows.  Metamorphosis: Young People and the Journey of Immigration: June 10 – 17, 2017. Public Programming included a series of video projections on trees, student exhibition and artist lecture. Collaborative project by CASP artist Barbara Boissevain and multimedia artist Robin Lasser.  TinkerLab Workshops: a series of 5 artmaking workshops for families and children hosted by CASP artists Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan. Estimated attendance: 150 people.  Art, Science and Technology in Dialogue: a discussion panel led by CASP artists Michal Gavish and Pantea Karimi. May, 2015. Estimated attendance: 35 people.  Annual Valentine Art Making Party with CASP artist Marianne Lettieri in collaboration with community artists Lynne Greene and Lisa van Dusen. This event has occurred in 2016, 2017 and 2018 with about 40 people in attendance at each.  Sewing Circles: Costume Designer Jenny Gonsalves opens her studio up for people to engage in the joy of sewing.  Veteran’s Day Tribute: photography exhibition, film screening, hands-on workshops curated by Conrad Johnson. A collaborative Veteran’s book project is forthcoming.  Art and Resistance Salon: organized by Sahba Shere. CASP Artists’ Impact Statements City of Palo Alto Page 8 Staff finds that the artists in residence at the City of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artist Studio Program view their experience as invaluable in terms of the impact on their creative growth, the partnerships and friendships they develop within CASP, and the personal meaning of the space in their lives. Here is a sample of statements by CASP artists in their annual reports from 2017: “I enjoy being in a community of artists and I greatly benefit from the interactions and comradery of other professional artists. My artwork grows through the impromptu critiques, advice and ideas shared by the other artists in the program.” - Linda Gass “CASP is crucial to my development as an artist in that I have a space to experiment, organize, and create new innovative works on paper. CASP Artists are not just colleagues, they are my dearest friends. Without Barbara, Pantea, and Marianne, I would not have the support system I need to develop as an artist. They give candid advice towards my work…. As someone who treasures my network of artists, I continuously give digital literacy advice to other CASP artist to aid them in website creation, photo editing, and web etiquette.” - Charles Coates “I am in my studio many times a week now, and notice the results in my art work and contributions to the community have been significantly different. I think the community motivates me to have a larger presence as a cultural figure in the Bay Area.” - Amy DiPlacido “Being part of a community of serious and accomplished artists has contributed to the development of my work and art practice. For example, when I was struggling to complete a new work that was on deadline for a museum exhibition, two CASP artists generously gave me a one-hour critique that helped me find my way. It was my pleasure this summer to bring a CASP artist into a 2-person show at a San Francisco commercial gallery. I find that most CASP artists are happy to share professional information and support their colleagues. I am proud to list the CASP residency on my resume and exhibition proposals.” - Marianne Lettieri Resource Impact The current rental rates for Cubberley Studios are $ 0.89/square foot for Palo Alto residents and $0.99/square foot for non-residents. The rotating artist studio rents for $75/week. In FY 2018, the CASP lease revenue is on target to generate $132,500 and the one rental studio generates ap. $3,600 per year for the COPA, totaling $136,100 for FY2018. The CASP program operates at no cost to the City other than CSD staff time to oversee the program and facility, plus additional support from Real Estate and Facilities. Wi-Fi expansion at the Cubberley campus, expected to be completed in September, 2018, will City of Palo Alto Page 9 positively benefit the artists in residence. CASP would benefit from a small, dedicated operational budget of $5,000 per year for supplies and materials. Policy Implications The CASP program is aligned with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: Policy C-1.4 – Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries, classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these facilities and services build and strengthen community. Policy C-4.5 – Expand the space available in the community for art exhibits, classes and other cultural activities, studios and galleries and other activities made possible by technical innovation, while maintaining and enhancing natural areas. Program C4.5.1 – Use Cubberley Community Center as a critical and vital part of the City’s service delivery system while also planning for its future. Policy C-5.2- Promote access to programs that enhance and increase the physical and mental health, well-being, recreation, safety and cultural opportunities of all residents and visitors. Staff contact: Rhyena Halpern Assistant Director, CSD Attachments:  ATTACHMENT A: CASP SELECTION PANEL BIOS  ATTACHMENT B: CASP RESIDENCIES 2014-18  ATTACHMENT C: CASP COMMUNITY SERVICE 2015-18 Margot H. Knight Executive Director - Djerassi Resident Artists Program Margot is enjoying her seventh job in the arts and humanities in 39 years. Each position has incorporated the things she loves--history, challenges, artists, scholars, education and access. Knight oversees one of the foremost artist communities on the planet AND is encouraged to pursue her own literary pursuits. Previous positions include the presidencies of United Arts of Central Florida and United Arts of Raleigh & Wake County, executive director of the Idaho Commission on the Arts and Washington State University's Oral History Office and staff positions with the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies and Washington Commission for the Humanities. She is a proud recipient of the Michael Newton Award. A frequent consultant, speaker and grants panelist, she has also served on over 25 chamber of commerce, tourism, regional planning and cultural boards, including the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs, Visit Orlando, and Florida Cultural Alliance. Margot lives with her husband, Nick, and two cats. She can be reached at margot@djerassi.org or via Facebook (MargotHalidayKnight). Fanny Retsek Studio Program Director - Palo Alto Art Center Artist Fanny Retsek is the Studio Program Director at the Palo Alto Art Center. Her previous professional experience includes seven years the San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art where she was the founding director and master printer of the ICA Print Center, and work as a professional printer at Crown Point Press in San Francisco. She received her MFA with an emphasis on printmaking at San Jose State University and her BA in European Studies from Loyola Marymount University. In her art practice, Fanny combines printmaking with drawing, collage and stitching. Her work focuses on environmental degradation, species decline, and interactions between humans and wild animals. She often uses the multiple of print to create larger scale print installations. Fanny’s prints are included in the collections of the Fine Art Museums, San Francisco, Oakland Museum of Art, The Corcoran, and numerous private collections. She exhibits throughout the Bay Area, nationally, and internationally in Mexico and Australia. Her work has received honors which include an award from the curator of prints and drawings at the Chicago Art Institute for her work exhibited in (S)edition: the Print as Activism, at the Urban Institute for Contemporary Arts in Michigan. Weston Teruya Artist / Curator Weston Teruya is an Oakland-based artist whose paper sculptural installations examine the social dynamics and histories of specific sites and communities. He has exhibited at Mills College Art Museum in Oakland, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and Kearny Street Workshop in San Francisco, Longhouse Projects & the NYC Fire Museum in New York, and the Atlanta Contemporary Art Center. He has received grants from the Creative Work Fund, Artadia, and the Center for Cultural Innovation and been an artist- in-residence at Montalvo Arts Center, Mills College, Recology SF, Ox-Bow, the deYoung Museum, and Kala Art Institute. Along with his studio practice, Weston is a former appointed member of the Berkeley Civic Arts Commission where he chaired the grants committee and served on the policy committee. He is the creator & host of (un)making, a podcast through Art Practical that features interviews with artists, cultural workers, and arts administrators of color. Weston is also a co-founder of Related Tactics, a collective of artists/writers/educators/curators of color creating platforms for work at the intersection of race and culture. ARTIST NAME STUDIO ASSIGNMENT ARTISTIC DISCIPLINE STAGE IN CAREER PALO ALTO RESIDENT CASP Incumbent / New Archambault, Daniele F3 Graphic Novels / Illustration Emerging Yes incumbent Bennett, Elizabeth TBD Painting / printmaing / writing / drawing / sculpting / photography / installation Emerging No new Boissevain, Barbara U4 Digital Photography Mid-Career Yes incumbent Briand, Servane & Lucas, Paloma E3 Printmaking / Book Art Emerging Yes incumbent Coates, Charles U4 Printmaking / Drawing / Painting Mid-Career No incumbent Day, Mel E7 Instalaltion / New Media Established Yes incumbent de la Garza, Tara TBD Collage / Sculpture Mid-Career No new di Napoli, Catherine F2 Painting / Collage / Textile Emerging Yes incumbent DiPlacido, Amy U2 Mixed Media / Textile Emerging No incumbent Doorley, Rachelle U5 Maker / Mixed Media Established Yes incumbent Eliason, Carmina TBD Social Practice / Performance / Textile Emerging Yes new Fenton, Patrick F5 Printmaking Mid-Career Yes incumbent Andersson, Pernilla & Pereira, Paula E1 Installation / Mural Art Emerging No incumbent Gonsalves, Jennifer U1 Costume Design / Textile Mid-Career Yes incumbent Imrie-Situnayake, Amber TBD Fabric Sculpture / Installation Emerging No new Johnson, Conrad E4 Painting / Photography / Writing Mid-Career Yes incumbent Karimi, Pantea F6 Printmaking, Mixed Media Mid-Career No incumbent Muonio, Andrew E1 Painting Emerging No incumbent Regua, Ernest F5 Painting Mid-Career No incumbent Rufaro, Jamila TBD Mixed Media Book Art Emerging Yes new Sakellariou, Martha TBD Printmaking / photography/ drawing / sound /video /painting Mid-Career Yes new Shere, Sahba F7 Painting Emerging Yes incumbent ARTIST NAME STUDIO ASSIGNMENT ARTISTIC DISCIPLINE STAGE IN CAREER PALO ALTO RESIDENT CASP Incumbent / New DiNapoli, Catherine E6 Painting / Collage / Textile Emerging Yes new DiPlacido, Amy U2 Mixed Media / Textile Emerging No new Fenton, Patrick F5 Printmaking Mid-Career Yes new Wyman, Melissa E6 Social Practice / Painting / Drawing Mid-Career Yes new ARTIST NAME STUDIO ASSIGNMENT ARTISTIC DISCIPLINE STAGE IN CAREER PALO ALTO RESIDENT CASP Incumbent / New Andersson, Pernilla & Pereira Paula F1 Installation / Mural Art Emerging No new Archambault, Daniele E6 Graphic Novels / Illustration Early Mid-Career Yes new Boissevain, Barbara E6 Digital Photography Early Mid-Career Yes new Bouchard, Lessa E5 Installation / Performance / Video Art Early Mid-Career Yes incumbent 2014 CASP ACCEPTED ARTIST ROSTER 2016 CASP ACCEPTED ARTIST ROSTER 2018 CASP SELECTED ARTIST ROSTER (Eligible for 2018 Studio Placement) Briand, Servane E3 Printmaking / Book Art Early Mid-Career Yes new Coates, Charles U4 Printmaking Early Mid-Career No new Day, Mel E7 Instalaltion / New Media Established Yes new de Larios, Ulla U1 Textile Mid-Career Yes incumbent Doorley, Rachelle U5 Maker / Mixed Media Mid-Career Yes new Edwards, Ken U4 Sculpture, Painting Mid-Career Yes incumbent Foggie, Elizabeth E1 Mixed Media / Writing Emerging Yes new Gass, Linda F2 Textile / Painting Mid-Career No incumbent Gavish, Michal F6 New Media Installation / Painting / Animation Mid-Career Yes incumbent Gonsalves, Jennifer U1 Textile / Costume Design Emerging Yes new Gray, Christine F5 Painting Early Mid-Career Yes new Gunther, Barbara U2 Painting, Printmaking Established Yes incumbent Infante, Inge E5 Collage / Assemblage / Painting Mid-Career Yes incumbent Johnson, Conrad E4 Photography / Painting / Drawing Mid-Career yes new Karimi, Pantea E4 Printmaking, Mixed Media Early Mid-Career No new Lettieri, Marianne U2 Assemblage / Mixed Media Installation Mid-Career No incumbent Lucas, Paloma E3 Printmaking / Graphic Design Emerging No new McMillan, Ann U5 Painting Mid-Career No incumbent Muonio, Andy E1 Painting Emerging No incumbent Regua, Ernest F5 Painting Early Mid-Career No new Shere, Sahba F7 Painting Mid-Career Yes new White, Nancy F3 Painting Established No incumbent Event Artist(s)Date Holiday Open Studio Various CASP artists December 2-3, 11AM – 5PM CASP Studios Tour for the Stanford University Women's Club Daniele Archambault and various CASP artists March 26, 2015 1:30 – 3:30PM Cubberley Community Day Various CASP artists March 28, 2015 11AM – 2PM Hatch Pack: Monthly Critique Discussion Group Christine Gray; Mel Day April 22, 2015 7:30 – 9:30PM Silicon Valley Open Studios Various CASP artists May 2-3, 2015 11AM – 5PM TinkerLab (U5)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan May 9, 2015 2 -4PM Art, Science and Technology in Dialog (U7) Michal Gavish and Pantea Karimi May 12, 2015 7:30 – 9:30PM Sewing Clinic (U1)Jennifer Gonsalves July 7, 2015 5 – 9PM Sewing Clinic (U1)Jennifer Gonsalves September 7, 5 – 9PM Art and the Environment Community Dialogue (H1) Barbara Boissevain September 15, 6:30 - 8PM TinkerLab (U5)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan September 19, 2 – 4PM Chado - Traditional Japanese Tea Gathering (F7) Sahba Shere September 30, 12 – 1:30PM Sewing Clinic (U1)Jennifer Gonsalves October 5, 5 – 9PM TinkerLab (U5)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan October 10, 2 – 4PM TinkerLab (Art Lab)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan November 7, 2 – 4PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves November 9, 5 – 9PM Meet the Artists (Art Lab)Andy Muonio (Lead); Participants: 14 CASP Artists November 12, 6 – 8PM Holiday Open Studios Participants TBD November 21, 11AM – 5PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves December 7, 5 – 9PM TinkerLab (Art Lab)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan December 12, 2 – 4PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves January 4, 5-9 PM TinkerLab (Art Lab)Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan January 9, 2-4 PM Open Door Playwriting Workshop (Art Lab) Lessa Bouchard January 30, 10 AM - 12 PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves February 1, 5 - 9 PM Cartooning Open Studio and Workshop Daniele Archambault February 18, 7 - 9 PM Public Alchemy - Community Exhibition (Art Lab) 67 Community Artists. Artist Leads: Lessa Bouchard and Mel Day. Assisting artists: Ken Edwards, Andy Muonio, Pantea Karimi, Rachelle Doorley, Linda Gass, Conrad Johnson, Barbara Gunther, Paloma Lucas, Jennifer Gonsalves, t.w.five February, 27 - March 19, 2016 Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves April 4, 5-9 PM Open Door Playwriting Workshop (Art Lab) Lessa Bouchard April 5, 10 AM - 12 PM Cubberley Artists Studios Tour by SUWC Visual Arts Members Daniele Archambault and various CASP artists April 21, 1:30 to 3:30 PM CASP Community Service 2015 CASP Community Service 2016 Tinker Lab Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan April 30, 2 - 4 PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves May 2, 5 -9 PM Silicon Valley Open Studios (SVOS) Artist Lead: Barbara Bossevain, 19 participating CASP Artists May 14 - 15, 11 AM - 5 PM Papermaking Workshop Lessa Bouchard May 14, 11 - 1 PM REMIX - Group Exhibit Marianne Lettieri, and 24 participating CASP Artists May 14, 15, 21, 28 A Moment with Ben Burgess, Animation and Computer artist Lessa Bouchard July 23, 11 AM - 1 PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves August 1, 5-9 PM Visual Artist and Creative Writer Presentations Sahba Shere + Charles Coates and invited artists August 25, Time 6-7:30 Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves September 5, 5-9 PM TinkerLab Rachelle Doorley and Ann McMillan October, 1, 2016 2-3 PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves October 5, 2016, 5 - 9 PM Photographing Ceramics Workshop (Art lab)Conrad Johnson October 5, 9 AM – 12 PM Creating Abilities Workshop (Art lab)Conrad Johnson October 12, 9 AM – 12 PM Photography for Painters Workshop (Art Lab)Conrad Johnson October 19, 9 AM – 12 PM Block Paper Print Launch Party 9Art Lab)Charles Coates October 3, 6 - 10 PM Sewing Clinic (Art Lab)Jennifer Gonsalves November 7, 6 - 9 PM Help Create a Land Art Installation with Native Plants Linda Gass November 12, 19 9:30-12:30 Holiday Open House + Preview Event Barbara Boissevain, Pantea Karimi, Daniele Archambault, Andy Munio, Sahba Shere December 2 and 3, 2016 Dragonfruit open rehearsal Lessa Bouchard November 13, 3-8 PM Papermaking Workshop Lessa Bouchard December 2, 11 AM - 2 PM Outgoing celebration Barbara Gunther December 17, 5 PM Valentine Making Party Marianne Lettieri February 11, 12 - 4 PM Public Alchemy Intake Artist Lead: Melissa Wyman February 18-19, 2017 Public Alchemy Community Exhibition + Critic Workshops Artist Lead: Melissa Wyman for Community Exhibition Critic Workshops - Mel Day, Coplanner - Amy DiPlacido, Catherine di Napoli February 25 - March 18, 2017 Al Mutannabi 10th anniversary celebration Servane Briand March 5, 2017, 4-6 PM ICA tour of CASP studios Saturday, March 11, 2017 Cubberley Community Day Andy Muonio, Jennifer Gonsalves, Melissa Wyman, Amy DiPlacido, Conrad Johnson, Daniele Archambault, Charles Coates, Rachelle Doorley, Paloma Lucas, Sahba Shere, Pantea Karimi, Barbara Boissevain, TWFive, Catherine di Napoli, Linda Gass, Lessa Bouchard, Ernest Regua, Patrick Fenton, Mel Day, Ann McMillan, Marianne Lettiere, Daniele Archambault Saturday, March 25, 2017 CASP Community Service 2017 Open Door Archive Mixed Media Writing Practice Lessa Bouchard Saturdays, April 15- May 13, 9:30-10:30 AM Silicon Valley Open Studios (SVOS)Barbara Bossevain, Servane Briand, Charles Coates, Mel Day, Catherine di Napoli, Linda Gass, Pantea Karimi, Paloma Lucas, Andy Muonio, Amy DiPlacido, Sahba Shere, and Melissa Wyman May 6-7, 2017, 11 AM - 5 PM Retrofit 1 and 2.0 at Telegraph Hill Marianne Lettieri and Mel Day organizers May 20-July 22, 2017 Metamorphosis: Young People and the Journey of Immigration student exhibition; artist lecture by Robin Lasser on 6/3 Barbara Boissevain June 10 - 17, 2017 Dedication Event of Paula Kirkeby Printmaking Studio Various CASP artists Friday, October 13, 2017 Setup for Conrad's Exhibition Conrad Johnson November 2-3, 2017 Veterans documentary and two week exhibition of veteran photography work. Film screening on Nov. 4th Conrad Johnson, Ernest Regua November 4-18, 2017 Veterans Day Collective Comic Book Making Event Daniele Archambault, Servane Briand and Paloma Lucas Saturday, November 11, 2017 Winter Open Studios, MTA Organizers: Andy, Sahba, Daniele Saturday, November 11, 2017 Setup for Pantea's exhibition Pantea Karimi December, 5-8, 2017 K-8 Student Art Exhibition Pantea Karimi December, 10-15, 2017 Valentine Making activity Marianne Letierri in collaboration with Lynne Greene February 10, 2018, 12 - 4 PM Coffee & Cameras @ Cubberley Conrad Johnson March 10, 2018, 9 - 10 AM ROAR: Community Collaborative Painting Project/ Show / Workshop Melissa Wyman and Rachelle Doorley March 10 -11, 2018 Veterans Day Comic Book Launch and Exhibit March 23 - Set-up, March 24 - Book launch and exhibit March 25 - Taking down the exhibit. Danièle Archambault Servane Briand Paloma Lucas March 23 - 25, 2018 Cubberley Community Day Open Studios: Danièle Archambault, Barbara Boissevain, Servane Briand, Charles Coates, Catherine DiNapoli, Rachelle Doorley, Patrick Fenton, Jennifer Gonsalves, Conrad Johnson, Paloma Lucas, Andrew Muonio, Ernest Regua, Sahba Shere, Melissa Wyman, and t.w.five. Workshops: Charles Coates, Catherine DiNapoli, Rachelle Doorley, Conrad Johnson, Jennifer Gonsalves. March 24, 11 AM - 1 PM CASP Community Service 2018 Art Panel: Building Art Collections Barbara Boissevain in collaboration with Patricia Lea Watts and Lorri Kershner Saturday, March 31, 2018 SVOS Andy Muonio, Conrad Johnson, Charles Coates, Rachelle Doorley, Sahba Shere, Barbara Boissevain, TWFive, Catherine di Napoli May 5-6, 2018 Open Door Archive Mixed Media Writing Practice -Series Lessa Bouchard Wednesdays, March 7, 14, 21, and 28 and April 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2018, 6-8 PM Exhibition and 1) a science-art artist panel and 2) a wood working art-science workshop. Pantea Karimi and guest artist Heiko Greb May, 4 -May, 27, 2018 Eco Echo: Art and Environment Laboratory - a 9-day program including an exhibition in ArtLab with workshops, opening and closing events. Bay Area artists Anne Beck, Barbara Boissevain, Ginger Burrell, Judith Selby Lang, Richard Lang, Kent Manske, Michelle Wilson, Nanette Wylde (from Eco Echo , the environmental art collective). September, 2018 (DATES TBD) 3-part documentary screening about the artists of Cubberley featuring footage of past and present Cubberley Artists Lessa Bouchard October - November - December 2018 Exhibition Catherine DiNapoli September 26-October 13 World Singing Day Conrad Johnson 20-Oct-18 A community celebration of veterans - Telling stories from pages of a book Paloma Lucas November 1-November 11 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9269) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Investment Activity Report Title: City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Background The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the City’s investment portfolio status as of the end of the third quarter; ending March 31, 2018. The City’s investment policy requires that staff report quarterly to Council on the City’s portfolio composition compared to Council - adopted policy, portfolio performance, and other key investment and cash flow information. Discussion The City’s investment portfolio is detailed in Attachment B. It is grouped by investment type and includes the investment issuer, date of maturity, current market value, the book and face (par) value, and the weighted average maturity of each type of investment and of the entire portfolio. The par value of the City’s portfolio is $531.4 million; in comparison, last quarter it was $513.4 million. The growth in the portfolio of $18.0 million since the last quarter primarily results from timing of cash flows. Contributing factors include not having to pay the bi -weekly pensions to Public Employers’ Retirement System (PERS) because the annual employer contribution of $22.1 million was partially paid in July 2017 and property tax receipts including earlier receipts of special assessments for University Avenue Parking and General Obligation (Library) bonds. By prepaying PERS instead of making payments with each payroll period, the C ity expects savings of $0.8 million in PERS payments; however, the savings will be offset by the loss of approximately $0.2 million in interest income. This results in net citywide savings of $0.6 million. The saving is a consequence of PERS’ ability to earn interest earlier and at a higher rate than the City could realize. Property taxes are primarily paid around December/January and April/May. The portfolio consists of $8.5 million in liquid accounts and $522.9 million in U. S. government treasury investments, agency securities, bonds of State of California local government agencies, City of Palo Alto Page 2 bonds of some of the fifty United States, medium-term corporate notes, and certificates of deposit. The $522.9 million includes $149.5 million in investments maturing in le ss than two years, comprising 28.6 percent of the City’s investment in notes and securities. The investment policy requires that at least $50 million be maintained in securities maturing in less than two years. The current market value of the portfolio is 98.3 percent of the book value. The market value of securities fluctuates, depending on how interest rates perform. When interest rates decrease, the market value of the securities in the City’s portfolio will likely increase; likewise, when interest rates increase, the market value of the securities will likely decrease. Understanding and showing market values is not only a reporting requirement, but essential to knowing the principal risks in actively buying and selling securities. It is important to note, however, that the City’s practice is to buy and hold investments until they mature so changes in market price do not affect the City’s investment principal. The market valuation is provided by Union Bank of California, which is the City’s safekeeping agent. The average life to maturity of the investment portfolio is 3.96 years compared to 3.68 years last quarter. Investments Made During the Third Quarter During the third quarter, $15.5 million of government agency securities with an average yield of 1.1% percent matured. During the same period, government securities totaling $67.3 million with an average yield of 2.2% percent were purchased. The expectation is interest rates and City’s portfolio’s average yield will continue to gradually rise. Th e City’s short-term money market and pool account decreased by $33.8 million compared to the second quarter. Investment staff continually monitors the City’s short term cash flow needs and adjusts liquid funds to meet them. Availability of Funds for the Next Six Months Normally, the flow of revenues from the City’s utility billings and General Fund sources is sufficient to provide funds for ongoing expenditures in those respective funds. Projections indicate receipts will be $244.1 million and expenditure s will be $256.6 million over the next six months, indicating an overall decline in the portfolio of $12.5 million. The decline is attributable to pre-paying a portion of the Fiscal Year 2019 Public Employers’ Retirement System’s (PERS) employer contribution of $25.9 million, representing the actuarial determined contribution (ADC) payment for FY 2019. By prepaying PERS instead of making payments with each payroll period, the City is expected to save $0.9 million in PERS payment; however, the savings will be offset by the loss of approximately $0.3 million in interest income. This results in net citywide savings of $0.6 million. The saving is a consequence of PERS’ ability to earn interest earlier and at a higher rate than the City could realize. Without th is prepayment, the portfolio would have increased by $12.8 million. As of March 31, 2018, the City had $8.5 million deposited in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and a money market account that could be withdrawn on a daily basis. In addition, investments totaling $38.3 million will mature between April 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 3 On the basis of the above projections, staff is confident that the City will have more than sufficient funds or liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. Compliance with City Investment Policy During the third quarter, staff complied with all aspects of the investment policy. Attachment C lists the major restrictions in the City’s investment policy compared with the portfolio’s actual performance. Investment Yields Interest income on an accrual basis for the third quarter was $2.7 million. As of March 31, 2018, the yield to maturity of the City’s portfolio was 2.13 percent. The rising interest rate is expected to gradually increase the portfolio’s yields. The City’s portfolio yield of 2.13 percent compares to LAIF’s average yield for the quarter of 1.43 percent and an average yield on the two-year and five-year Treasury bonds during the third quarter of approximately 2.15 percent and 2.53 percent, respectively. For the past decade, the City’s portfolio yield has outperformed the two and five year Treasury bond rates. With the recent rapid Treasury interest rate rise that is no longer the case; this is an expected occurrence. As the City’s l addered portfolio investments matures in the next year or two and is reinvested in higher yielding securities, the City’s portfolio yield is expected to again outperform these Treasury interest rates. Yield Trends The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has maintained the federal funds and discount rates at 1.50 and 2.0 percent, respectively since raising it three times in calendar year 2017. Inflation remains below the FOMC’s long-term goal of 2 percent but has moved closer to that goal. FOMC view the risks of rising inflation to be gradual due to strengthening consumer spending, improving labor market and strengthening economic growth. Business fixed investment spending is growing strongly. The FOMC expects future rate increase to be gradual and dependent on the economic outlook. Though the continued expectation is rates will rise, factors that could keep a lid on rate increases include: low inflation, weak wage growth, and domestic and global economic uncertainties. Funds Held by the City or Managed Under Contract Attachment A is a consolidated report of all City investment funds, including those not held directly in the investment portfolio. These include cash in the City’s regular bank account with US Bank and Wells Fargo. (A description of the City’s banking relationships can be found in City Council Staff Report ID # 7858.) The bond proceeds, reserves, and debt service payments being held by the City’s fiscal agents are subject to the requirements of the underlying debt indenture. The trustees for the bond funds are U.S. Bank and California Asset Management Program (CAMP). Bond funds with U.S. Bank are invested in federal agency and money market mutual funds that consist exclusively of U.S. Treasury securities. Bond funds in CAMP are invested in banker’s acceptance notes, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, federal agency securities, and repurchase agreements. The most recent data on funds held by the fiscal agent is as of March 31, 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Fiscal Impact This is an information report with no fiscal impact. Environmental Review This information report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, an environmental review is not required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Consolidated Report of Cash Management  Attachment B: Investment Portfolio  Attachment C: Investment Policy Compliance