Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-01 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: June 1, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00136 and 17PLN-00135]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 Square Foot Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on six Levels (two Below Grade) With a Footprint of 37,075 Square Foot and Floor Area of 149,500 Square Foot. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed With Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for public comment from March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For more information, contact the project planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 260 California Avenue [16PLN-00352]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Approval of a Minor Architectural Review for an Outdoor Seating Area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P). For more information, contact the project planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a New Three Story Mixed Use Project With 275 Square Feet of Commercial Space and Three Residential Units (4,435 Square Feet). The Applicant also seeks a Variance to the Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area Ratio and Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20-feet to 16 Feet and six-Inches. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us 6. 4115 El Camino Real [17PLN-00085]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,747 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking Level. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be subject to CEQA review. Zoning District: CN. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. This item has been continued to the next meeting of June 15, 2017. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8169) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule / Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: ARB Staff Approvals (DOCX) 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Kim 6/1/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Robert Gooyer 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Wynne Furth 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/29/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Additional staff approvals may be found on the following webpage - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1421&TargetID=115,206,353 Project Description: ARB review to allow for the installation of two new illuminated wall signs. Applicant: Christie Lawrence Address: 2098 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00126 Approval Date: May 16, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: May 30, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to allow for the installation of two new illuminated wall signs. Applicant: Christie Lawrence Address: 325 Lytton Avenue, 17PLN-00126 Approval Date: May 24, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: June 7, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to allow for one building mounted sign. Applicant: Stephanie King Address: 165 University Avenue, 16PLN-00406 Approval Date: May 24, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: June 7. 2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8069) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building and Garage (Prelim) Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00136 and 17PLN- 00135]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 Square Foot Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on six Levels (two Below Grade) With a Footprint of 37,075 Square Foot and Floor Area of 149,500 Square Foot. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed With Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments on this Preliminary Architectural Review application. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and ARB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. This ARB review follows a preliminary review by the Historic City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Resources Board on May 25, 2017. Staff will convey to the ARB any HRB comments regarding the proximity of the historic resource at 321 California Avenue. For a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment Department only performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond Architectural Review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. However, a Notice of Preparation (Attachment D) was issued and the associated comment period concluded, an Initial Study (Attachment E) was prepared, a Scoping Meeting was held with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and a ‘Prescreening’ was conducted by the City Council to provide direction on the approach to rezoning 350 Sherman Avenue and the desired number of parking spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue. The purpose of the ARB meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present conceptual project plans to the HRB and ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the projects that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. Representative: Matt Raschke, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue (see location map Attachment A) Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ x 371’ (250 Sherman) and 130’ x 312’ (350 Sherman) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) area (from 640 Page Mill Road) Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No resources on the two sites; adjacent to 350 Sherman (parking garage site) is a National Register eligible resource, 321 California Avenue, on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation Existing Improvement(s): The two blocks of the site are improved with asphalt and trees in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 planters in use as surface parking lots available to the public Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lots Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses) Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses) South/southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family residential land uses) Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: 250 Sherman: Public Facilities; 350 Sherman: Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Yes, within 150 feet of multiple family residential land use 250 Sherman 350 Sherman City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Uses or Districts (150'): Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2015: Council directed cost and impacts analysis to increase parking spaces beyond minimum 460 spaces, and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review of a 3-story Public Safety Building (PSB) on Parking Lot C-6 and of a new Parking Garage on Parking Lot C-7 with 460 spaces and 4,700 sf of commercial space. April 3, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56666. Video of Council meeting viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-122/ June 5, 2017: Informational report regarding preliminary review PTC: April 12, 2017 Scoping Meeting Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56874 Video of Scoping meeting viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-46/ Excerpt Minutes attached to this report (Attachment B) HRB: May 25, 2017 Preliminary Review Study Session ARB: None. Infrastructure Plan The new Public Safety Building (PSB) and adjacent public parking garage were envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The applicant proposes construction of the garage first, to replace and increase surface parking facilities, followed by construction of the PSB once the garage is operational. The need for a larger PSB arose from the growth of public safety services and changes in regulations, including the need to meet the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The functions of the existing PSB within the 25,000 sf building at 275 Forest Avenue will be relocated to a new building proposed at 250 Sherman Avenue. The new public parking garage would be constructed at 350 Sherman Avenue. The project description, included in the Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study, was developed by the Public Works Department with the help of the City’s environmental consultant, MIG. Project Description The City intends to construct a new Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new above and below grade parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the formal applications will be considered as a single project, because the garage will mitigate for the loss of approximately 310 existing public surface parking spaces on both sites. As noted, preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report is City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 underway following the Scoping Meeting, 30-day circulation of a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, and ‘Prescreening’ by the City Council, which influenced the project scope. The City Council directed staff to proceed with full preliminary design of a new 636-space parking garage concept with four levels of above-ground parking, two levels of basement parking and no retail space, and to design enhancements to the Birch Street frontage that will create an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk. The Council discussion served the purpose of a “prescreening” preliminary review. Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages (see Staff Report #7738). The proposed design of the Public Safety Building is a 3-story structure over an operational basement per previous Council direction (see Staff Report #6069). Application number 17PLN-00136 has been assigned to the Preliminary Review of a Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue. Application number 17PLN-00135 is assigned to the Preliminary Review of a new garage at 350 Sherman Avenue. Additional application information is also available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Three distinct concepts were developed and will be discussed by the ARB. The Public Works Department webpage for the ‘New Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage’ is viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145. Updates to this website are anticipated. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR).  Rezoning – Text Amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District development standards for public parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB members are encouraged to provide objective feedback to the City on the preliminary drawings for three concepts. The ARB may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Consideration to any applicable policy documents  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features (PSB site only).  Potential for photovoltaic canopy structures on the garage rooftop. The submittal of an application for amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District Development Standards is anticipated, in order to allow greater lot coverage and height for public parking garages in the Downtown and California Business Districts. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion of the preliminary plans. The applicant will file the formal applications subsequent to the ARB review of the Preliminary Review application. The meetings are webcast and archived through the MediaCenter website (http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/). Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Public Safety Building and California Avenue Garage at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on March 24, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on April 12, 2017. Comments were received at the meeting by one member of the public and from PTC members. Written comments were received from Caltrans and the Native American Heritage Commission. The NOP comment period is now closed. The next step will be the release of a draft EIR (DEIR) after the design is further refined and a formal Architectural Review application is submitted. The Preliminary Review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Vicinity Maps Figures 1 and 2 (PDF)  Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes of Scoping Session PTC 04.12.17 (DOC)  Attachment C: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment D: NOP sent to county via mail March 22 (PDF)  Attachment E: Signed Initial Study (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Exhibit # TITLE HEREwww.migcom.com | 510-845-7549 Palo Alto Public Safety Building Palo Alto, California Figure 1. Project Vicinity Source: Ross Drulis Cusenbery, MIG 02-2PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two- story residential lot; to the east is Site A of this study. The current site is a surface public parking lot, accommodating approximately 148 cars. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Access to this lot is from Sherman Avenue, as well as from the alley to the north. Site B also has a zoning designation of “PF.” Site B has a land use designation of CC- “Community Commercial”. It is part of the California Avenue Parking District. SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following list of observations summarize potential pros and cons when considering Sites A and B for the development of the PSB and public parking garage, respectively. Potential Opportunities •City ownership of the sites avoids real estate acquisition costs. •Due to the orientation and placement of the County Courthouse, the PSB will have high visibility and opportunity for strong civic presence to those approaching on Park Blvd. from the south. •There is the opportunity to improve pedestrian environment on the east side of Site A, along Park Blvd., in a way that is consistent with the Cal-Ventura Area 2007 Comprehensive Plan goals. •Due to angle-of-view from California Avenue, and the existing height and continuity of the commercial buildings, much of the proposed PSB massing would not be visible from the retail street. This means that the size of the building is unlikely to seem “out of scale” with the smaller parcel retail functions. •The site is very close to CalTrain, a convenience for both staff and visitors. •For the Police Department, there is convenient access to a major arterial roadway (Oregon Expressway). PA R K BI R C H AS H SHERMAN GRANT CALIFORNIA 375’ 14 0 ’ 1 4 0 ’ SITE A - Lot C-6 1.2 Acre Public Safety Building 310’ SITE B - Lot C-7 0.9 Acre Parking Structure NORTH 60 360240120feet JACARANDA Palo Alto Public Safety Building Palo Alto, California www.migcom.com | 510-845-7549 Figure 2. Proposed Project Source: Ross Drulis Cusenbery, MIG 02-2PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two- story residential lot; to the east is Site A of this study. The current site is a surface public parking lot, accommodating approximately 148 cars. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Access to this lot is from Sherman Avenue, as well as from the alley to the north. Site B also has a zoning designation of “PF.” Site B has a land use designation of CC- “Community Commercial”. It is part of the California Avenue Parking District. SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following list of observations summarize potential pros and cons when considering Sites A and B for the development of the PSB and public parking garage, respectively. Potential Opportunities •City ownership of the sites avoids real estate acquisition costs. •Due to the orientation and placement of the County Courthouse, the PSB will have high visibility and opportunity for strong civic presence to those approaching on Park Blvd. from the south. •There is the opportunity to improve pedestrian environment on the east side of Site A, along Park Blvd., in a way that is consistent with the Cal-Ventura Area 2007 Comprehensive Plan goals. •Due to angle-of-view from California Avenue, and the existing height and continuity of the commercial buildings, much of the proposed PSB massing would not be visible from the retail street. This means that the size of the building is unlikely to seem “out of scale” with the smaller parcel retail functions. •The site is very close to CalTrain, a convenience for both staff and visitors. •For the Police Department, there is convenient access to a major arterial roadway (Oregon Expressway). PA R K BI R C H AS H GRANT CALIFORNIA NORTH 60 360240120feet 02-4PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background PUBLIC ALLEY NA R R O W SI T E MATURE TREES WIDEN PUBLIC REALM CROSS- STREET OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tr a i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tra i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e an d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Re c o r d D a t e Un k o w n C o f C C- 1 2 8 1 11 C O C - 0 0 0 0 9 48 0 42 5 2502 40 9 40 8 46 5 46 3 46 1 45 9 44 7 44 5 43 7 - 44 1 43 3 - 4 3 5 2458 2454 41 0 43 0 46 0 45 6 45 4 44 8 42 543 1 47 5 2450 45 1 45 3 2650 2640 36 0 32 0 30 6 30 9 - 31 5 31 4 23 1 44 0 41 4 40 6 - 4 1 0 39 2 36 0 36 4 41 5 41 5 42 1 30 5 44 2 - 4 4 4 43 3 - 4 4 7 40 5 - 4 0 9 16 1 36 6 - 37 0 3 0 0 - 3 3 0 33 2 - 36 2 2290 36 6 40 0 37 1 36 5 35 5 37 5 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 30 2 25 0 28 5 31 5 32 533 5 35 0 31 8 30 6 32 0 31 0 27 7 2313 2307 30 3 - 30 9 30 1 29 9 37 8 - 38 4 26 7 - 2 7 1 2350 26 5 22 0 23 0 24 0 29 0 26 0 2363 16 4 2343 2323 20 6 20 0 2555 12 3 15 0 27 0 2401-2585 14 5 10 1 - 15 1 15 3 15 5 15 7 15 9 2421 2441 39 8 39 0 2504 2506 33 4 41 7 27 5 27 6 37 0 39 1 41 3 2333 42 9 45 0 44 0 42 1 36 7 14 0 2160 15 4 2575 2670 37 0 42 0 32. 0 ' 35.2' 71.1 ' 26 . 7 ' 50.9' 125 . 0 ' 111.9' 15 5 . 0 ' 230.0' 13 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 25 . 0 ' 130.0'40.0'49.0' 95 . 0 ' 49.0' 95 . 0 ' 41.0' 25 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 91.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 131.6' 40. 0 ' 11.6' 46.1' 120.0' 90 . 0 ' 120.0' 40. 0 ' 22.2' 90 . 0 ' 271.6' 120 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 239.4' 90 . 0 ' 48.0' 90 . 0 ' 48.0' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 46.0' 125 . 0 ' 46.0' 125 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 93 . 0 ' 61.0' 26 . 7 ' 71.1 ' 35.2' 40. 0 ' 58.6' 40. 0 ' 58.6' 14.1' 25 . 0 ' 22.7' 90 . 0 ' 40.9' 90 . 0 ' .3' 35. 0 ' 53.4' 35. 0 ' .3' 90 . 0 ' 43.8' 125 . 0 ' 44.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 136 . 3 ' 91.5' 136 . 1 ' 91.5' 14 2 . 6 ' 99.3'132.5' 14 2 . 7 ' 92.8' 23. 6 ' 73.7 ' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10. 0 ' 10.0' 11 8 . 6 ' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 3 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 79 . 0 ' 21.0' 79 . 0 ' 21.0' 21.0' 110 . 0 ' 20.2' 14.1' 10 0 . 0 ' 30.3' 95.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 51.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 42.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 195.0' 110 . 0 ' 195.0' 125 . 0 ' 130.2' 115 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 120.3' 115 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 40.0'14.1' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6'351.6' 16 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 16 0 . 0 ' 351.6'23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 100 . 0 ' 30.0'15.7' 59 . 1 ' 13 . 4 ' 44. 4 ' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 50.4' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 99. 9 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 110 . 0 ' 51.0' 110 . 0 ' 51.0' 110 . 0 ' 96.0' 110 . 0 ' 96.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 96.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 25.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 25.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.4' 132 . 4 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 82.5' 110 . 0 ' 82.5' 110 . 0 ' 250.0' 110 . 0 ' 250.0' 132 . 2 ' 50.0' 132 . 3 ' 50.0' 132 . 0 ' 50.0' 132 . 2 ' 50.0' 131 . 9 ' 50.0' 132 . 0 ' 50.0' 131 . 8 ' 50.0' 131 . 9 ' 50.0' 131 . 6 ' 50.0' 131 . 8 ' 50.0' 131 . 5 ' 50.0' 131 . 6 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 99.6' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 150.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 37.8' 131 . 5 ' 37.5' 131 . 4 ' 37.5' 131 . 3 ' 37.5' 131 . 4 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 14.1' 40.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 171.2' 257 . 7 ' 218.5' 121 . 5 ' 25.0' 13 5 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 10 . 0 ' 25.1' 13 5 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 95 . 3 ' 29.3' 95 . 0 ' 37.2' 95 . 0 ' 54.0' 165 . 8 ' 69.6' 165 . 3 ' 83.3' 261 . 2 ' 99.4' 261 . 2 ' 100.4' 49.5' 86. 5 ' 79 . 0 ' 70.5' 70.5' 29. 5 ' 46. 3 ' 71.7' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99. 0 ' 26. 0 ' 26. 0 ' 99 . 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 41. 0 ' 41. 0 ' 12 5 . 0 ' 84. 0 ' 26.2' 26.2' 26.2' 36.7' 17 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 185 . 0 ' NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E CALIFORNIA AVENUE MI M O S A L A N E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T N AVENUE GRANT A V E N U E SHERIDAN AVENUE ST R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T NO G A L L A N E JACARANDA LANE PE N I N S U L A C O R R I D O R J O I N T P O W E R S B O A R D 8"C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) 6" CI WATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) 4"CIWATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) 4" (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) CI 4" CICI WATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"4"CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 6" CIP WATER WATERCIP6" CIP6"WATER 6"CI WATER 6" 1" CUJU L - 1 9 4 8 29 ' 1" CU (A B A N D A u g - 1 9 6 8 ) 1" CU Fe b - 1 9 7 6 15 ' (A B A N D O c t - 1 9 3 1 ) 1"CUJun-1941 1" CU JUL - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 29' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31' 4" JU L - 1 9 4 8 25' 1" CU MA R - 1 9 4 7 22 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 16 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28 ' 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 8' 1 " C U 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 9 8 ( I R R I G ) 44' 1" CU 07-01-1953 1" C 25' 251 2" CU AU G - 1 9 5 7 23 ' 1 " C U 1 2 - 0 8 - 2 0 0 5 18' 24' 2" CU FE B - 1 9 6 9 1" CU APR - 1 9 4 8 49 ' 4"CU OCT - 1 9 6 2 24 ' 1 1 / 2 " CU DE C - 1 9 8 7 MA R - 1 9 4 9 4" P 1" C U J U L - 1 9 6 1 2" C 3/4 " CU 15' 1 " C U 49' 1 " C U M a y - 1 9 8 9 2" (AB A N D M a r - 1 9 7 2 ) GAS 3"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4" A B S G A S ( A B A N D . ) 2"ABS GAS 2"ABS GASABM #515 2"B W P G A S ( A B A N D . 0 8 - 2 8 - 2 0 0 9 ) 2"B W P G A S BWP2"GAS (ABAND) 3"BWP GAS (ABAND)3"BWP(ABAND Jan-1969)GAS (ABAND)3"BWP GAS ( A B A N D ) GA S 2" PV C 4"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4"GAS (ABAND) 4"GAS G-401 (ABAND) 4" G A S G - 4 0 1 ( A B A N D ) 4" BW P DEC 6 7 ( A B A N D . ) GA S 1/2 " PL 2"PE DEC-1994 2" BW P GA S ( A B A N D ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS2" A B S 2"ABS ABM #523 JUN-1965 GAS (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 3"BWP 3/4 " A B S G A S A B M # 6 3 3 J A N - 1 9 6 9 ( A B A N D . ) ABS G A S 6 3 3 J a n - 1 9 6 9 2" ABS GAS ABM# 523 Jun-1965 (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 4" ABS DE C 6 7 AB # 6 1 1 2"ABSGAS 2"ABS GAS ABM #515 (ABAND. 03-31-2009)JUL-1965ABM #515 JUL-1965 2" ABS GAS ABM# 515 Jul-1965 (ABAND. 03-31-2009) 3" ABS GAS ABM #334 01-01-1967 4"PVC ( A B A N D . ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS 3/8 " ABS NO V 6 5 57' 5/8 " PO L Y DE C 7 8 26' 7' 3/4 " SE P 5 0 8' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 40 ' AB S MAR - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S3/4 " AB S MA R - 1 9 6 8 2' 44 ' 3 / 8 " A B S J u l - 1 9 6 5 50' 3 / 4 " B W P S e p - 1 9 5 0 3/4 " AB S APR 7 1 9' 3/8 " 20' 5' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38' 15' 3 / 4 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 39' 1/2 " TE N APR 6 0 38 ' 14' 62' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/ 58' 3 / 8 " A B S NOV - 1 9 6 52' 3/8 " AB S JU L 6 5 49 ' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 45' 1/2 " PE AU G - 1 9 9 4 3/4 " 5' 38' 1/2 " PL SEP 5 8 64 ' 1 / 2 " P E J U N - 1 9 9 2 3/4 " WPFE B 5 0 3/4 " JUL 4 8 6' NOV75 AU G - 1 9 6 8 AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 18'3/4"UNK JUN-1960 8' FE B 7 8 32' 1 / 2 " P L 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 5 9 10' 1/2 " TE N AP R - 1 9 6 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 45' 1/2 " PE JU L - 1 9 9 7 55' 3/4 " AB S MAY - 1 9 6 1 50' 2 " P V C MA Y - 1 9 8 3 5/8 " PO L Y DE C - 1 9 7 8 46' 67' 3/8 " AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 1 1 / 8 " POL Y 8' PO L Y 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/4"PVCSEP7323' 38' 1/2 " PE OC T - 1 9 9 3 1/2 " TEN MA Y 5 9 JUN-1960 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 10 ' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 5/8"POLYNOV8044' 2' 2 " P E 1/2"TENMAY61 24' 1" CU FE B 5 0 70' 3/4 " AB S OCT - 1 9 6 3 AB S MA R - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " ABS 2' 6'1/2"PE FEB-1993 CU FE B 5 0 25 ' 3/4 " PVC OC T 8 4 NO V 5 7 18' 5/8 " 3/4 " JU L 4 8 3' 2' 2' 5/8 "PV CJU N 8 0 1/2 " P E J U N - 1 9 8 0 7' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 39' 38' 24' 3/4 " F e b - 1 9 5 0 45 1/2"PE 3/8 " AB S 5/8 " 20' 3/4 " 12' 3/4 " MAR 4 9 18' 3/8 " AB S 20' 3/8 " 2' X 2 ' 2" BW P 7' 3/4 " N O V 3 0 39' 1 / 2 " P E 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 1 80 ' 2 " P V C M a y - 1 9 8 3 20' 3/4 " AB S 3/4 " ABS 17' 16 ' 42' 5/8 "PE 3/ 8 "A B S FE B 7 0 OC T 6 9 5 1 / 2 ' 25' 1" PE Aug-2009 40' 1" PE Aug-2009 39' 1" PE Aug-2009 S 44- 4 -9 49- 4 - 1 0 59-5-4/C0 1 S 59-5-8/C01 S 57- 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2/C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 S 60 -2 -5 /C 01 13- 6-2 7 S 58-4-11 57 - 6 - 1 7 59-6- 3 / C 01 11-6-13 40-2-4 S 53-1-4/C01 S 53-1-2/C01 S 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11S 60 -1- 4/C01 57- 1 - 1 7 S 60 -1- 4/C01 57- 1 - 1 7 S 53 -2- 7/C0 1 S 60-1-1/C01 49- 6 - 1 2 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4" JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 31' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4"JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4" AB S AU G 9 0 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 11' 4" JU L 4 8 29' 4" JU L 4 8 28' 4" JU L 4 8 14' 4" JU L 4 8 25' 4" MA R 4 7 15 ' 4" JU L 4 8 27' JUN41 4" JU L 4 8 26' JU N 5 2 6" AC OC T 8 4 4" JU L 4 8 255' 23' 4"JU L 4 8 200' 23' 8. " S T O R M R C P ST O R M 6. " STO R M 12 . " RC P 12. " ST O R M PC C STORM12."RCP 12. " ST O R M RC P 18. " ST O R M RC P RC P 12. " S T O R M RCP12."STORM 12."RCPSTORM 12. "S T O R M STORM 12." P C C PCC12."STORM PCC12."STORM 3 P C C ST O R M 12. " S T O R M 12 ."PC C S T O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M PC C ST O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M P C C P C C ST O R M 12 . " PCC STORM 12." P C C 12 . " ST O R M 12. " ST O R M PC C PCCSTORM15." ST O R M PC C 12. " STORM24."PCC PC C 12. " ST O R M PC C 12 . " ST O R M PC C ST O R M 12. " PCCSTORM15." STORM12."PCC S T O R M PC C 12. " 12."PCCSTORM 15. " ST O R M PC C PC C 8." ST O R M P C C 12. " P C C 12 . " ST O R M PC C S T O R M 12. " PCCSTORM24." 12. "P C S PC C 15. " ST O R M 8."PC C 8."P C C 24."STORMPCC PCCSTORM24." PC C 12. " ST O R M 24."STORMPCC PC C 12 . " C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 9 A AC B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 8 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 6 C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 6 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 7 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 4 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 5 CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 8 B CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 6 A B C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 2 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 2 B C B - 0 4 3 - 4 -9 1 A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 2 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 5 C B - 0 4 9 - 3 - 0 3 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 3 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 0 B A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 2 C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 0 8 A BC B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 2 5 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 -2 1 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 4 3 A CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 4 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 8 CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 2 0 A CB - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 4 A AC B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 3 IN IN - 0 4 3 - 2 - 9 0 IN IN - 0 4 9 - 3 - 9 1 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 4 IN IN - 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 3 SD MH-043-2-07 SD MH-043-1-31 SD MH- 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 4 SDMH-043-4-16 SD MH-043-4-42 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 4 3 SD MH-043-3-17 SDMH-043-1-24 SD MH-043-1-15 WT-043-2-91 WT - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 9 WT - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 9 6" ACP WATER ABM# JAN-1963 6" ACP WATER ABM# JAN-1963 6"AC P W A T ER ER A B M # 1 1 9 7 A p r - 2 0 0 0 Ju l - 1 9 5 3 WA T E R W - 1 0 4 5 6" AC 6" TR A N S I T E WA T E R OC T 4 5 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 10" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-19648" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 12 " A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 3 5 J A N - 1 9 5 2 6" ACP WATER ABM#468 Feb-1964 8" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 W-5 4 0 6" JU N 4 1 WA T E R AC P 8" PE WATER ABM#1276 Aug-2010 8" A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 6 7 J a n - 1 9 6 48" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" CIP WATER ABM# JAN-1925 16" CIP WATER ABM# JAN-1925 WA T E R 6" CIP 6" C I P W A T E R A B M # 5 4 0 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C 8' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 6 9 5' 4 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 Fir e S e r v i c e 1 4 ' 6 " A C P O c t - 1 9 8 4 1"CUJun-1941 6' 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 118 ' 8" A C P M AY-1 9 8 3 RCP 13'2"CU Jun-1998 8' 1" CU Jul-1971 6" FS Ap r - 1 9 8 5 2" CU Nov - 1 9 6 9 15 ' 5' 2 " C U 45 ' 3 / 4 " C U S e p - 1 9 3 9 10' 1 " C U O c t - 1 9 3 7 26' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 9' 1 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 40 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 14' 1 " C U 41 ' 1 " C U N o v - 1 9 3 6 45 ' 2 " C U S e p - 1 9 8 6 41' 1 " C U 0 7 - 0 1 - 1 9 6 3 5' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 4"AC28' F.S.6'1 1 / 2 " CU 45' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 1" CU Jun - 1 9 6 3 43 ' JAN-1929 46 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 0 1 39' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 5 9' 1 1 / 2 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 4 4' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 0 10 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C A p r - 2 0 0 1 8"ACDec-1960 21' F.S. 1 4 ' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 7 6 4"CU 8' 1 1 / 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 6" AC F.S . 4 1 ' 6 " A C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 30' Mar-1961Aug-2001 2"Apr-195112' Jun-1941 40' 1 " C U 9' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 3 8 Jul-1957 7' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 9 4 40' 1 1 / 4 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 8 43 ' 1 1 / 4 " C U J a n - 1 9 6 9 40' 3 / 4 " C U F e b - 1 9 3 7 11 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 1 1"CUOct-1945 30' 3"W M W / B Y P A S S 09-01-1990 ( I R R I G ) 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 26' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 po t a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 1 5 ' 6 " P V C D e c - 1 9 9 4 pot a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 10 ' 4 " P V C D e c - 1 9 8 4 22' 2 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 Fire S e r v i c e 9 ' 4 " P V C F e b - 1 9 9 9 23' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 8 4' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 5' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 4 6 3' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 7 30' 1 - 1 / 2 " C U 1 0 - 1 5 - 1 9 9 6 29' 3 / 4 " C U 4"4" 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 44' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45'44'2'5' 4 " D I P J u n - 2 0 1 4 41' 6 " D I P M a y - 2 0 1 4 26 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 40' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 25' 4 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 18' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 45 '46'45'46 45 4 44' 1 45 '4545' 44 ' 4 100 ' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 9' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 5 8 20 8 5 20 8 6 15 5 16 2 74737473 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 5 ' 1/ 2 " P E 5 ' 1/ 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 .2 . 5 ' x 2.5' x 2 .2.5' 2.5' x 2 . 5 2.5' x 2 . 5 '2.5' x 2 . 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5 ' x 2.5 ' 1 / 2 "PE 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 "P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E JA N 2 9 21 ' 52' 3 / 4 " P V C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 71' 1" WP Apr - 1 9 5 6 114 ' 1 " P E 0 8 - 2 9 - 2 0 0 6 1/2"PEDEC88 47 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 1 0 15' JAN29 70' 3/4" PVC Dec-1973 2"PVC JUL 7 4 35' 4' 8' 1 " P E 0 6 - 2 4 - 2 0 0 8 2.5 ' X 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 3/4 " PV C 5/8 " PO L Y 12' 46' 4' 2"PVCJUL7 4 42' 27' 1 1 / 8 " P E 58' 1 / 2 " P E 0 3 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 6 2' 2 " P E 1 0 - 3 0 - 2 0 0 8 24' 1 1 / 8 " P E 78 ' 1" PE Ap r - 1 9 8 8 Rop e 3' 1/2 " P E J a n - 1 9 9 0 22' 24'67' 3 / 8 " A B S J u n - 1 9 6 3 2" AB S MAY 6 1 120 ' 6' JA N 2 9 21 ' 59' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 54 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 78 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 53' 1 " P E J u n - 2 0 0 9 31' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 10 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 42 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 40' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 17' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 13 ' 1 " P E J u n - 1 9 9 5 16 1 ' 1 " P E 16' 1 " P E 14 5 ' 1 " P E 5/8 " P E 31' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 3'X 3 ' 1 " P E 24 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 6 36' 1" PE Feb-2009 57' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 35 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 21' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 30 ' 1 " P E D e c - 1 9 8 5 18 ' 1 " P E A p r - 2 0 0 1 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 23 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 11' 1" PE Nov-2010 33'1" PE Jul-2002 1" PE 5' PE DE C 8 7 42' 1/2 " 7' 1 " P E 19' 1 " P E Apr - 2 0 0 9 6' 1 " P E 5' 1 " P E 10 ' 1 " P E 7' 1 " P E 13 0 ' 1 " P E AP R - 1 9 8 8 RO P E 54'78' 24' 3 / 4 " P V C N o v - 1 9 7 5 67' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 33 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 52' 1" unknown 57 ' 1 " P E F E B - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 59' 2 " XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XX XX X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X 6"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1216 Jan-2002 2" B W P G A S A B M # 1 2 9 F e b - 1 9 5 3 6" H D P E G A S A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 6" H D P E A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 12" H D P E C A S I N G 12" H D P E C A S I N G 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 3 6 J A N - 1 9 7 4 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 6" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Jun-2009 2"P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 ABM#782 MAR-1972 GAS 2" P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 4" P E G A S A B M 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" PE GAS 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-20092" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" BWP GAS2" B W P G A S A B M # F e b - 1 9 2 4 2" B W P G A S A B M # O c t - 1 9 3 1 9 S A B M # J u n - 1 9 8 3 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N O V - 1 9 7 5 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N o v - 1 9 7 5 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Mar-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 F E B - 2 0 2" P E G A S A B M 1 1 2 4 A U G - 1 9 9 3 18' 6"" 1 9 6 0 - J u n - 0 1 182'240'292' 23'6"" ACP 1983-Sep-01 SEP-1960 31' 4 " " P E 2 0 1 2 - J u l - 2 0 4" FE B 9 0 21' FE B - 1 9 5 6 4"" A B S 1 9 9 8 - S e p - 2 8 383' 33 ' 313' 4"JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 241' 241' 4" AC JU N 8 0 20 ' 4" AC AU G 6 8 4" AB S JA N 8 9 123' 4" 54' 4" JU L 4 8 13 ' 4" JU L 4 8 12' 67' 4" JU L 4 8 23' 4" TR 14' 25 4" AB S AU G - 1 9 9 0 16 ' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 1 - J a n - 0 4 31' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 3 - J a n - 0 3 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 2 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P 4""4 4""4 4 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 8 62 ' 4 " " V C P 35' 4 " " V C P 4"" C I P 4"" A B S 1 9 9 0 - J a n - 0 7 4"" U n k n o w n 1 9 9 5 - D e c - 0 1 4"" A C P 1 9 6 6 - J a n - 2 7 4"" U n k n o w n 4"" U n k n o w n 4" P E M A Y - 2 0 1 4 6" SAN SEWER 6"S A N S E W E R 7.6" PE DR SAN SEWER ABM#1162 12" V C P S A N S E W E R S S R 2 1 9 9 2 - N o v - 0 1 6" S A N S E W E R 6"S A N S E W E R 5.4 " P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 27" SAN SEWER 5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 45.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 4 ABM # 1 0 6 6 A 1 9 8 9 - J a n - 0 1 12 " V C P S A N S E W E R JA N - 1 9 8 9 6"VCP 8" 6" 6" 6" 5.4 " PE SA N S E W E R MA R - 1 9 4 6 1 9 9 7 5.4" P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 8" 12" VCP SAN SEWER SSR 2 1992-Nov-01 6" 8"P V C S E W E R 2 0 0 9 - A p r - 2 9 CO CO C O CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO C OCO CO CO CO S 27-2-10 5 3 - 4-6/C 0 1 S CAPENDOFPIPE 5 3-3-10/C01 S 18-2-10 5 3-2-8/C01 S 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4 S 17-1-13 59-2-3/CO1 S 43 - 2 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-16/B06 S43 - 4 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-10/B06 S43-4-20/B06 S 43-2-1/B06 S 43- 2 - 3 / B 0 6 S 43- 3 - 1 7 / B 0 6 S43-1-7/B06 S S 43- 4 - 1 2 S S CO 25-6-6 53-5-1/C01 CO N/C01 CO 64-5 - 3 /C01 CO 58- 6 - 1 0 / C 0 1 CO 58 - 6 - 2 / C 0 1 CO 58-5-12/C 0 1 CO 58-5-5/C01 CO 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4CO 58-6-12/C01 CO 59-2- 7 /C 01 CO 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 CO 57- 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2/C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 CO 58-4-11 57 - 6 - 1 7 59-6- 3 / C 01 11-6-1318-2-13 40-2-4 CO 27-2-10 5 3 - 4-6/C 0 1 LH 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 LH 60-1-2/C01 11-3-5LH 53-4-4/C01 LH 65-1-3/C01 FI 58-1-10 60-2 -6/C01 13-6-26 FI 60 -2 -5 /C 01 13- 6-2 7 53-3 - 8/C 01 25-6-6 53-5-1/C01 53-3 - 4/C01 47-2-3/C01 N/C01 N/C01 47-1-11/C01 47-2-2/C01 47-2-4/C01 48' 409' 156' 102' 115.50' 200' 61. 4 0 ' 104' 452' 221' 36' 258' 25 4 ' 219' 335' 253' 75' 151' 300 ' 191' 180 ' 357' 178 . 5 ' 156' 407' 105' 37 5 ' 306' 36 0 ' 175' 120 ' 398' 37 6 .50 ' 348' 345' 248' 506' 200' 55 5 ' 303'232'152'6'383' 257' 197' 118' 123'114'277'239'241'198'94'112' 48' 409' 195' 305' 61' 61. 4 0 ' 75' 75' 245' 24 5 ' 49' 49' 452' 452' 254' 25 4 ' 245' 245 ' 245' 24 5 ' 120' 12 0 ' 180' 18 0 ' 180' 18 0 ' 300' 300 ' 180' 180 ' 179' 178 . 5 ' 407' 407' 360' 360 ' 120' 120 ' 345' 345' 506' 506' 555' 55 5 ' 6'6'48' 409' 8'195' 305' 3'46'144'236'378'238' 115.50' 61. 4 0 ' 452' 36' 25 4 ' 335' 75' 24 5 ' 49' 245 ' 24 5 ' 240 ' 12 0 ' 18 0 ' 18 0 ' 300 ' 180 ' 407' 345' 506' 55 5' 232' 257' 358'356'310'217' 118' 158 ' 172' 285' 196' 98' 236 ' 351'303'253' 203'153'151' 104' 252'250' 136 ' 13 8 ' 250' 406' 403'401'353'351'302'252' 306'264'354'356'404' 104' 157 ' 35' 53' 101' 151'153'203' 152'50'300'52'166'164'200'320'109'370'591'142'78'187'523'173'174'194'257'290'110'297'169'299'150'50'300'199'349'298'149'99'202'200'300'30'190'94'351'352'401'414'452'502'401'301'389'101' 49' 303'301'253'251'203'151'46' 350 ' 248'102'152'202'250'252'250'224'142'92'144'148'661'610'400'51'100'464'483'103'252'352'402'399'401'300'252'153'252'200'384'453'200'150'303'210'451'156'230'153'457'203'231'201'398'331'148'180'182'233'281'283'330'304'302'100'402'349'152'302'300'165'497'451'256'101'99'552'550'53'504'507'248'100'152'601'599'500'502'449'451'351'152'153'451'100'302'200'151'100'202'152'88'193'227'225'402'335'300'351'250'203'301'251'101'99'148'201'199'300'298'449'150'200'251'51'149'303'252'200'152'103'290'236'198'315'444'540'660'719'380'274'272'11'140'88'38'439'190'140'138'103'241'276'328'225'175'130' 163' 488' 272' 308'415'202'231'264'315'103'130'303'300'150'301'48' 16 3 ' 207'27'125'42'105' 78' Cit y o f P a l o A l t o G I S Th i s m a p i s a p r o d u c t o f t h e This d o c u m e n t i s a g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n l y o f b e s t a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s . Le g e n d As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) Ce r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) Su r v e y L o t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t T e x t ( C G ) ab c Ad d r e s s L a b e l ( A P ) ab c Dim e n s i o n s ( A P ) Cu r b F a c e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e , R o l l e d ( R F ) Pa v e m e n t E d g e ( R F ) Sid e w a l k E d g e ( R F ) ab c Ro a d C e n t e r l i n e S m a l l T e x t ( T C ) Pip e l i n e ( S D ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d S Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e l i n e ( S D ) Ca t c h B a s i n ( S D ) IN In l e t ( S D ) SD Ma n h o l e ( S D ) OF Ou t f a l l ( S D ) Wy e / t e e ( S D ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) Cro s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W T ) N A D Fi t t i n g ( T B W T ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y EL 9 0 Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tra n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Lin e S t o p p e r Ma i n 4 W a y C r o s s Br a n c h S a d d l e Ca p EL 1 1 . 2 5 EL 2 2 . 5 EL 4 5 Fu l l C i r c l e C l a m p Hy d r a n t ( T B W T ) M Me t e r , M a i n ( T B W T ) N A D Me t e r , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) N A D We l l ( T B W T ) N A D Va l v e ( T B W T ) : Fir e S e r v i c e Hy d r a n t Ma i n Se r v i c e Air R e l i e f V a l v e ( T B W T ) Va l v e B l o w o f f ( T B W T ) Ris e r S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Fi t t i n g ( T B G S ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y Elb o w Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tra n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Ve r t i c a l E l b o w Lin e S t o p p e r An g l e 4 5 Br a n c h S a d d l e Se r v i c e H e a d A d a p t e r Ca p SS C l a m p Ca s i n g ( T B G S ) N A D Fe n c e ( T B U F ) N A D Me t e r ( T B G S ) : X Ab o v e G r o u n d S e r v i c e X Cu r b S e r v i c e Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) Va l v e ( T B G S ) : Ma i n Se r v i c e De a d E n d - O n e W a y Em e r g e n c y S h u t O f f V a l v e ( E S V ) Bu r i e d A l i v e DRIP Va l v e D r i p ( T B G S ) Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) Cro s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W W ) CO Cle a n o u t , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) : S Ma n h o l e CO Cle a n o u t LH La m p H o l e FI Flu s h i n g I n l e t Pip e c a p PG Co n c r e t e p l u g S No n - s t r u c t u r a l n o d e Lif t S t a t i o n , M a i n ( T B W W ) Po i n t T a p ( T B W W ) ab c Te x t ( T B W W ) 0' 30' 60' Lo t s C - 6 a n d C - 7 wi t h W a t e r , G a s , W a s t e w a t e r an d S t o r m D r a i n U t i l i t i e s S h o w n CITY O F PALOALTO INCO R PORATED CALIFORN IA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The C i t y o f P a l o A l t o a s s u m e s n o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a n y e r r o r s . © 1 9 8 9 t o 2 0 1 5 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o mra s c h k , 2 0 1 5 - 0 6 - 2 2 1 8 : 2 5 : 3 3 , B l o c k B o o k a n d C O G O ( w / u t i l i t y a b a n d o n e d l i n e s ) ( \ \ c c - m a p s \ g i s $ \ g i s \ a d m i n \ P e r s o n a l \ m r a s c h k . m d b ) CONNECTION LEGEND 02-4PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background PUBLIC ALLEY NA R R O W SI T E MATURE TREES WIDEN PUBLIC REALM CROSS- STREET OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tr a i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tra i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e an d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Re c o r d D a t e Un k o w n C o f C C - 1 2 8 1 11 C O C - 0 0 0 0 9 48 0 42 5 2502 40 9 40 8 46 5 46 3 46 1 45 9 44 7 44 5 43 7 - 44 1 43 3 - 4 3 5 2458 2454 41 0 43 0 46 0 45 6 45 4 44 8 42 5 43 1 47 5 2450 45 1 45 3 2650 2640 36 0 32 0 30 6 30 9 - 31 5 31 4 23 1 44 0 41 4 40 6 - 4 1 0 39 2 36 0 36 4 41 5 41 5 42 1 30 5 44 2 - 4 4 4 43 3 - 4 4 7 40 5 - 4 0 9 16 1 36 6 - 37 0 3 0 0 - 3 3 0 33 2 - 36 2 2290 36 6 40 0 37 1 36 5 35 5 37 5 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 30 2 25 0 28 5 31 5 32 533 5 35 0 31 8 30 6 32 0 31 0 27 7 2313 2307 30 3 - 30 9 30 1 29 9 37 8 - 38 4 26 7 - 2 7 1 2350 26 5 22 0 23 0 24 0 29 0 26 0 2363 16 4 2343 2323 20 6 20 0 2555 12 3 15 0 27 0 2401-2585 14 5 10 1 - 15 1 15 3 15 5 15 7 15 9 2421 2441 39 8 39 0 2504 2506 33 4 41 7 27 5 27 6 37 0 39 1 41 3 2333 42 9 45 0 44 0 42 1 36 7 14 0 2160 15 4 2575 2670 37 0 42 0 32 . 0 ' 35.2' 71.1 ' 26 . 7 ' 50.9' 125 . 0 ' 111.9' 155 . 0 ' 230.0' 130 . 0 ' 100.0' 25. 0 ' 130.0'40.0'49.0' 95. 0 ' 49.0' 95. 0 ' 41.0' 25. 0 ' 50.0' 120 . 0 ' 91.0' 120 . 0 ' 100.0' 120 . 0 ' 100.0' 131.6' 40 . 0 ' 11.6'46.1' 120.0' 90. 0 ' 120.0' 40 . 0 ' 22.2' 90. 0 ' 271.6' 120 . 0 ' 14.1' 239.4' 90. 0 ' 48.0' 90. 0 ' 48.0' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 12 5 . 0 ' 20.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 20.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 46.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 46.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 37.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 93 . 0 ' 61.0' 26 . 7 ' 71.1 ' 35.2' 40 . 0 ' 58.6' 40 . 0 ' 58.6' 14.1' 25. 0 ' 22.7' 90. 0 ' 40.9' 90. 0 ' .3' 35. 0 ' 53.4' 35. 0 ' .3' 90. 0 ' 43.8' 12 5 . 0 ' 44.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 136 . 3 ' 91.5' 136 . 1 ' 91.5' 142 . 6 ' 99.3'132.5' 142 . 7 ' 92.8' 23 . 6 ' 73.7 ' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10 . 0 ' 10.0' 11 8 . 6 ' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 3 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 150 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 79. 0 ' 21.0' 79. 0 ' 21.0' 21.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 20.2' 14.1' 100 . 0 ' 30.3' 95.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 51.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 42.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 195.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 195.0' 125 . 0 ' 130.2' 11 5 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 120.3' 11 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 40.0' 14.1' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6'351.6' 160 . 0 ' 351.6' 160 . 0 ' 351.6'230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 100 . 0 ' 30.0'15.7' 59. 1 ' 13. 4 ' 44. 4 ' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 50.4' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 99. 9 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 99 . 9 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 11 0 . 0 ' 51.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 51.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 96.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 96.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 96.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 25.0' 100 . 0 ' 25.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.4' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 82.5' 11 0 . 0 ' 82.5' 11 0 . 0 ' 250.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 250.0' 13 2 . 2 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 3 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 2 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 9 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 9 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 5 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 6 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 99.6' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 37.8' 13 1 . 5 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 4 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 3 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 4 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 40.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 171.2' 257 . 7 ' 218.5' 121 . 5 ' 25.0' 135 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 10. 0 ' 25.1' 135 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 95. 3 ' 29.3' 95. 0 ' 37.2' 95. 0 ' 54.0' 165 . 8 ' 69.6' 16 5 . 3 ' 83.3' 261 . 2 ' 99.4' 261 . 2 ' 100.4' 49.5' 86 . 5 ' 79. 0 ' 70.5' 70.5' 29 . 5 ' 46 . 3 ' 71.7' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 99 . 0 ' 41. 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 84. 0 ' 26.2' 26.2' 26.2' 36.7' 17 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 18 5 . 0 ' NEW MAYFIELD LANE CALIFORNIA AVENUE MI M O S A L A N E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BI R C H S T R E E T N AVENUE GRANT A V E N U E SHERIDAN AVENUE ST R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T NO G A L L A N E JACARANDA LANE PE N I N S U L A C O R R I D O R J O I N T P O W E R S B O A R D 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) 6" CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) CI 4" CICIWATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"4"CIWATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 6" C I P W A T E R WATERCIP6" CIP6"WATER 6"CI WATER 6" 1"C UJU L - 1 9 4 8 29 ' 1" CU (AB A N D A u g - 1 9 6 8 ) 1" CU Feb - 1 9 7 6 15' (A B A N D O c t - 1 9 3 1 ) 1"CUJun-1941 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 29' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 4" JU L - 1 9 4 8 25 ' 1" CU MA R - 1 9 4 7 22' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 22' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 16' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 8' 1" CU 11-01-1998 (IRRIG) 44' 1" CU 07-01-1953 1" C 25 ' 251 2" CU AU G - 1 9 5 7 23 ' 1 " C U 1 2 - 0 8 - 2 0 0 5 18' 24 ' 2" CU FE B - 1 9 6 9 1" CU AP R - 1 9 4 8 49' 4" CU OC T - 1 9 6 2 24' 1 1 / 2 " CU DE C - 1 9 8 7 MA R - 1 9 4 9 4"P 1" C U J U L - 1 9 6 1 2" C 3/4 " CU 15 ' 1 " C U 49 ' 1 " C U M a y - 1 9 8 9 2"(ABAND Mar-1972)GAS 3"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4" A B S G A S ( A B A N D . ) 2"ABS GAS 2"ABS GASABM #515 2"B W P G A S ( A B A N D . 0 8 - 2 8 - 2 0 0 9 ) 2" B W P G A S BWP2"GAS ( A B A N D ) 3"BWPGAS (ABAND)3"BWP(ABAND Jan-1969)GAS (ABAND)3"BWP GAS (ABAND) GA S 2" PV C 4"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4"GAS (ABAND) 4"GAS G-401 (ABAND) 4" G A S G - 4 0 1 ( A B A N D ) 4" BW P DEC 6 7 ( A B A N D . ) GA S 1/2 " PL 2"PE DEC-1994 2" BW P GA S ( A B A N D ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS2" A B S 2"ABS ABM #523 JUN-1965 GAS (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 3"BWP 3/4 " A B S G A S A B M # 6 3 3 J A N - 1 9 6 9 ( A B A N D . ) AB S G A S 6 3 3 J a n - 1 9 6 9 2" ABS GAS ABM# 523 Jun-1965 (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 4" AB S DE C 6 7 AB# 6 1 1 2"ABSGAS2"ABSGAS A B M # 5 1 5 ( A B A N D . 0 3 - 3 1 - 2 0 0 9 )JUL-1965ABM #515JUL-19652" ABS GAS ABM# 515 Jul-1965 (ABAND. 03-31-2009) 3" ABS GAS ABM #334 01-01-1967 4"PVC ( A B A N D . ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 57 ' 5/8 " PO L Y DE C 7 8 26' 7' 3/4 " SEP 5 0 8' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 40 ' AB S MAR - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S3/4 " AB S MA R - 1 9 6 8 2' 44' 3 / 8 " A B S J u l - 1 9 6 5 50' 3/4" BWP Sep-1950 3/4 " AB S AP R 7 1 9' 3/8 " 20 ' 5' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 15 ' 3 / 4 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 39 ' 1/2 " TE N AP R 6 0 38 ' 14' 62 ' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/ 58 ' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/8 " AB S JU L 6 5 49' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 45 ' 1/2 " PE AU G - 1 9 9 4 3/4 " 5' 38 ' 1/2 " PL SE P 5 8 64' 1 / 2 " P E J U N - 1 9 9 2 3/4 " WP FE B 5 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' NOV75 AU G - 1 9 6 8 ABS NO V - 1 9 6 5 18'3/4"UNK JUN-1960 8' FEB 7 8 32 ' 1 / 2 " P L 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 5 9 10 ' 1/2 " TE N AP R - 1 9 6 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38' 45 ' 1/2 " PE JU L - 1 9 9 7 55' 3/4 " ABS MA Y - 1 9 6 1 50 ' 2 " P V C MA Y - 1 9 8 3 5/8 " PO L Y DE C - 1 9 7 8 46 ' 67' 3/8 " AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 1 1 / 8 " POL Y 8' PO L Y 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/4" PVC SEP7 323' 38' 1/2 " PE OC T - 1 9 9 3 1/2 " TE N MAY 5 9 JUN-1960 3/4 " JUL 4 8 6' 3/8 " ABS NO V 6 5 10' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 5/8"POLYNOV8044' 2' 2 " P E 1/2"TENMAY61 24' 1" CU FEB 5 0 70' 3/4 " AB S OC T - 1 9 6 3 ABS MA R - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S 2' 6'1/2"PE FEB-1993 CU FE B 5 0 25' 3/4 " PV C OC T 8 4 NO V 5 7 18 ' 5/8 " 3/4 " JU L 4 8 3' 2' 2' 5/8 "P V CJU N 8 0 1/2 " P E J U N - 1 9 8 0 7' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 39' 38 ' 24' 3/4 " F e b - 1 9 5 0 45 1/2"PE 3/8 " AB S 5/8 " 20' 3/4 " 12 ' 3/4 " MA R 4 9 18' 3/8 " AB S 20 ' 3/8 " 2' X 2 ' 2" BW P 7' 3/4 " N O V 3 0 39' 1/2" PE 10-01-1981 80' 2 " P V C M a y - 1 9 8 3 20 ' 3/4 " ABS 3/4 " AB S 17' 16' 42' 5/8 "P E 3/ 8 " AB S F E B 7 0 OCT 6 9 5 1 / 2 ' 25' 1" PE Aug-2009 40' 1" PE Aug-2009 39' 1" PE Aug-2009 S 44- 4 -9 49 - 4 - 1 0 59-5-4/C0 1 S 59-5-8/C01 S 57 - 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2 /C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 S 60 -2 -5/C 01 13-6-27S 58- 4 - 1 1 57- 6 - 1 7 59-6 - 3 / C 01 11-6-13 40-2-4 S 53-1-4/C01 S 53-1-2/C01 S 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11S 6 0-1-4/ C0 1 57 - 1 - 1 7 S 6 0-1-4/ C0 1 57 - 1 - 1 7 S 53-2- 7/ C 01 S 60-1-1/C01 49- 6 - 1 2 4" JUL 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 31' 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4"JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" ABS AUG 9 0 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 11 ' 4" JU L 4 8 29 ' 4" JU L 4 8 28 ' 4" JU L 4 8 14' 4" JU L 4 8 25 ' 4" MA R 4 7 15' 4" JU L 4 8 27' JUN41 4" JU L 4 8 26 ' JU N 5 2 6" AC OC T 8 4 4" JU L 4 8 255' 23 ' 4"JU L 4 8 200' 23' 8." ST O R M R C P S T O R M 6." ST O R M 12 . " RC P 12. " ST O R M PC C STORM12."RCP 12. " ST O R M RCP 18. " ST O R M RC P R C P 12 . " ST O R M RCP12."STORM 12."RCPSTORM 12 . " ST O R M STORM 12." P C C PCC12."STORM PCC12."STORM 3 PC C S T O R M 12 . " ST O R M 12."P C C ST O R M P C C 12. " 12 . " STO R M PCC S T O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M P C C PC C S T O R M 12 . " PCC STORM 12." PC C 12. " S T O R M 12. " ST O R M PC C PCCSTORM15." ST O R M PC C 12. " STORM24."PCC PC C 12. " STO R M PC C 12. " S T O R M P C C ST O R M 12 . " PCCSTORM15." STORM12."PCC ST O R M PC C 12 . " 12."PCCSTORM 15. " ST O R M PC C PC C 8." ST O R M PC C 12 . " P C C 12 . " S T O R M PC C ST O R M 12. " PCCSTORM24." 12 . "P C S PC C 15. " ST O R M 8."P C C 8." PC C 24."STORMPCC PCCSTORM24." PC C 12 . " STO R M 24."STORMPCC P C C 12. " C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 9 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 8 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 6 CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 6 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 7 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 4 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 5 C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 8 B C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 6 A BCB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 2 C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 2 B C B - 0 4 3 - 4 -9 1 A CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 2 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 5 CB - 0 4 9 - 3 - 0 3 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 3 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 0 B ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 2 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 0 8 A B C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 2 5 AC B - 0 4 3 - 3 -2 1 A C B - 0 4 3 - 3 - 4 3 A CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 4 A C B - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 8 CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 2 0 A C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 4 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 3 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 2 - 9 0 IN IN - 0 4 9 - 3 - 9 1 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 4 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 3 SD MH-043-2-07 SD MH-043-1-31 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 4 SDMH-043-4-16SDMH-043-4-42 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 4 3 SD MH-043-3-17 SD MH-043-1-24 SD MH-043-1-15 WT-043-2-91 WT - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 9 WT - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 9 6" A C P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 6 3 6" A C P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 6 3 6"A CP WATER ER A B M # 1 1 9 7 A p r - 2 0 0 0 Ju l - 1 9 5 3 WA T E R W - 1 0 4 5 6" AC 6" TRA N S I T E WA T E R OC T 4 5 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-19648" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 12 " A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 3 5 J A N - 1 9 5 2 6" ACP WATER ABM#468 Feb-1964 8" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 W-5 4 0 6" JU N 4 1 WA T E R AC P 8" PE WATER ABM#1276 Aug-2010 8" A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 6 7 J a n - 1 9 6 4 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 WAT E R 6" CIP 6" C I P W A T E R A B M # 5 4 0 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C 8' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 6 9 5' 4 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 Fire S e r v i c e 1 4 ' 6 " A C P O c t - 1 9 8 4 1"CUJun-1941 6' 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 11 8 ' 8 " A C P M A Y - 1 9 8 3 RCP 13'2"CU Jun-1998 8' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 7 1 6" FS Apr - 1 9 8 5 2" CU Nov - 1 9 6 9 15 ' 5' 2 " C U 45' 3 / 4 " C U S e p - 1 9 3 9 10 ' 1 " C U O c t - 1 9 3 7 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 9' 1 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 40' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 14' 1 " C U 41' 1 " C U N o v - 1 9 3 6 45 ' 2 " C U S e p - 1 9 8 6 41' 1" CU 07-01-1963 5' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 4"AC28' F.S.6'1 1/2"CU 45' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 1" CU Ju n - 1 9 6 3 43' JAN-1929 46 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 0 1 39 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 5 9' 1 1 / 2 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 4 4' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 0 10' 1 1 / 2 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 Fir e S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C A p r - 2 0 0 1 8"ACDec-1960 21' F.S. 1 4 ' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 7 6 4"CU 8' 1 1 / 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 6" AC F.S . 4 1 ' 6 " A C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 30' Mar-1961Aug-2001 2"Apr-195112' Jun-1941 40' 1 " C U 9' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 3 8 Jul-1957 7' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 9 4 40 ' 1 1 / 4 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 8 43' 1 1 / 4 " C U J a n - 1 9 6 9 40' 3 / 4 " C U F e b - 1 9 3 7 11' 1 1 / 2 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 1 1"CUOct-1945 30' 3" W M W / B Y P A S S 09-01-1990 ( I R R I G ) 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 pot a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 1 5 ' 6 " P V C D e c - 1 9 9 4 po t a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 10' 4 " P V C D e c - 1 9 8 4 22' 2 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 Fire S e r v i c e 9 ' 4 " P V C F e b - 1 9 9 9 23 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 8 4' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 5' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 4 6 3' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 7 30' 1 - 1 / 2 " C U 1 0 - 1 5 - 1 9 9 6 29' 3 / 4 " C U 4"4" 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 44' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45'44'2'5' 4 " D I P J u n - 2 0 1 4 41' 6 " D I P M a y - 2 0 1 4 26 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 40' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 4 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 18' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46 ' 45'46 ' 45'46454 44 ' 1 45'4545' 44 ' 4 100 ' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 9' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 5 8 20 8 5 20 8 6 15 5 16 2 74737473 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 .5 ' 1 / 2 "P E 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 2 . 5 ' x 2.5' x 2 .2.5' 2.5' x 2 . 5 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 2.5' x 2 . 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5 ' x 2.5 ' 1 / 2 "PE 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E JA N 2 9 21 ' 52 ' 3 / 4 " P V C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 71' 1" WP Apr - 1 9 5 6 114 ' 1 " P E 0 8 - 2 9 - 2 0 0 6 1/2"PEDEC88 47 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 1 0 15' JAN29 70' 3/4" PVC Dec-1973 2"PV C JUL7 4 35' 4' 8' 1 " P E 0 6 - 2 4 - 2 0 0 8 2.5 ' X 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 3/4 " PV C 5/8 " PO L Y 12 ' 46' 4' 2"PVCJUL7 4 42' 27' 1 1 / 8 " P E 58' 1 / 2 " P E 0 3 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 6 2' 2 " P E 1 0 - 3 0 - 2 0 0 8 24' 1 1 / 8 " P E 78 ' 1" PE Ap r - 1 9 8 8 Ro p e 3' 1/2 " P E J a n - 1 9 9 0 22 ' 24'67' 3 / 8 " A B S J u n - 1 9 6 3 2" AB S MA Y 6 1 12 0 ' 6' JAN 2 9 21' 59 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 54 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 78 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 53 ' 1 " P E J u n - 2 0 0 9 31' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 10' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 42 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 40 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 17 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 13' 1 " P E J u n - 1 9 9 5 16 1 ' 1 " P E 16' 1" PE 14 5 ' 1 " P E 5/8 " P E 31' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 3'X 3 ' 1 " P E 24' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 6 36' 1" PE Feb-2009 57 ' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 35' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 21' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 30' 1 " P E D e c - 1 9 8 5 18' 1 " P E A p r - 2 0 0 1 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 23 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 11' 1" PE Nov-2010 33'1" PE Jul-2002 1" PE 5' PE DEC 8 7 42 ' 1/2 " 7' 1 " P E 19 ' 1 " P E Ap r - 2 0 0 9 6' 1 " P E 5' 1 " P E 10' 1 " P E 7' 1 " P E 130 ' 1 " P E AP R - 1 9 8 8 RO P E 54'78' 24' 3 / 4 " P V C N o v - 1 9 7 5 67 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 33' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 52' 1 " u n k n o w n 57 ' 1 " P E F E B - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 59 ' 2 " XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XX XX X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X 6"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1216 Jan-2002 2" B W P G A S A B M # 1 2 9 F e b - 1 9 5 3 6" H D P E G A S A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 6" H D P E A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 12" H D P E C A S I N G 12" H D P E C A S I N G 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 3 6 J A N - 1 9 7 4 6" PE GA S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 6" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Jun-2009 2"P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 ABM#782 MAR-1972 GAS 2" PVC GAS 782 Mar-1972 4" P E G A S A B M 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" PE GAS 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" BWP GAS2" B W P G A S A B M # F e b - 1 9 2 4 2" BWP GAS ABM# Oct-1931 9 S A B M # J u n - 1 9 8 3 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N O V - 1 9 7 5 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N o v - 1 9 7 5 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Mar-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 F E B - 2 0 2" P E G A S A B M 1 1 2 4 A U G - 1 9 9 3 18' 6"" 1 9 6 0 - J u n - 0 1 182'240'292' 23'6"" ACP 1983-Sep-01 SEP-1960 31' 4 " " P E 2 0 1 2 - J u l - 2 0 4" FEB 9 0 21 ' FEB - 1 9 5 6 4"" A B S 1 9 9 8 - S e p - 2 8 383' 33 ' 313' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 241' 241' 4" AC JU N 8 0 20 ' 4" AC AU G 6 8 4" ABS JA N 8 9 123' 4" 54' 4" JU L 4 8 13' 4" JU L 4 8 12 ' 67' 4" JU L 4 8 23' 4" TR 14 ' 25 4" ABS AU G - 1 9 9 0 16' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 1 - J a n - 0 4 31 ' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 3 - J a n - 0 3 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 2 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P 4""44"" 4 4 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 8 62' 4 " " V C P 35' 4 " " V C P 4"" C I P 4"" A B S 1 9 9 0 - J a n - 0 7 4"" U n k n o w n 1 9 9 5 - D e c - 0 1 4"" A C P 1 9 6 6 - J a n - 2 7 4" " U n k n o w n 4"" U n k n o w n 4" P E M A Y - 2 0 1 4 6" SAN SEWER 6" S A N S E W E R 7.6" PE DR SAN SEWER ABM#1162 12 " V C P S A N S E W E R S S R 2 1 9 9 2 - N o v - 0 1 6" SAN SEWER 6" S A N S E W E R 5.4 " P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 27" SAN SEWER5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 45.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 4 AB M # 1 0 6 6 A 1 9 8 9 - J a n - 0 1 12" V C P S A N S E W E R JA N - 1 9 8 9 6"VCP 8" 6" 6" 6" 5.4 " PE SA N S E W E R MAR - 1 9 4 6 1 9 9 7 5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 48" 12" VCP SAN SEWER SSR 2 1992-Nov-01 6" 8" P V C S E W E R 2 0 0 9 - A p r - 2 9 C O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO S 27-2-10 53 - 4-6/C 01 S CAPEND OFPIPE 5 3-3-10/C01 S 18-2-10 53-2 - 8 / C0 1 S 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4 S 17-1-13 59-2-3/CO1 S 43- 2 - 9 / B 0 6 S43-4-16/B06 S43 - 4 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-10/B06 S43-4-20/B06 S 43-2-1/B06 S 43- 2 - 3 / B 0 6 S 43- 3 - 1 7 / B 0 6 S43-1-7/B06 S S 43 - 4 - 1 2 S S CO 25-6-6 53-5-1/C 0 1 CO N/C01 CO 64-5 - 3 /C01 CO 58- 6 - 1 0 /C0 1 CO 58 -6- 2 / C 0 1 CO 58-5-12/C 0 1 CO 58-5-5/C01 CO 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4CO 58-6-12/C01 CO 59-2- 7 /C 01 CO 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 CO 57 - 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2 /C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 CO 58- 4 - 1 1 57- 6 - 1 7 59-6 - 3 / C 01 11-6-1318-2-13 40-2-4 CO 27-2-10 53 - 4-6/C 01 LH 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 LH 60-1-2/C01 11-3-5LH 53-4-4/C01 LH 65-1-3/C01 FI 58-1-10 60- 2 - 6 /C01 13-6-26 FI 60 -2 -5/C 01 13-6-27 53-3- 8/C01 25-6-6 53-5-1/C 0 1 53-3 - 4/C01 47-2-3/C01 N/C01 N/C01 47-1-11/C01 47-2-2/C01 47-2-4/C01 48' 409' 156' 102' 115.50' 200' 61. 4 0 ' 104' 452' 221' 36' 258' 254 ' 219' 335' 253' 75' 151' 300 ' 191' 18 0 ' 357' 17 8 . 5 ' 156' 407' 105' 375 ' 306' 360 ' 175' 120 ' 398' 376 .5 0 ' 348' 34 5' 248' 506' 200' 555 ' 303'232'152'6'383' 257' 197' 118' 123'114'277'239'241'198'94'112' 48' 409' 195' 305' 61' 61. 4 0 ' 75' 75' 245' 245 ' 49' 49' 452' 452' 254' 254 ' 245' 245 ' 245' 245 ' 120' 120 ' 180' 180 ' 180' 180 ' 300' 300 ' 180' 18 0 ' 179' 17 8 . 5 ' 407' 407' 360' 360 ' 120' 120 ' 345' 34 5' 506' 506' 555' 555 ' 6'6'48' 409' 8'195' 305' 3'46'144'236'378'238' 115.50' 61. 4 0 ' 452' 36' 254 ' 335' 75' 245 ' 49' 245 ' 245 ' 240 ' 120 ' 180 ' 180 ' 300 ' 18 0 ' 407' 34 5' 506' 555' 232' 257' 358'356'310'217' 118' 158 ' 172' 285' 196' 98' 236 ' 351'303'253'203'153'151' 104' 252'250' 136 ' 138 ' 250' 406' 403'401'353' 351'302'252' 306'264'354'356'404' 104' 157 ' 35' 53' 101' 151'153' 203' 152'50'300'52'166'164'200'320'109'370'591'142'78'187'523'173'174'194'257'290'110'297'169'299'150'50'300'199'349'298'149'99'202'200'300'30'190'94'351'352'401'414'452'502'401'301'389'101' 49' 303'301'253'251'203'151'46' 350 ' 248'102'152'202'250'252'250'224'142'92'144'148'661'610'400'51'100'464'483'103'252'352'402'399'401'300'252'153'252'200'384'453'200'150'303'210'451'156'230'153'457'203'231'201'398'331'148'180'182'233'281'283'330'304'302'100'402'349'152'302'300'165'497'451'256'101'99'552'550'53'504'507'248'100'152'601'599'500'502'449'451'351'152'153'451'100'302'200'151'100'202'152'88'193'227'225'402'335'300'351'250'203'301'251'101'99'148'201'199'300'298'449'150'200'251'51'149'303'252'200'152'103'290'236'198'315'444'540'660'719'380'274'272'11'140'88'38'439'190'140'138'103'241'276'328'225'175'130' 163' 488' 272' 308'415'202'231'264'315'103'130'303'300'150'301'48' 16 3 ' 207'27'125'42'105' 78' Cit y o f P a l o A l t o G I S Th i s m a p i s a p r o d u c t o f t h e Thi s d o c u m e n t i s a g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n l y o f b e s t a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s . Le g e n d As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) Ce r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) Su r v e y L o t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t T e x t ( C G ) ab c Ad d r e s s L a b e l ( A P ) ab c Dim e n s i o n s ( A P ) Cu r b F a c e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e , R o l l e d ( R F ) Pa v e m e n t E d g e ( R F ) Sid e w a l k E d g e ( R F ) ab c Ro a d C e n t e r l i n e S m a l l T e x t ( T C ) Pip e l i n e ( S D ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d S Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e l i n e ( S D ) Ca t c h B a s i n ( S D ) IN In l e t ( S D ) SD Ma n h o l e ( S D ) OF Ou t f a l l ( S D ) Wy e / t e e ( S D ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) Cr o s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W T ) N A D Fit t i n g ( T B W T ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y EL 9 0 Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tr a n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Lin e S t o p p e r Ma i n 4 W a y C r o s s Bra n c h S a d d l e Ca p EL 1 1 . 2 5 EL 2 2 . 5 EL 4 5 Fu l l C i r c l e C l a m p Hy d r a n t ( T B W T ) M Me t e r , M a i n ( T B W T ) N A D Me t e r , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) N A D We l l ( T B W T ) N A D Va l v e ( T B W T ) : Fir e S e r v i c e Hy d r a n t Ma i n Se r v i c e Air R e l i e f V a l v e ( T B W T ) Va l v e B l o w o f f ( T B W T ) Ris e r S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Fit t i n g ( T B G S ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y Elb o w Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tr a n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Ve r t i c a l E l b o w Lin e S t o p p e r An g l e 4 5 Bra n c h S a d d l e Se r v i c e H e a d A d a p t e r Ca p SS C l a m p Ca s i n g ( T B G S ) N A D Fe n c e ( T B U F ) N A D Me t e r ( T B G S ) : X Ab o v e G r o u n d S e r v i c e X Cu r b S e r v i c e Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) Va l v e ( T B G S ) : Ma i n Se r v i c e De a d E n d - O n e W a y Em e r g e n c y S h u t O f f V a l v e ( E S V ) Bu r i e d A l i v e DRI P Va l v e D r i p ( T B G S ) Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) Cr o s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W W ) CO Cle a n o u t , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) : S Ma n h o l e CO Cle a n o u t LH La m p H o l e FI Flu s h i n g I n l e t Pip e c a p PG Co n c r e t e p l u g S No n - s t r u c t u r a l n o d e Li f t S t a t i o n , M a i n ( T B W W ) Po i n t T a p ( T B W W ) ab c Te x t ( T B W W ) 0' 30' 60' Lo t s C - 6 a n d C - 7 wi t h W a t e r , G a s , W a s t e w a t e r an d S t o r m D r a i n U t i l i t i e s S h o w n CITY O F PALOALTO IN C O R PORATED CALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The C i t y o f P a l o A l t o a s s u m e s n o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a n y e r r o r s . © 1 9 8 9 t o 2 0 1 5 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o mra s c h k , 2 0 1 5 - 0 6 - 2 2 1 8 : 2 5 : 3 3 , B l o c k B o o k a n d C O G O ( w / u t i l i t y a b a n d o n e d l i n e s ) ( \ \ c c - m a p s \ g i s $ \ g i s \ a d m i n \ P e r s o n a l \ m r a s c h k . m d b ) CONNECTION SITE B Proposed Parking Structure SITE A Proposed Public Safety Building JACARANDA SHERMAN _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: April 12, 2017 2 Council Chambers 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 6:00 PM 5 6 Call to Order / Roll Call 6:05pm 7 Chair Alcheck Arrived at 6:14pm 8 9 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Note-starts in progress] get through. I'm sure he'll be here in time for 10 the scoping meeting. So let's start with roll call. 11 12 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Chair Alcheck is momentarily delayed. Commissioner Gardias, 13 Commissioner Lauing, Commissioner Monk, Commissioner Rosenblum, Commissioner Summa, 14 and Vice-Chair Waldfogel. 15 16 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Great. 17 18 Oral Communications 19 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 20 21 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Do we have any Oral Communications cards? This is just general Oral 22 Communications, not for an agenda item. Ok, great. Three minutes please. 23 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Rita Vrhel: Ok so I’m Rita Vrhel from Channing Avenue and thank you for letting me speak. You 1 had Castilleja come before you about a month ago and there was quite a lively discussion 2 regarding the issues. That was a scoping meeting and my understanding is that all the public 3 comments on the scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are due on the 4 15th of this month. That's a Saturday so I'm not sure if that's a legal date to end public 5 comment. 6 7 And the other thing that is disturbing is I have heard from some of the people at Castilleja that 8 according to Amy French the additional documents will be submitted to Amy French on March 9 17th. Castilleja indicate, Castilleja the people that are against the expansion at Castilleja 10 indicated that they wrote a letter and were denied a two week extension during which time 11 they could review the documents that were submitted on 4/2017. So I don't know where to go 12 with this, but I thought that since I felt that the meeting that you conducted the other day on 13 Castilleja which was very emotionally charged among the people you did a great job, you were 14 very fair, and I guess I would ask you if there is anything that you as a body could do to make it 15 so that the residents opposing the expansion at least have the opportunity to review the 16 documents that are going to be submitted on the 17th so that if any other issues come out 17 which should be included in the EIR they have the opportunity to comment on that. Thank you. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you for the comments. As I'm sure you know we can't comment 1 on Oral Communications, but appreciate the comment. Any other Oral Communications 2 tonight? 3 4 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 5 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 6 7 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok then let's move on… agenda we're moving forward as it, as published? 8 Great, thanks. 9 10 City Official Reports 11 1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 12 13 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So we'll move on to the Directors Report. 14 15 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Great, thank you. Just a couple of announcements; first, the 16 City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) you should have all 17 received an email that we're have a meeting scheduled for May 8th to have that meeting 18 between the two bodies. There will be a meeting between the Chair and Vice-Chair and the 19 Mayor and Vice-Mayor scheduled we're shooting for some time next week to help refine what 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that agenda will be and when we have some information on that I’ll send an email to the rest of 1 the Commission so you have a sense for what that meeting will entail. 2 3 Last night the City Council directed staff and the PTC along with the Finance Committee to 4 refine the recommendations related to the introduction of a paid parking program, paid parking 5 in Downtown Palo Alto and to return with a phasing and implementation plan for the Council's 6 consideration in the fall of 2017. We will begin this discussion with the PTC in May and we 7 hope to conclude with a final meeting in August. 8 9 The agenda packet has a enhanced future agenda calendar in Tab 1 in response to 10 Commissioner comments and you'll also note on that agenda that future agenda that we've 11 identified some tentative subcommittee, ad hoc subcommittee topics and some meeting dates. 12 The Commission may recall that we started a dialogue about how we would approach going 13 through the different Comprehensive Plan elements and so we're that's a ongoing conversation 14 that we can continue to address probably after the joint Planning Commission and City Council 15 meeting. We can come back and revisit the subcommittee and see how that list is coming 16 together. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And the last item to report is that the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance is going to go to 1 the City Council for a first reading on April 17th. It's on the Consent Calendar. And we'll keep 2 you posted on that particular project. And that concludes the Director Report. 3 4 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. And just a suggestion, let me make sure this is 5 appropriate, but if any of my fellow Commissioners have suggestions for agenda topics for the 6 joint meeting with the Council I think you could forward them to… you can forward them to 7 Assistant Director or to Jonathan or to Hillary and we can bring those into the discussion. 8 9 Study Session 10 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 11 Action Items 12 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 13 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 14 2. SCOPING MEETING. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: The Planning and Transportation 15 Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an 16 Environmental Impact Report for the Replacement of Surface Parking Lots with a 17 Public Safety Building and Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More 18 Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org 19 20 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, no study session items so we’ll move on to the first action item which 21 is a scoping meeting for the 250/350 Sherman Avenue two projects. So I believe we’ll start with 22 a staff presentation. 23 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Colette Chew, Engineer: Good evening, I'm Colette Chew, Engineer with Public Works. We are 1 here tonight to conduct the scoping meeting for the Public Safety Building (PSB) and California 2 Avenue parking garage projects. This is to allow the public to comment on the topics that the 3 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will explore. [Speaking off microphone to set up computer]. 4 5 Ok, alright. Just quickly going over the scoping meeting format my presentation will cover the 6 project overview, our environmental consultant sitting to my right here is [Ray Pendrill] from 7 MIG and he will present the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and the study 8 topics for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Then we’ll listen to public speakers 9 who submitted a card and comment issues to be studied for the EIR and PTC members 10 comments. It's important to note that the scoping session is not intended as a forum for 11 dialogue about the merits of the project, the project alternatives, or the EIR conclusions. Staff 12 is not prepared to answer questions on the project itself. We are here to receive input on what 13 is to be studied in the EIR. 14 15 So the project overview is a construction of a new PSB and California Avenue parking garage in 16 the California Avenue Business Districts on Parking Lot C6 and C7. Parking Lot C6 is about 1.2 17 acres. Parking Lot C7 is 1 acre. The PSB will be located on Parking Lot C6. The parking garage 18 will be located on Lot C7. The parking garage will be completed before the construction of the 19 PSB begins. This is the project location off of California Avenue Parking Lot C6 and C7. The site 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. is bordered by Sherman Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Ash streets. Alma is diagonally up on the 1 map. El Camino Real is diagonally down. Some of the neighborhoods surrounding the site are 2 Evergreen Park, Southgate, College Terrace, and Ventura. 3 4 This is an enlarged view of the site showing Lot C6 to the right and Lot C7 to the left. The site is 5 on Sherman Avenue. You can see Park Boulevard, Birch Street, and Ash Street. Across the 6 street to the bottom right is the County Courthouse building and on the bottom left is 385 7 Sherman which is the Visa building. 8 9 So the PSB will house the Police Department, the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency 10 Operation Center, the Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department Administration. So 11 the PSB is planned to be three stories tall ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (sf) to about 12 50,000 sf over two levels of an operational basement and below grade parking for the Police 13 Department. There will be about 170 to 190 secure parking spaces below the building. 14 15 And the Cal Ave. parking garage was on Lot C7. On April 3rd, recently the parking garage 16 options were presented to City Council. Council directed staff to begin design for a parking 17 garage with four above ground levels and two basement levels without retail space. And we 18 estimate there would be approximately 636 parking stalls in the new garage. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The conceptual site plan here showing the PSB to the right here between Park Boulevard and 1 Birch Street and the garage between Birch Street and Ash Street. Sherman Avenue is the 2 entrance for both buildings. California Avenue is up to the top of the site and Jacaranda Lane is 3 between Sherman and California Avenue. This is an aerial view of the project showing the 4 parking garage and the PSB building. And these are just massing models. They don't depict any 5 final design concept yet. And also this is a view looking down Birch Street from California 6 Avenue. Also this is it's this is for massing only and the view doesn't depict actual garage 7 design. So now I'm going to turn it over to Ray from MIG to go over the EIR process. 8 9 [Ray Pendrill], MIG: Good evening, my name's [Ray Pendrill] from MIG and we’ll be preparing 10 the EIR and the remaining slides are an introduction to CEQA, the California Environmental 11 Quality Act, and the EIR. Just press that or scroll it? There we go. And as Colette mentioned 12 we're taking notes tonight because we're interested in your and the public's ideas on what 13 should be included in the EIR. CEQA is a state law. There's plenty of guidance on how to write 14 an EIR, but of course every EIR is a local product of the local jurisdiction and of the community’s 15 interests as well. So the EIR has not been written. That will be available in the summer and 16 there will be a 45 day review period and other public meetings to discuss the content of that 17 once it's written and available to the public. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. These are some of the key thresholds or points in the EIR process. We've completed an initial 1 study. It's on file at the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento. Copies of it are on the back table 2 attached to the staff report and also online. The initial study is a checklist that goes through 3 the CEQA required topics and gives summary or introductory information about each of those 4 topics up to this point before the real deep analysis is begun. The notice of preparation goes 5 with the initial study. It just says we're beginning to write an EIR. Tonight's the scoping 6 meeting. The DEIR will as I mentioned have a 45 day review period in the summer and a at 7 least one public hearing and then there will be a Final EIR where we will answer in writing all 8 comments received on the DEIR and that will be a separate document so that each person that 9 comments on the DEIR that's released in the summer will have a written response for their 10 comments. 11 12 I'm going backwards again. Ok. These are the required contents of an EIR: detailed description 13 of project that will be Chapter 3, potential impacts to the physical environment we have to 14 write down the physical environment because that's the limits of CEQA. I know the public and 15 the Commission and others could be interested in many other topics that will be important to 16 the decision making on this project, but the CEQA law limits the discussion in that EIR to 17 physical impacts, changes on the environment. If we find physical impacts the EIR would 18 suggest mitigation measures. They're called to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those 19 significant impacts. There are other chapters in the EIR that summarize and cover different 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. topics, but they're all related to physical impacts on the environment. A chapter called 1 alternatives will discuss not as much detail as the actual project, but different alternatives that 2 you might consider or the City might consider in making a decision on this project like a smaller 3 project, fewer parking spaces, things like that just to catalyze some public thought and decision 4 making. 5 6 Ok, the initial study has identified these topics for the focus of the EIR. There will be a separate 7 chapter in the EIR named for each of these topics. And this is a good guide for tonight since this 8 is a scoping meeting that if you do have comments about what should be in the EIR choosing 9 one of these topics will help organize the information that we put in the EIR if you relay which 10 item you're interested in. There will be separate technical studies by technical engineers and 11 firms on these topics. There is a separate chapter on air pollution, a separate chapter in the EIR 12 on Greenhouse Gases (GHG), the arborist’s report goes in the Biology Chapter. The 13 geotechnical report is in a chapter called Soils and Geology. Phase 1 and Phase 2 14 environmental site assessments are in a chapter called Hazards. Noise analysis has its own 15 chapter, Traffic has its own chapter, and Tribal/Cultural Resource Evaluation this is related 16 especially to a new law that went into effect less than two years ago called Assembly Bill (AB) 17 52 and that will have its own section in the EIR. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. To decide if an impact is significant we compare the physical effect on the environment with 1 standards from the City General Plan, your municipal code, and other regulations that apply to 2 the site. Another set of regulations for example might be the Air Quality Management District 3 thresholds for air pollution. I will eventually get those slides correct now that I have about two 4 more. 5 6 So this… what we will do tonight the public has until April 24th and I hope that's not a Saturday 7 to submit written comments and to send them to Amy either email or in the mail. All 8 comments will be received, must be received by April 24th and those comments will be sent to 9 us and discussed with Amy about where they belong in which chapters of the EIR. And here's 10 the timeline. And there are many opportunities for public input on the project within this 11 timeline. There will be more than one Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting on the 12 project. As I mentioned the DEIR will be released this summer, 45 day review period after 13 that's released. The Final EIR is intended to be certified in December. That's after we respond 14 to all the public comments. And then these are construction dates, estimates, which would 15 occur of course after the EIR is, if it is certified. It's also important to note that an EIR is 16 certified separately from approving a project. The EIR only the Council would decide if the EIR 17 has the accurate and enough information in it to help you with your decision. The EIR does not 18 promote the project or even say it should, if it should be adopted. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Next steps as I mentioned several architectural reviews of the project. We are preparing the 1 DEIR now or the project description. And these are other steps will be taken during this process 2 between now and December. That's my, that's the end of the presentation and I'm going to 3 move this back just to show topics that might help people organize their comments tonight. 4 Thank you. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you staff. I just want to acknowledge that I’ve arrived. I apologize for 7 being late. We have one speaker card. I would like to invite that individual up now, Rita Vrhel. 8 You will have five minutes to speak. If anybody wants to comment on this item and hasn't filled 9 out a speaker card, please do so. 10 11 Rita Vrhel: Thank you again. I'm amazed that there are so few people here given the impact 12 that this project is going to have on the residents of California Avenue particularly those people 13 that are living in the condominiums that are right down the street. I understand that under 14 parking office space continues to be a huge problem. This was mentioned when this topic came 15 before the City Council. Examples given were the Visa building, the Olive Garden project, and 16 also there used to be a law firm on the corner of I think it's Park and where you go into the 17 condominiums that is also under parked. So I guess people know that I attend meetings and so 18 they'll ask me to say things for them, but in actuality it would be better if everybody showed up 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and said their own concerns. I'm glad that the comment period is April 24th; hopefully some 1 people will read about this in the paper and make their concerns known. 2 3 I was at the City Council meeting when this was discussed and Bob Moss who I think you 4 probably all know made the comment that he thought that the EIR report should have been 5 submitted prior to the City Council discussing how many stories above or below the ground the 6 parking garage should be given that there is concern about groundwater extraction and a toxic 7 plume that may or may not impact the building. I believe Moss, Mr. Moss indicated yesterday 8 that he felt the toxic plume would not be a problem, but that certainly should be considered in 9 the EIR report. 10 11 At the Council meeting many people were concerned about just the sheer mass of this parking 12 garage and it's easy to understand why the merchants would like maximum parking particularly 13 since the office building projects which are flourishing in that area are consistently being under 14 parked. I hope that since the City Council saw basically a concrete box with no definition that 15 you will do your best to guide an attractive garage that doesn't loom above the rest of the 16 cityscape for the next hundred years. Thank you very much. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. At this time I will open it up to the Commission to give 19 Commissioners an opportunity to identify any areas that the Planning Department should study 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. in addition to the ones that they’ve already identified. Ok, why don’t I begin on my right with 1 Commissioner Gardias and then we’ll just go down the line. 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Sure. So thanks very much for your report and coming and spending 4 time with us. There is number of the of some observations they have and you when in your 5 opening statement you just made it clear that certain a issues are off the table, but and I noted 6 that. But I think that things needs to be set while we are where we are. So I think that there is 7 a because there is no precise plan on of California Avenue neighborhood so this project of the 8 parking garage is just a it's not embedded in the larger thinking of this area. And I can tell you a 9 couple of arguments why I think it's not so, but before I say so you may understand that pretty 10 much had we have we had opportunity or the PTC had opportunity to pretty much act in the 11 larger purview and just consider the precise plan of this area probably things maybe happened 12 in a different order. So for example when you look at those two lots there isn’t that many 13 empty lots in Palo Alto. So those two lots offer some opportunity so the question is what are 14 we going to do with this opportunity? And we decided, City Council just decided to go with the 15 PSB and also with the needed garage and I totally agree that both those constituents they have 16 their needs and we need to support them, but the question is how we may support them. 17 18 And so one possibility is that to consider underground structure for parking garages, but then 19 there is something that's what's on the ground that's a second that's a different set of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. opportunity because cars may be parked underground, but then what's on the ground gives us 1 opportunity for for example housing development. Once we fill up those lots with the garages 2 then pretty much this opportunity would be lost. And I just want to for the record I just want to 3 note that. 4 5 There is also item that is off the table and I totally understand it again is pretty much 6 [unintelligible] aspect of how those garages would be built. So there is always an opportunity 7 of just having economic, an economically sound development and maybe entrust certain 8 development to P3 partnerships as opposed to found with the public money and then just 9 pretty much leave our constituents with the question is the money that's collected from the 10 taxation or from some other revenue is it directed to the right [unintelligible]. Have this 11 parking being funded with the private/public partnership that would be a different story 12 because there would be a true economic benefit behind the reason to build the structure. And 13 this would look totally different, the management of the parking there would be no funding 14 that would be at stake here. So I just wanted to note those two aspects that certain 15 opportunity might be lost for those that are interested with the with more housing in Palo Alto I 16 think they should take a notice of those. 17 18 There is also another aspect which I think you can just put in the under the section of GHG 19 emissions is that pretty much that this is the pedestrian oriented neighborhood district and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. what we are doing with building, with directing a spending toward the largest large parking 1 structure we are may be automatically underfunding some opportunity to get to this district by 2 others by different forms of transportation. And then a some other opportunities is just to 3 pretty much is to allow the neighbors from the eastern part of Palo Alto to either bike or to 4 walk to California Avenue. As you may know there is only one access to California that's from 5 the North California side, but then from the other adjacent neighborhoods you pretty much 6 have to either just go to California you just cannot come to the other edges and areas 7 diagonally because there are no connectors. And if I can remind you when we talk about 8 crosstown connector along Matadero Creek then we were discussing here this Commission 9 opportunity to cross Alma somewhere around this area. So that’s I just wanted to mention this 10 that pretty much that we are, that there should be to generate revenue for the merchants we 11 may find some other means to access California, not necessarily allowing number of the vehicle 12 travels by pretty much designing this huge structure. So saying this the impact would be on the 13 GHG emission that's how I see it. So those are my comments for now. Thank you very much. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thank you. The merchants are certainly persuasive on the size of this 16 parking lot that they want there and they were persuasive to Council, but somewhat similar to 17 your last comment the effectively the goal here is to bring more traffic into the California 18 Avenue area. So I think we have to be realistic about that. That doesn't mean we have, 19 shouldn't study the impacts which we certainly should, but it does seem like a one off kind of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. solution at least in this demarcation here of let's just bring more people in so that they can 1 shop and eat and park them there and then move them out. So it's kind of a yin/yang. So I'm 2 sure you'll… there will be big impacts and you're studying those and they're checked the box. 3 So I just wanted to kind of emphasize that. 4 5 I think generally you've checked the boxes that are appropriate in a way that as I went through 6 all of them looked pretty good to the limits of my own knowledge. One comment that I wanted 7 to make is that at the bottom of Page 4 you comment on landscaping that there will be a partial 8 replacement of trees removed from the existing lots onsite and then plant landscape for both 9 sides; also note street level roof deck of the PSB basement garage will be landscape, which is a 10 nice touch. However, when we get over to Page 7 where I think this fits is in aesthetics and I 11 think it's Aesthetics B, maybe. You have no impact on damaging scenic resources including but 12 not limited to trees, etcetera. So that seems to be an omission so that it's going to be more 13 than no impact. At the least it maybe should say less than significant impact on your check 14 boxes there. 15 16 Mr. [Pendrill]: I know I'm not supposed to answer questions, but this might help. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: I think you can. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. [Pendrill]: There's a similar question under biological resources about tree ordinance, so on. 1 And that's where we introduced that topic. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 4 5 Mr. [Pendrill]: So you're correct and that is a topic of discussion. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, I looked at both and I thought it fit in aesthetics, but that's fine. 8 9 Mr. [Pendrill]: Ok. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Because we're taking out trees so we should be looking. And then the 12 third thing that is related to my third comment which is a second one related to aesthetics is 13 that this is a big building. This is a very big building. So to the extent that you could be even 14 more aggressive about landscaping around it where appropriate relative to the architecture so 15 that it doesn't become I’m not suggesting it will, but so that it doesn't become an isolated 16 eyesore because of its huge size and mass. Last night of Council there was that discussion 17 about the Hamilton garage right near here and again five stories where most buildings around 18 that are two and well, two really and a post office that’s a story and a half so the aesthetics of 19 that I think are really important for us to take into consideration on the EIR. Thank you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. I agree with my colleague’s comments. I think it's good news 2 that we finally found a track to start the PSB work after what is it now, 17 years of discussion? 3 So that's good news. Also I would generally echo the view and I'll use the word it’s lamentable 4 that we need this parking. I think better planning in the district could have avoided getting us 5 here, but here we are. We do need the parking in the district so I guess let's get on with it in 6 some fashion. 7 8 Two requests for the EIR scope. One as under Category 10, Land Use; if possible let's take one 9 final look whether ground floor retail is more consistent with land use in the district. I know 10 that the Council has expressed views on that, but I think it's consistent with the EIR scope to 11 take one last look at that and at least study and report out on it. Under the Category 16 of 12 traffic it would be great if there's some way to include construction parking impact. We’re 13 looking at a least five years of construction and lost parking for the duration of the project. This 14 could be very negative to the adjacent neighborhoods and we need some analysis that can help 15 lead us to a mitigation plan. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but I would stress I 16 would very much appreciate if we could include that in some fashion. Thank you. 17 18 Commissioner Monk: So I've got a few areas that I wanted to go over and I might be jumping 19 around a little bit so apologies in advance. With regard to the parking that you are citing 636 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. total estimated does that account for the 310 that is being displaced? Or are we just only giving 1 comments and I’m not able to ask questions? Comments only? 2 3 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah so kind of like what we did with Castilleja we’re here to 4 mostly receive comments, but if there’s some clarification items that are relatively easy to 5 address we’re happy to answer that. And the 637 I think does include the displaced parking 6 spaces. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: Ok, right. 9 10 Mr. [Pendrill]: So it's a (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Monk: So it’s really an additional? 13 14 Mr. [Pendrill]: It's a net gain of 300 and plus. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: And they can you explain a little bit about what's happening with 17 Jacaranda and the egress and ingress of the emergency vehicles and how that's going to work? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. [Pendrill]: I can tell you that I'm not with the architecture firm designing the project. So I'm 1 writing the EIR meaning I will be asking the same questions to analyze them in the EIR. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: Ok, so (interrupted) 4 5 Mr. [Pendrill]: So I can't answer that. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: Alright then I'll try to just request that these things be looked at. That 8 would be one of them because I was concerned about the location of the plazas that I'm seeing 9 listed and whether or not emergency vehicles are going to be going through where there is a 10 location of a plaza. There’s supposed to be a public plaza on both properties from what I see. 11 Also with regard to the parking totals and that plaza or sorry rather on referring to the garage 12 at 350 there's also supposed to be a retail component. So in the EIR we'd want to see what 13 that would encompass and how that would impact the number of parking. 14 15 Mr. Lait: So just a clarification on that. I think we heard from the Council when this went to 16 yesterday I guess it was or two weeks ago (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Monk: Is that coming out? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Lait: It's all a bit of a blur, but so the retail component is not something that we're pursuing 1 with respect to the parking garage at least as that we understand the direction from Council at 2 this time. 3 4 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you for the update. I wanted to request a study be conducted 5 on the 135 foot communications tower, what impact that will have visibly and also with any 6 other safety concerns that it might that would need to be addressed. Also looking at the safety 7 of the public plazas which I'm had mentioned in regards to that Jacaranda Road. I'm also 8 concerned about displacing 150 spaces during the construction. Is there a feasibility of a 9 remote parking something that's an option we can look into with a shuttle service because it's a 10 highly congested area and those lots are full every day and parking is really difficult. So what 11 are we doing to mitigate the demand for parking while we're doing the construction? I didn’t 12 see anything in that regard on the EIR. I don't know if that's within the scope of the EIR or not. 13 14 Mr. [Pendrill]: Usually not, but it's definitely part of the project design process because those 15 phases of construction have to be scheduled appropriately so that information would be 16 available the details may not show up in the EIR, but it’ll be part of the project plans. 17 18 Commissioner Monk: Ok and then also with the issue that was brought up with regard to 19 displacement of the groundwater and going down one or two levels. Obviously that's going to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. be studied in detail. Is there a possibility to study having a larger garage that goes underneath 1 Birch Street so that it's one large structure, is that something that could be studied in the EIR as 2 opposed to two separate structures and then maybe it can just go down one level instead of 3 two. I don't know if that would be a solution in any capacity, but I think Los Gatos for example 4 has a larger underground area and it doesn't go as deep. 5 6 Mr. Lait: Yeah I think we can take that comment and see if that fits into one of the alternatives. 7 I do think there's a reason why we're not doing that and it has something to do with the secure 8 parking underneath the PSB. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: That's what I figured. 11 12 Mr. Lait: Yeah, keeping those separated. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, you want to keep it separated. I’m sure there's ways to keep it 15 separated, but I understand. 16 17 Mr. Lait: Yeah and so we can take a look at that and if there’s (interrupted) 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: Well at least utilize some of Birch Street as opposed to just the area 1 immediately below and if that’s part of the EIR. 2 3 Mr. Lait: Great. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: Also with regard to the entry and exit points I understand that the project 6 at three… the PSB has two entry and exit points yet this humongous parking structure has one 7 and they're both coming out on to Sherman Avenue. I don't know if the EIR could look at any 8 way to mitigate the backup that cars would have entering the garage and also waiting and 9 causing environmental degradation by having their cars running waiting to exit because if 10 there's only one exit for several hundred cars they would be sitting there idling I would imagine. 11 So if there's a possibility to just study whether or not two exits would be more beneficial from 12 the garage. Currently there's about a dozen ways to get in and out of the parking at 350 so 13 that's just something I was thinking about. And also just to help with the general traffic flow. 14 15 I don't know if this [unintelligible] in the scope of the EIR, but would you study any sort of 16 impact in regards to having parking allocated for the electrical vehicles and bicycles and things 17 like that and if that would have any sort of mitigating factors on the building itself? Ok. I think 18 that's all that I have. Thank you. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. [Pendrill]: The brief comment I can make is there will be City standards if they are having 1 the project supply electrical vehicle parking and so on those will be described in the EIR as 2 standards applied by the City. 3 4 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you. I actually thought of one last thing it was on the 5 transportation component which is on Page 47. The Levels of Service (LOS) and I think that 6 might fall under that and with the egress and ingress of the one driveway and also just looking 7 at Page 48 of our report I was concerned and it's also referenced when you're on your photo of 8 Birch Street because the bicycle traffic is directed onto Birch Street. That is a very crucial or 9 sorry, not Birch, on Park so I would hope that the EIR makes sure to study what's going on with 10 the bicycle lanes and the safety component that's related. 11 12 Mr. [Pendrill]: The Traffic Chapter will have sections on pedestrian and bicycle (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, it was just kind of vague in here here so I didn’t know how detailed, 15 but I'm assuming it’ll get pretty detailed. So thank you. 16 17 Commissioner Summa: So thank you to everyone tonight and also a member of the public who 18 spoke. In general I think you ticked off a lot of the boxes that had concerns for me. There's a 19 couple specific ones I think could be added that is one on 1b Aesthetics it says no impact to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. substantially damage scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, 1 and historic buildings with state scenic highway. To me I think just that these are such big 2 buildings for the area and to me a scenic resource is the sky and the skyline and the trees so I 3 think you could check that one and look there. And with regards to 9b also substantially 4 deplete groundwater supplies, etcetera; I think that one could be added and I think that would 5 address some of the concerns of members of the community about groundwater depletion. 6 Not just because we're going to use it ever as well water, but the fact that we don't have a very 7 clear understanding of the removal of such massive amounts of ground water especially at one 8 time. 9 10 So those two I think you could add and then the other serious things for me traffic, response 11 time for the emergency vehicles I think has been addressed which I was concerned about in this 12 location because of the congestion that's been referenced by my colleagues. I also think it's 13 kind of interesting this is our Pedestrian Transportation Oriented District (PTOD) and putting a 14 giant parking structure in it does seem inconsistent, but I understand that's what the City 15 Council wanted so… And we've never had a plan for the California area that was accepted so I 16 think it would be good to have a larger plan for the whole area for this and for everything else 17 that we're planning on doing there. Because so much is being planned putting into this one 18 small area. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And then I think there's going to be a lot of construction happening simultaneously in an area 1 that is completely congested with very little parking available especially during mid-day. So I 2 was wondering if the other parking lots, existing parking lots and structures in the area could be 3 optimized during this time maybe with valet parking to help out and that a very careful 4 construction logistic plan would be formed because having gone through two construction sites 5 right around where I live in College Terrace it's there's just no place for all the workers to put 6 their cars and these are big projects. And that area will not be able to absorb them. So yes, 7 those are my comments from now. Thank you. 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, again thank you for coming. And I think everyone's covered 10 everything so I'll just underline a couple of things in the interest of time. I think the community 11 will be generally concerned with traffic and aesthetics although clearly the entire scope of the 12 EIR will probably come under someone's comments so in particular treatment groundwater, 13 etcetera. But if the purpose of this meeting is for us to get feedback on elements of the EIR 14 that we'd like to see paid special attention to or items that you hadn't included I'd say that 15 really understanding how this project is going to be phased will be important. So you’re going 16 to lose 150 spaces while you build parking, the first parking lot after which the PSB will be built. 17 So it would be some period of time where there's a negative 150 space impact or some impact. 18 And so as several colleagues mentioned having a plan in place or having the EIR reference what 19 will be done in the meantime because the area really is filled to capacity I think will alleviate a 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. lot of the fears of the neighborhood or perhaps there's nothing can be done in which case the 1 neighborhood will be rightfully indignant. 2 3 The second area is to understand the aesthetics in a way that I'm not sure… well, maybe you 4 can answer this question. At the time of the drafting of the EIR how much of the aesthetics will 5 actually be known? So at that point will… what is the stage of architectural renderings that you 6 can give beyond the massing of what is currently in the packages? 7 8 Mr. [Pendrill]: I know that the design will have gone through more than one architectural 9 review submittal. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 12 13 Mr. [Pendrill]: And there will be [unintelligible-someone speaking off microphone] right and it’s 14 so the CEQA document will have graphics, illustrations, and visual simulations of before and 15 after of the project design up to that point of how many architectural review meetings they’ve 16 been through. 17 18 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. I (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. [Pendrill]: So it won't be as simplistic as tonight's slide. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, that's great. So that was my, so the areas where to the extent 3 that you're going to put more weight than on other comparable EIRs I would emphasize 4 Commissioner Monk's request for understand staging and the intermediate period for what 5 happens when we go down under 50 spaces and Commissioner Summa’s concern of the 6 massing basically of the sky and understanding that from different vantage points in a way that 7 perhaps might not be as extensive as you would do for a comparable EIR, but that those are the 8 two areas. They’ve already been brought up, but those are the ones that I would sort of double 9 underline and say this area really needs to be fleshed out for the community to feel like they 10 have had a full hearing. Thank you. That's all for me. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you Commissioners. I think you have a, you heard (interrupted) 13 14 Mr. Lait: So if we can't sorry Chair to interrupt, but I'm going to ask Albert maybe to just clarify 15 a point so that we're have clarity as to what we're looking at with respect to the aesthetics 16 discussion in the EIR. 17 18 Albert ________________: So the EIR is not going to be focused on the aesthetics of the 19 building itself, it's going to be about its impact on the aesthetic environment. And so that's 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. issues like view or scenic resources or it could also the one place where the building does come 1 more into play is things like light and reflection, but we're it's not really a document that looks 2 at the architectural design in the way that we might otherwise. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 5 6 Mr. [Pendrill]: Yeah to the… 7 8 Commissioner Rosenblum: I understand it’s not architecture review. 9 10 Mr. [Pendrill]: That's correct. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: I think that Commissioner Summa made the key point which is 13 basically how does it change our perception? So the environmental impact is, are things that 14 you mentioned. So including blocking the view of the vista or the sky, glare reflection that 15 would be the impact that we would be assessing in the EIR. Is that correct? It's not really 16 judging the quality of the architecture of the building. 17 18 Mr. [Pendrill]: Correct. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Rosenblum: But I would say that the architecture of the building affects things 1 like will there be a glare? Will it be perceived as massive or will it be perceived as blending in; 2 that sort of thing. So to the extent that can be available I again just having sat through many 3 public comments to the extent that the purpose of all of this is to say can we anticipate what 4 the public will be concerned about in an EIR and so how can you predict that and make sure 5 that you've answered this to the extent possible? I'd say more that kind of shows the impact of 6 the actual building itself on the surrounding environment from aesthetic and from a really the 7 comment came out several times, it’s a massive building. What is it going to look like relative to 8 its surroundings? What will its impact be on your views and on the glare and on the perception 9 of the environment? 10 11 Mr. [Pendrill]: You've introduced the one of the most interesting topics in CEQA. Aesthetics is 12 the most subjective chapter in any EIR and that's why we read the questions carefully on the 13 checklist so that as I mentioned earlier the EIR is an attempt to give you information without 14 promoting the project. So you're correct it's not an architectural critique, but there will be 15 illustrations, visual simulations, and for this topic it's just the way it is that some people will like 16 or will not like, but the EIR won't answer or change their opinion on some of those details. 17 18 Commissioner Monk: Just really quickly thank you for that clarification. I was also thinking 19 about the people even a year it says substantially adverse effect on scenic vista. So when we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. think about the very top, the pretty tall apartment building that's already there I think about 1 those people looking out their windows and I don't I'm not I didn't mean the aesthetics of the 2 building at all. I wouldn't expect that CEQA would look into that, but I do think A and B could be 3 checked to look into and I think then people who especially people who live in that area and 4 have lunch outside in that area and stuff would feel better about our environmental review. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, sure. Commissioner Gardias. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you; just one more comment. This is of course highly judgmental 9 topic, but also a there will be impact on the look and the feel of California itself, right? And 10 then this slide that's included here that shows perspective of the I think it's a Birch Street the 11 where the parking be would be adjacent to the wide building that's on the east side of Birch it 12 was obvious exactly. This is the three-story building. It's it provides a good excuse for the 13 parking, but then in reality California Avenue up to Birch it's pretty much one-story. And 14 although there were some buildings toward the, closer to Mollie Stone that are larger in mass 15 it's still one-story neighborhood. So pretty much that has many penetrations because there are 16 some alleys that cut through the buildings so when you have the three-story parking garage 17 right behind the facades of those buildings pretty much the way that you experience California 18 it would be totally different. Because it will just change the way that you feel, right? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Today it’s this a that's why we all like California because it's as opposed to the Downtown it's 1 more secluded, it's more secret, right? It used to be Mayfield, right? So it's totally it’s against 2 Palo Alto [unintelligible] those are the guys that drink, right, and just do different things, right? 3 And we know that, right? And so it has a charm, right? So now if you with this massive 4 structure we're going to change this neighborhood so those are concerns from the aesthetics 5 perspective. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I’ve sort of thought a lot about how to ask this question. I've heard in 8 presentations in the recent past about the impact a parking garage can have on a retail area 9 especially one that occupies like a whole block in separating retail stores from other retail 10 stores. Essentially interrupting the opportunity for pedestrians to continue to walk along I 11 guess a retail assortment of retail locations. I'm wondering I know that Council has directed, 12 has given direction to sort of put aside the retail component of this project. I understand that 13 from the meeting this week. I'm just curious if and this is coming off the amount of time we've 14 spent evaluating the enforcement of sort of ground floor retail across the entire City; so my 15 question is: is there a category inside of this EIR where you think it's possible to evaluate the 16 impact that the garage will have on I'm not sure if you would call it walkability or somehow 17 alienation of the retail area adjacent to it from the retail area behind it? Or what could 18 eventually be a retail because right now we essentially have a pedestrian oriented district and 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we have an ordinance that essentially encourages ground floor retail and I'm curious how the 1 properties around it will further develop if in fact they do develop. 2 3 Mr. [Pendrill]: Here's one way to look at it, make the retail one of the alternatives, an EIR 4 alternatives chapter and then there is a section EIR on land use policy and programs that the 5 City’s adopted or like you mentioned there’s an ordinance so that the projects consistency with 6 City policies and ordinances is a topic in CEQA. So if you put the retail alternative it would be 7 like Chapter 20 that was one of the bullet points in the slide. If that were one of the 8 alternatives then the comparison would have that option compared with Downtown policies. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 11 12 Mr. [Pendrill]: And that issue would arise within that context. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: That's exactly the, we, I had a conversation just yesterday and that was one of 15 the solutions that was suggested and I think that would I would like to see that. And this isn’t 16 an effort essentially to push back on Council direction, it's just I would like to I would like us in 17 this EIR process to be able to evaluate these options. I would like Counsel primarily to be able 18 to see what the pros and cons are for the various benefits. You get more parking or you 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. potentially have an interconnected retail district and I think those are two important 1 considerations. 2 3 Ok, I’m going… [oh right] before I pass it on to Commissioner Gardias I want to suggest I think 4 it's going to be very interesting EIR. I think and I think I am particularly interested in seeing how 5 the groundwater situation is going to be evaluated because it's not clear to me yet that we've 6 had sort of a final conclusion on what happens when you pump out so much groundwater. I 7 don't know that you'll be able to arrive at that conclusion and with certainty, but I think it will 8 inform sort of the greater debate in Palo Alto is because of the size of the project. So I do think 9 that will probably be one of the most highly focused areas from members of the public even if 10 they're not particularly concerned about this project just in general your findings as they relate 11 to pumping all over. Ok, why don’t… if I'm hoping why don’t you make your last final comment 12 and then I'll close this session. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, this is just very quick. Just for the record in the section of 15 alternatives which I of course I know that there will be that we already just pin pointed those 16 [unintelligible] as the development for those two services. I was just always wondering why 17 there was no a location on Park Avenue considered for the security building that's pretty much 18 it's empty lot that is pretty much between… I’m just looking at the map. Just give me a 19 moment. That is between Sheridan and parking garage on Sherman. That’s a empty area that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. has very easy access to the it’s over Oregon Expressway, but has a very easy access to the to 1 Oregon and better egress for the police cars. So I would just for the record I would like to note 2 that there was an empty lot in that area that could have been utilized for the police station. 3 Thank you. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to suggest that we move 6 onto Agenda Item Number 3. Thank you very much. Why don't we take a two minute break, 7 give staff a chance to swap seats and if anybody needs to go to the bathroom. 8 9 Commission Action: The Commission Provided Comments to Staff 10 11 The Commission took a break 12 13 3. Review Draft Comment Letters to the City of Menlo Park and Mountain View for 14 projects located at 500 El Camino Real (Middle Plaza Project) and North Bayshore 15 Precise Plan Amendment, Mountain View. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Please. 18 19 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Great. Thank you, Commission. I'm joined by [Meg Monroe] 20 a consultant working with our department. She's been invaluable in helping us handle some of 21 these additional projects that we threw at her including sort of tracking these regional 22 developments that are taking place outside of the Palo Alto boundaries. We recently had a 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. conversation with the Council on a another matter that involved a comment letter to another 1 jurisdiction and the Council had asked that where there was not an opportunity for a major 2 development project to be reviewed by the City Council at its regular meetings that we at least 3 run it by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to look at the letters and have a 4 general understanding of what the projects were and review the comment letters that we’re 5 preparing. These comment letters are intended to memorialize the City's interests where 6 regional projects may have an impact on our streets or park resources or any number of 7 matters that you had just considered on that last item, the checklist issues. We try to highlight 8 those and we recognize that we work with other jurisdictions review our documents and we try 9 to maintain a respectful and professional relationship with these other jurisdictions, but we do 10 want to highlight areas where we have some areas of interest and we note those in the staff 11 report so that their consultants could explore those and evaluate that further. 12 13 And so we're presenting these two letters one has to do with the Bayshore Precise Plan in 14 Mountain View and a project specific item in Menlo Park. And Meg has coordinated with a 15 number of other City departments to review these draft documents and has come up with the 16 what we think are the critical issues that we think need to be addressed or at least further 17 studied or highlighted. And so we're presenting that you to look at. Is the tone right? Did we 18 highlight the what you believe to be possibly the key issues understanding of course that you 19 probably have not had the time to delve into the detail as Meg has, but just from a gut check 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. does this seem like we're headed in the right direction. And so that's the purpose here and if 1 you have any specific edits or questions about sentence structure or grammar we're happy to 2 take those comments offline if you want to give those to us, but [unintelligible] specific 3 questions about the letters Meg can help us guide us through that discussion. Thank you. So at 4 this point we'll just take any questions that you may have regarding the letters. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, well thank you for your hard work on this. This is a interesting and sort of 7 unique endeavor and during our pre-Commission meeting I inquired about whether we've 8 received letters like this before and we haven't in the memorable past, but I think the fact that 9 we're preparing [him] sort of speaks to our level of engagement. So it’s a… I'm excited to 10 review this. So why don't we if we don't mind start on the other end? 11 12 Mr. Lait: [Unintelligible] preface any comments that you have if you want to speak to which 13 letter you're referring (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Yeah (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Lait: If there’s a specific comment. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I think it's ok to do both at the same time. There are very, they are 1 interlinked in the sense that it’s a project within the area of the amendment, right? 2 3 [Meg Monroe]: Oh, sorry. Given your earlier scoping meeting this is the next step in the 4 environmental process and the Menlo Park letter is interesting because they did a program 5 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on their plan and now they're doing a project within the 6 scope of that and have identified certain focused areas that are exceed what they're expected 7 in their program EIR. The North Bayshore Precise Plan one is a program EIR looking at a 8 broader project. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, please. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Great. Thanks for again, this I think this is great and obviously we're 13 not an island so it's good to see the projects that take place to the north and the south and 14 what they might do. So a couple of well first a very small issue, Jonathan Lait’s email name is, 15 are misspelled in the Mountain View letter. So you get the wrong email. So that should just be 16 fixed. 17 18 Mr. Lait: That’s how I avoid getting more emails. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Rosenblum: I thought it was part of your cleaver scheme. 1 2 [Ms. Monroe]: Gee, shucks, caught Jon. 3 4 Commissioner Rosenblum: [So I was going to remind that.] I think this this is the case in both, 5 but I think that both of their studies focus on Level of Service (LOS) instead of Vehicle Miles 6 Traveled (VMT). And so I think we should emphasize that we'd like to see VMT as a primary 7 indicator. I don't necessarily object to LOS standards, but I think it does lead to sprawl. The 8 best way to improve LOS is to make roads wider, people sparser and in the case of the 9 Mountain View project in particular this is critical. Mountain View is building a huge number of 10 units and to the extent that they can densify and make this a place that does not require Single 11 Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) that would be favorable. So we should get them to adopt a VMT 12 standard and that should be what they do anyway that’s according their own that should be 13 California wide now, but certainly it's it would be favorable for Mountain View to do so. 14 15 [Ms. Monroe]: Well we could request them to do so. 16 17 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. They're using so this refers to Mountain View. They seem to be 18 using a parking ratio that's inconsistent. So they are using 1.2 parking spaces per unit as their 19 standard and this also relates to the earlier comment the use of LOS, the use of a large parking 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. ratio creates more sprawl and I think is antithetical to the goals of the project. If you look at the 1 North Bayshore guidelines it seems to come out with a recommendation of 0.6 weighted 2 average. Meaning if you look at their micro apartment units, single units, etcetera and take the 3 weighted average you should come out with something like 0.6 so approximately half of the 4 parking ratio they're currently using. So as input I would say the city should look at more 5 closely the parking ratios they're using and see if it's consistent the way Palo Alto would 6 approach such a project. 7 8 They're also assuming a very high SOV rate for those who are not working in North Bayshore. 9 And I think they assume that 73 percent of people will not be working in North Bayshore and 10 that 77 percent of those will be driving alone. And so again to the extent that Mountain View 11 Planning can try to increase the one ratio which is the percentage of people working locally and 12 I don't know how that's done. I don't know if it's leaning on Google to subsidize units or but it 13 seems odd that you have a huge housing complex being built in the middle of Google's campus 14 and yet the assumption is that only 1/5th of the units will be taken up by Googlers or people 15 working locally. I think if I just look at the average city block in Mountain View it seems like it's 16 more than 1/5th Googlers so it's a bit odd that you're putting a micro unit focused apartment 17 compound in the middle of their campus and they’re if they really do think it's about that ratio 18 then something is off. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. To the extent possible we want something like this to reduce our traffic load you want to get 1 people off the road that are driving to these campuses and have them live locally. And I guess I 2 would pose this as a question. What planning levers are available? Because certainly as a Palo 3 Alto resident I would prefer that it not just be more people driving on 101 coming from this 4 giant new compound. If it is the case that this giant new compound or series of… these 5 neighborhoods are adding people who are just biking to work at Google I'm very much in favor 6 of that. I think that that would be a wonderful outcome for both the people working and living 7 in that area, but also on our for us and our traffic conditions. Are there tools available or is this 8 under consideration? Is so as a Palo Alto resident the thing we are concerned about is the 9 traffic impact on our community and so to the extent that they can increase the ratio of people 10 working in Bayshore the better for us and really the better for them. So my question is are 11 there planning tools available or is this something that can be addressed? 12 13 [Ms. Monroe]: Well it's obviously a local, excuse me, it’s a local decision. It’s a Mountain View 14 decision. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 17 18 [Ms. Monroe]: They talk about a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 1 2 [Ms. Monroe]: They do not define that program. 3 4 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 5 6 [Ms. Monroe]: So I think that what we could do in our comments is to suggest that in their TDM 7 program they look at how to add methods by which you get people to live and work in the 8 same place. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 11 12 [Ms. Monroe]: I mean I… we don't we can't give them a program or force them into a program. 13 14 Commissioner Rosenblum: Right, yeah. And I see that that seems to be the intent of the plan 15 when it skewed towards very small units you're looking for rental units of people that would 16 move closer to their work. So they are, but then the assumption that they used in terms of 17 what proportion of them would actually be working locally is inconsistent, you see what I'm 18 saying? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah, I understand what you’re saying. Yeah. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Either [unintelligible] plan is that, but then the numbers they use for 3 their traffic calculators are that 73 percent of people be working outside of North Bayshore and 4 so I think I would call into question that. They should have a goal to have a greater percentage 5 working locally. 6 7 [Ms. Monroe]: Ok. 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: On the Menlo Park submission I'm in full agreement with the staff 10 letter. I think that it's excellent. In particular you've called out around the TDM and traffic 11 reduction measures and you’ve specifically asked about the status of a proposed bicycle and 12 pedestrian underpass and I think that that is perfect. Putting in the kind of development that 13 they are putting in having a underpass at that point would be great for the traffic situation. I'm 14 not sure if this is something or if this appropriate for us as a City to comment upon whether 15 Stanford should be asked to foot a portion of that bill and make it happen or the City's letter 16 just simply says are you accounting for the space that would be needed for this? As a I want my 17 understanding based on asking people in Menlo Park is this really going to happen is that they 18 do want Stanford to help support their construction of an underpass (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [Ms. Monroe]: So is your question how the underpass would be funded? 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: Well I guess we can ask that question. How's the pass, underpass (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, is actually going to happen? I and so your letter asks is space 7 being allocated for and what I would ask is, is it going to be done? Is this already in the works? 8 Is it budgeted, is it going to be done, and is the space being provided for it? 9 10 [Ms. Monroe]: In addition to space how's it going to be funded? 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. And the concern as you've probably was the intent of this 13 section of the letter is that at that point around on abutting Caltrain in order to get there even 14 if you live in the neighborhood you’d have to drive all the way around and so it would make 15 everyone living nearby actually get into a car and actually having a better pedestrian and 16 bicycle infrastructure goes right there would just like we have with the Veterans Affairs (VA) 17 Hospital I think would be or with the a with Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) would be 18 very helpful. But anyway the letter for Menlo Park I had no real comments. I thought I was 19 fully aligned with all the points (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [Ms. Monroe]: Yes, we can thank Jared for the traffic work there. He’s very good. He's sitting 2 here. 3 4 Commissioner Rosenblum: Oh, great. Thank you. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: So yes, thank you for the letters and I'm going to start with the easier 7 one which is Menlo Park. And I agree that it seemed mostly to ask about the things we'd be 8 interested in. I will say that I do worry about the constant and I've said this before so I hate to 9 be a broken record, but the constant sort of theory that Caltrain has an endless capacity. It's at 10 capacity now. Electrification and its future are really up in the air. The shared blended system 11 with high speed rail would have effects and I just think it's hard to rely on that and we need a 12 lot more comprehensive TDM measures. 13 14 And I'm concerned about those four curb cuts in a row on El Camino and the traffic impacts. 15 And I think it's interesting to ask if Stanford could be part of the funding for the underpass 16 which takes me into a similar situation as I think the Google contribution to the bridge is could 17 be expanded or maybe the City of Mountain View would have an interest in sharing in some of 18 the funding of the bridge at Adobe Creek. So that's my segue way to the Mountain View 19 project. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [Ms. Monroe]: [Unintelligible] let me make a note of that. So the bridge over Google assist? 2 3 Commissioner Summa: Yeah, if there is if it was reasonable for Palo Alto to pursue a larger 4 Google contribution to the bridge funding and/or a City of Mountain View participation. And 5 then with such a massive project I… once again I think that even more so obviously because of 6 the size of the project and because there are so few services in the Bayshore area I really worry 7 about how it's going to work out in the end and if the if Commissioner Rosenblum brings up a 8 good point. Is, are really 73 percent of the people going to drive off of the campus? It was my 9 understanding and maybe I'm wrong about this, that Google owns the land. So they have a lot 10 of control. 11 12 [Ms. Monroe]: They have a presence there. I don't know that they own all the land. 13 14 Commissioner Summa: Ok, but they own a lot of land. 15 16 [Ms. Monroe]: And the idea was that each of these three neighborhoods they were going to 17 create would be self-sustaining in the sense that they'd have their own retail. They'd build their 18 little villages so to speak. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: I think that's… Yeah, that's great, but people are still going to have cars 1 to take their families and kids to other services and it's not served by transit in any way that I 2 can see. And it may take a long time to ramp up and have a really healthy community feel 3 there in terms of the retail services. So I wouldn't want people to feel isolated in kind of a 4 halfway built kind of new town. 5 6 I was also very concerned about the potential impacts on our open spaces and parks and trails 7 from that project and our precious resources in the Baylands, but just on the recreational 8 facilities in parks and trails I suppose this is probably a bit of a twee thing to say, but if they're 9 really going to be 15 story buildings and maybe this is not something CEQA mitigate, but I think 10 that is a major part of the Western flyway for migrating birds and I'm just not sure… I'm not 11 sure how fully CEQA can address that, but I did want to mention it because I think it's very 12 important resource. And yeah I think one of the things that should be considered really is as 13 part of a TDM measure they there should be a healthy private bus and comprehensive bus 14 service required for this area. 15 16 [Ms. Monroe]: In fact they are planning one. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: Ok. Ok, well thank you (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah. That was included. 1 2 Commissioner Summa: Yes. Thank you very much. 3 4 Commissioner Monk: Hi. Thank you for the letters together. 5 6 [Ms. Monroe]: Hi, sure. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: I think without having the benefit of reviewing either of the EIRs I'm sure 9 they reference everything that's important so I’m happy to see that these were done. I in just 10 generally comparing the two as far as tone goes I think the first one is a little bit more 11 straightforward. You identify an area issue and you give them a plan of action at the end of 12 each paragraph. I'm not seeing that as much in the Mountain View letter and I know you have 13 a couple more days on the Mountain View letter so that might be something you can finesse a 14 little bit. And going back to the letter that's I believe due tomorrow which is the Menlo Park 15 letter. 16 17 [Ms. Monroe]: Yes. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: I wasn't quite clear on Number 6 on the first page and what you're asking 1 if anything. And that has to do with the percentages with the trips. 2 3 [Ms. Monroe]: I'm sorry. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: If you’re looking at the first page on the Menlo letter. If there's an ask 6 that you have (interrupted) 7 8 [Ms. Monroe]: Trip distribution. [Unintelligible] Could Jared address that? It’s his item. Jared? 9 It’s number, you have the letter? 10 11 [Jared Mullin], Transportation Division: [Jared Mullin] with the Transportation Division. So that 12 was in reference to the trip distribution basically where the traffic engineers or planners think 13 all of the car vehicle trips will go to generally is it going north, south, east, west and the 14 comment was we were a little surprised because they only assumed seven percent of all vehicle 15 trips headed to the south whereas many of our destinations in Downtown Palo Alto which is 16 very close to this project you get more like 35 percent of vehicle trips are headed to or from the 17 South Bay like San Jose area. So we felt seven percent was really low and that can affect how 18 many vehicle trips go through intersections in the City of Palo Alto because you can really only 19 approach this site from the south by using the Palo Alto street network. So I we could 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. potentially revise the comment to ask them to check or provide additional models or 1 assumptions they used. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, maybe could put a footnote in about that 35 percent that you 4 referenced here. Just something to give it a little bit more context so they’ll know what you 5 want them to do as a result of that finding. 6 7 [Mr. Mullin]: Ok. 8 9 Commissioner Monk: If that helps I don't know. 10 11 [Mr. Mullin]: [Unintelligible] sounds good. 12 13 Commissioner Monk: And then there isn't only a definition for the Transportation Division. I'm 14 assuming that's the Palo Alto Transportation Division because the letter is coming from the City 15 of Palo Alto so that is referenced it might be more of a… 16 17 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah, Palo Alto [sure]. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: And then just also going back now to the Mountain View letter. Is this 1 listed in any particular order of priority area? 2 3 [Ms. Monroe]: No. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: And if not you might want to put the higher level priority areas towards 6 the front of the letter. To me there's areas that look a little bit more important than others and 7 I (interrupted) 8 9 [Ms. Monroe]: Oh, no they’re… 10 11 Commissioner Monk: Or are you referencing (interrupted) 12 13 [Ms. Monroe]: But typically you just do them in the order that they were in the report. 14 15 Commissioner Monk: Ok. 16 17 [Ms. Monroe]: So if you want to move the transportation things up I can, I could take the block 18 and move it up it's (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: Yeah I don't know that when they read the letter they're going to actually 1 note that it's corresponding to the EIR. They if it's very, if it's very obvious (interrupted) 2 3 [Ms. Monroe]: It makes no difference. If you’d rather put, you want to put the transportation 4 things first? 5 6 Commissioner Monk: I think that's (interrupted) 7 8 [Ms. Monroe]: That’s probably the biggest issue. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: I think that's the biggest issue. 11 12 [Ms. Monroe]: Alright, sure. No problem. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: I don't know what avigation is, but I'm sure that's a word. 15 16 [Ms. Monroe]: Avigation is indeed a word and my spell checker hates it. 17 18 Commissioner Monk: And yeah, just review it to maybe tighten up a little bit and make a clear 19 ask at the end of each section. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [Ms. Monroe]: Sure, can do that. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: I think and then at noise and vibration section (interrupted) 4 5 [Ms. Monroe]: Yes. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: Which is Page 2 of your letter. It says more study is needed at the end of 8 that. 9 10 [Ms. Monroe]: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Monk: You might want to clarify what you're looking for. I noticed in the 13 previous letter that we used please a lot and we want to be very conciliatory and friendly with 14 our neighbors and if there's a way to soften the request. 15 16 [Ms. Monroe]: To say at the (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Monk: To the extent you can and just be consistent with it. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah, I think in this case the (interrupted) 1 2 Commissioner Monk: It doesn't read in a harsh tone in any way. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: Alright, so I can be I can make it clear what we need for a study. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: Thank you 7 8 [Ms. Monroe]: Sure. 9 10 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Just a clarification on the Mountain View project; is this 11 intended to be a Google company town project or is it intended to be generally available to the 12 general public? 13 14 [Ms. Monroe]: It's intended to be available to the general public as I understand it, but Google 15 is a major presence in this area. 16 17 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Right. Yeah and so just given that in Silicon Valley people tend to stay in 18 jobs for three years or switch jobs every three years it's probably not unreasonable to assume 19 that over the life of the project that there will be more commuting unless we assume or that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. there will be commuting as they show here unless we believe that people will just move every 1 move when they change jobs which tends to not be the pattern people follow. So I think we 2 should just be careful in how we think about that. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: This is referring to the 70 the…? 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, yeah I mean it's just that it may turn out to be more plausible than 7 it looks on the surface. I mean it at inception it may be lower and then later it may go up just 8 because people are shifting jobs. And it's this is just something that's hard to plan for. Anyway 9 that's the only comment that I have. 10 11 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah generally in these kinds of studies they look at typical similar areas for the 12 trip generation. I mean it influences them so we can ask that they do that. That they 13 (interrupted) 14 15 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So it’s… yeah I mean it feels like Redwood Shores and Foster City might 16 be the most comparable. I don't know what you've looked at as comps, but those feel 17 somewhat similar in character. 18 19 [Ms. Monroe]: Sure. Thank you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thanks for your hard work. Just one quick process issue, I just feel a 2 bit disappointed it's coming to us so late and that therefore you have to stay up all night. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: That’s all right. It’s my job. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: To get our comments in by morning when this has to get into the mail or 7 hand delivered or whatever so it’s a frustrating. I felt sort of semi defeated (interrupted) 8 9 [Ms. Monroe]: Oh, no. I’m sorry about that. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: I couldn't spend all the time that I wanted to on digging into those the 12 EIRs with the few days that we that we got it, but taking the direction I would like to make a 13 couple comments. First of all if we ever needed any evidence and I think we do, but if we ever 14 needed any evidence that all these issues are regional, they are regional. 15 16 [Ms. Monroe]: Yes, you're right. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Which is what this tells us time and time and time again. Those 10,000 1 people that are going to live in those or 10,000 units, more people than that if they’re going to 2 live out there are not all going to have lunch on Castro Street in Mountain View. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: Nope. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: So we're going to be hosting them in our town. So that traffic is coming 7 our direction. So I think the tone which is one of your questions I think is, is and should be 8 actually quite different for the two. I think the Menlo Park one is very well done. You itemized 9 the number one point I won't go into what my colleagues have said on that. It’s very 10 straightforward. Footnote aesthetically that's going to be an improvement to put new buildings 11 up there so I think that's inevitable and manageable. I think on the tone relative to the Menlo 12 Park letter I don't want to overreact, but I'd almost say that our tone should be a little bit 13 almost alarming because of some of these impacts that are going to hit us (interrupted) 14 15 [Ms. Monroe]: For Menlo Park or for Mountain View? 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: For Mountain View, excuse me. Yeah, I misspoke. Thank you. And I 18 don't want to be non-conciliatory as Commissioner Monk suggests we should be conciliatory, 19 but I think we've got some real impacts here. So to the extent that we can get nice friendly 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. cooperation to look at these issues and perhaps mitigate some very specifically I think would be 1 very appropriate. You run through a bunch of them which are right on point. I mean we've got 2 airport safety here. We've got birds that are going to be crashing into buildings out in the 3 Bayland's. The noise and vibration is absolutely true. It's not always bad, but I can hear those 4 concerts in Professorville some nights. And sometimes I think that's good because I'm getting 5 free admission, but I think that's just very well researched and good a good point. And the 6 gridlock is the gridlock. I mean it's already gridlock many times when you're out there in the 7 shoreline area that that's going to be there. The transit service again it’s been brought up. 8 Caltrain is Caltrain. It is what it is and it's very limited right now. So I would not be shy about 9 saying really we need some help here. Work with us on some of these areas that you've 10 itemized and thanks for your efforts in getting these in to the deadlines that that you need to 11 meet. 12 13 [Ms. Monroe]: Thank you. 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So I just I think that my colleagues exhausted all the 16 interesting comments. I just I can only say two things that definitely there is an impact on us 17 and looking at the recent, pointing at the recent approval by Architectural Review Board (ARB) 18 of the I believe five-story hotel that happened a couple of days ago it's in the context it's by San 19 Antonio Road so it’s in the context of San Antonio and we have Mountain View on the other 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. side of [sun of south side] on south side of San Antonio which impacts us considerably. Pretty 1 much it changes our perception of this where we are. So I think that this will be development 2 this significant development will add to the change a long 101 corridor when you go toward 3 when you leave Palo Alto and when you're passing Menlo Park there are already very tall 4 buildings on the east side of 101. So it just puts unbelievable pressure on the on Palo Alto in 5 general. 6 7 And then one minor technical comment I think that in terms of the VMT I think that we are in 8 that period of the acceptance. So not all municipalities may be accepted VMT. 9 10 [Ms. Monroe]: Oh, the VMT. Oh, yes. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: It's and we ourselves when we had a discussion we pretty much we 13 decided just to have I think two years period during which we would be reporting on the VMT 14 as well as the LOS. So I think that that it's fair of course to ask them about VMT along with LOS 15 which would be along our standard. Thank you. 16 17 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah, right. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok, a lot of firsts this calendar year. This is the first time in my tenure that we've 1 had a chance to present a letter like this to a neighboring city. I think that I agree with 2 Commissioner Monk. The tone of the letter is positive and appropriate. Particularly for the 3 Mountain View letter I wonder if there is a place in our communication where we could 4 articulate a… I don't know, a respect for the effort to accommodate so much housing in the Bay 5 Area. Something like we are and I don't know that I can speak for us all, but this is an 6 impressive effort to provide infill housing in a community that struggles so tremendously with 7 providing housing considering the shortage and despite this we’d like you to consider some of 8 these concerns that we have. Particularly because this is the one our neighbors are making a 9 huge effort. 10 11 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: I mean this is a plan amendment so in some parts this is the city sort of creating 14 an opportunity to address that shortage and I think at least from my perspective we should 15 acknowledge that tremendous effort. Yeah. I just want to acknowledge I thought the same 16 thing about the 70, the number of unit, the percentage and I there was this moment where I 17 thought maybe the Google buses were going to transport individuals to Sanford like this like 18 they were going to bring people in, but they would also take people out and there would be this 19 amazing network of get to work transportation and… 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [Ms. Monroe]: In the document they talk about adding a bus fleet of 45 to 75 buses a day. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: To accommodate the residents (interrupted) 4 5 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah to accommodate (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Who are travelling in all directions. 8 9 [Ms. Monroe]: Yeah. And these were buses I think principally by companies in the area. So I 10 think Google brings a lot of people in and out now right. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Right. No, I know that and I (interrupted) 13 14 [Ms. Monroe]: So they expect that to expand. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Yeah I know. I was wondering if the Google if Google's got a bus coming at 8:00 17 a.m. from San Francisco and then it makes… 18 19 [Ms. Monroe]: Does it go back? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: It goes back to San Francisco maybe to pick up people at 9:00 a.m. or I wondered 2 if there was if the return trip would be an opportunity for residents to travel. You see what I’m 3 saying. 4 5 [Ms. Monroe]: Oh, good question. Yeah. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: We had a comment about sort of the lack of public transportation and I imagine 8 that I'm not the first person to think that there's an opportunity to fill those seats on their way 9 out. 10 11 [Ms. Monroe]: Non-Google people? 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. I imagine those buses are parked at Google overnight. I mean I'm just 14 they might even be running 24 hours a day for all I know, but essentially those are 15 opportunities. Those are seats and I wonder if there's a connection in there. Ok, does anybody 16 else have any other comments they'd like to share? Sure. Commissioner Summa. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: Just a quick question on the last page of the Mountain View letter it's 19 talking about the bridge and it says however it's noted that this and another overpass bridges 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. should be designed to later accommodate extension of light rail. Is our bridge being designed 1 to do that? Our bridge over Adobe Creek? I've never heard that. 2 3 [Mr. Mullin]: The City's bridge over Adobe Creek that is currently under design is not being 4 designed for light rail. So we may need to I think we need to clarify that comment and thank 5 you for bring it bringing it to our attention. I have an idea of what it may be referring to in the 6 EIR for North Bayshore. There was some consideration of building a bridge over Stevens Creek 7 between North Bayshore, the North Bayshore area and kind of the Moffett Field area. Stevens 8 Creek is that kind of boundary between North Bayshore and Moffett Field and then light rail 9 does go into Moffett Field area. So you could conceivably build a light rail connection over 10 there. And there was a there was discussions of building a bridge there for buses in the past so 11 maybe we mixed up our creek crossings in the comment letter. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 14 15 [Mr. Mullin]: But the Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto bridge at Adobe Creek is a bicycle and a 16 pedestrian (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Summa: That’s what I thought. Ok, thanks. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok, I want to thank you both for being here tonight and for assisting us and 1 especially to Meg. This is a tremendous effort and I hope we didn't take up too much of your 2 time tonight so that you can get back to sort of completing the letter. 3 4 [Ms. Monroe]: No, thank you. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: But it’s been a pleasure working with you. Ok, that concludes Agenda Item 3. 7 8 Commission Action: The Commission Provided Comments to Staff 9 10 Approval of Minutes 11 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 12 13 Chair Alcheck: I want to just address the in our sort of conclusion of our meeting I want to 14 address that we have a on Page 6 a tentative future agenda has been added to our packet. And 15 I think in response to some of the comments we were we made last meeting and I want to take 16 this time do we do we have a minutes to approve? Do we have minutes to approve? Ok. 17 18 Committee Items 19 20 Chair Alcheck: So why don't we quickly take this time are there any committee items? I should 21 be more specific. Do you have anything to report from your participation? Ok. 22 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 2 3 Chair Alcheck: And are there any Commissioner comments, questions or announcements? 4 5 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I would just comment very briefly that I attended the Council meeting 6 last night and this item on Downtown parking management is extremely well organized by the 7 consultant and well received and as Jonathan said we have direction now to work on that. 8 That's going to be a big item and fun to work on. It’ll be very constructive. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Great, thank you. Is there anything else? Ok at then I will adjourn this meeting 11 at 7:47 p.m., thank you. 12 13 Adjournment 7:26pm 14 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34 Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage ARB Preliminary Review PROJECT BACKGROUND The Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage projects are part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. Construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB) is the top infrastructure priority for Palo Alto. The existing Public Safety Building (PSB) at 275 Forest Avenue opened in 1970 and is approximately 25,000 square feet. Due to the growth of public safety services and changes in regulations, the existing building no longer meets current seismic, accessibility, or regulatory code requirements that are applicable to an essential services facility. Existing Project Site The site for the Public Safety Building (PSB) and California Avenue Parking Garage is located on Public Parking Lots C-6 and C-7 in the California Avenue Business District. The project site was reviewed and accepted by City Council in December 2015. The PSB will be located on Lot C-6, and the Parking Garage will be located on Lot C-7. The site is on Sherman Avenue, between Park Blvd., Birch Street, Ash Street, and Jacaranda Lane. California Avenue is one block north of the site. Parking Lot C-6 is located on Sherman Avenue, between Park Blvd. and Birch Street. This is a 1.2 acre site, approximately 375’ long (east/west) and 140’ wide (north/south). The site is approximately 1/2 of a full city block, with an alley--Jacaranda Lane--separating it from one- and two-story retail functions to the north. To the south of the site stands the County Courthouse, to the east is 385 Sherman, a mixed-use office and residential development, and to the west is Parking Lot C-7. Parking Lot C-6 has approximately 158 parking stalls. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Parking Lot C-7 is located on Sherman Avenue, between Birch and Ash Streets. This is a .93 acre site, approximately 310’ long (east/west) and 140’ wide (north/ south). The site is also approximately 1/2 of a full city block, with Jacaranda Lane separating it from one- and two-story retail functions to the north as well. To the south of the site is 385 Sherman, a new mixed-use office/ residential project. To the west is a commercial building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two-story residential lot; to the east is Parking Lot C-6, the PSB site. Parking Lot C-7 has approximately 148 parking stalls. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The focus of this preliminary review is to explore the merits of three uniquely different approaches to building a new civic complex in the California Avenue Business District. The project represents Palo Alto’s largest investment in municipal infrastructure since the construction of City Hall. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 2 The three preliminary options presented within this application offers ARB an opportunity to initiate dialogue about the design opportunities inherent in each concept and provide direction to the design team on how best to further refine the design as the project progresses. The project is made up of a number of different building and site components over the two parcels. The design of each will be separate but interrelated. Public presence is invited on both sites, however, discrete site barriers and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) strategies secure the PSB site without fortressing. The Public Safety Building (PSB/Lot C6) is a 46,000 square-foot, three-story police station and fire/police administration building; the PSB includes two full-block subterranean floors of police parking and operations , and shares its parcel with operational site buildings, a secure operational yard, and a public plaza. The PSB includes generous setbacks from its property lines, a standoff that offers both security and community design benefits. The PSB is a secure, essential services facility that will be designed to support and protect the critical operations that occur inside. The project will include facility resiliency, redundancy and hardening strategies which when deployed will enable the PSB to remain operational after a major disaster. The design of the PSB will require the careful balancing of transparency and solidity, including careful placement and type of windows, openings and other security sensitive features. The Parking Garage (Lot C7) is a four-story above grade and two-story below grade, approximately 636 stall public parking structure serving the parking needs of the California Avenue business district. The parking structure fills its site to nearly the property lines, and utilizes strategies such as a sidewalk-level arcade (on Ash) and a landscaped setback (on Birch) to provide scale-mitigating site amenities. The height of the California Avenue Garage will be approximately 37'-0" above sidewalk level to top of rail and may include roof top photovoltaic systems which will increase the overall height to approximately 49'-0". It is the design team’s understanding the City of Palo Alto City Council is considering altering the requirements of the PF zone to include public parking garages to address the California Avenue Parking Garage’s current nonconformance to building setback, lot coverage, FAR and height requirements. For this preliminary ARB review, the design team respectfully requests that the ARB focus on identifying the preferred civic bearing, neighborhood compatibility and attitude for this new complex. Should the buildings be assertive or understated? Should they address the scale of the retail district, the County Courthouse, or something in between? Each proposed approach has an accompanying massing and material strategy that are to be discussed in the context of the proposed civic approach. Design refinements (proportion, detailing, final material selection, etc.) are preliminary, and will develop further once a preferred civic approach is identified. A key part of the discussion includes how the project should address the surrounding urban context. The California Avenue neighborhood has an eclectic mix of scales, materials, uses and styles. It is a neighborhood that is seeing significant change in the immediate area, and is benefiting from the increased design focus and energy. The new PSB and Garage offers an opportunity to contribute to this momentum. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 3 DESIGN OPTIONS: The three unique site approaches are distinguished by their different approaches to context, bearing, massing and message. They have been provided “nicknames” to capture the essence of each approach, facilitating discussion of their relative merits. Material, massing and landscape strategies have been keyed to the overall storyline of each approach, reinforcing the message through the elements of design. 01 SCREENING/GREENING This scheme veils the buildings in a naturalized setting to reduce their visual presence and secure vulnerable openings. This screening is achieved through a conceptual "greening," with slatted wood-like screens, rough natural textures and immersive landscaping. The dense planting approach obscures views of parked cars and operational buildings. Slatted screens protect windows from the sun and from unwanted visibility. Rough stone-like wall textures evoke nature and blend buildings with the landscape. Material colors are earthy, warm and low contrast. Design components: - Wood slat window screens and site fencing - Rough stone-like exterior materials - Deep set windows - Asymmetrical building massing - Climbing vines as visual screening for the parking structure - Dense tree planting screening public safety building - A meandering, topographic site plan 02 DYNAMIC MASSING This scheme breaks down building massing by modulating the building volumes to make the two- block project appear smaller, more intimate and visually dramatic. A dynamic play of volumes, colors and masses creates a more approachable community presence. Individual program components are rendered as discrete building volumes within the overall project. Materials reference and update color schemes from traditional Palo Alto landmarks. Compositional interplay between the PSB and Garage offer continuity between the buildings. Site design reinforces the smaller compartmentalized approach, with small scale seating and planting areas. Design components: - Material palette evoking traditional historic Palo Alto landmarks of light colored cement plaster, terra-cotta and copper patina - Building volumes match the size and scale of adjacent commercial buildings - Parking Garage and PSB share one compositional approach - Mixture of materials includes composite wood panels, smooth and board-formed precast concrete 03 SIMPLE CIVIC This scheme presents a dignified and semi-formal visual presence to create a confident, approachable and community-scaled civic image for Public Safety. An abstracted theme of rectangles is introduced. The building features a simple palette and understated detailing, with a variety of pattern that provides visual interest over the large scale of the two parcels. The base of the building is a warm, dark and earthy brick wall material providing texture and interest at street Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 4 level. Lower-level windows are deep set to evoke a traditional colonnade. Upper level materials reference Sierra White Granite, the material of civic projects common in the Bay Area. Upper level windows suggest informally arranged columns. Horizontal delineations at each floor break the three-story buildings into a stack of one-story-scaled elements, addressing the scale of the retail district. The construction approach is modular, increasing the likelihood that this will be the most cost effective approach. Design Components: - Building base and site walls are a manganese ironspot brick veneer - Smooth, light-colored precast panels cast to resemble Sierra White Granite - Modular pre-cast panels for both PSB and Garage for cost-effectiveness - Deep-set ground-floor windows - Simple raised planting areas at site that develop and radiate the geometry of the building Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8005) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 744 San Antonio: Marriott Hotel Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for public comment from March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For more information, contact the project planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and certify the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56815]. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment H. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On April 6, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferj66yQ0Lg]. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Revise three-story glass element on both buildings to reflect the interior use of the building. Horizontal bands were extended across the facade Provide warmer colors for AC building drawing from local context The revised plans include a different color for the AC Buildings and a change in the cornice elements on the Courtyard building to help differentiate the two buildings Provide elevations with mature trees; better define the side setbacks; add plantings to terraces Tree density was increased along San Antonio. Plantings were added to the terraces and also additional taller plantings were provided along the sides of the building Provide some depth and interest by extending the cornices, window details and use of materials The cornice depths have been increased to four feet from two feet in areas. Add benches. Benches have been added along the front of the project. Analysis1 The Board discussed five areas where the project could improve as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe in detail the issues, the responses and whether the revisions are adequate. Three-Story Glass Element Summary of Concern The previous iteration included a glass curtain wall that depicted a large volume space spanning three floors along the front facade, however, on the interior of this wall were guestrooms and therefore it did not represent a true lobby area. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Summary of Response and Analysis Revisions include extending the horizontal band between the ground and second floor. This serves to break up the glass curtain wall previously proposed. Staff also recommended that more horizontal banding should be included to further show that the space is not a large volume space. Those have been reflected in the resubmittal. The revisions with staff’s recommendation make the project more consistent with the Architectural Review Finding #2 as it relates to massing and context-based design. The horizontal banding, breaking up the curtain wall, and upper level setbacks address the vertical building mass. Provide Warmer Colors for the AC Building Summary of Concern The Board had concerns that the AC building’s color scheme was too dark in comparison with the vicinity. The concern from the Board was that both buildings have similar mass and proportions. While each building is associated with a separate and unique brand, as previously designed there was not sufficient variation between the two buildings. Summary of Response and Analysis The project altered the color scheme from a mallard green to a dark pewter. The color is supposed to incorporate the colors of the street trees in the vicinity. The colors are very similar from the original. As noted about, the Board may consider if the changes are sufficient, or if this required subcommittee review at a future date. The applicant proposed a different color for the cornices of the Courtyard Building. Previously the color was white, and as proposed, the color is a tan brown, consistent with the palette of the Courtyard brand. While the color helps, both buildings still look similar in many aspects. The project still maintains high quality use of a variety of materials. The color schemes help differentiate the buildings. The Board is encouraged to evaluate whether the color changes are sufficient to address the previously stated concerns, or if the color choices need to return to subcommittee, if the project is approved by Council. Mature Trees and Elevations Summary of Concern The Board had concerns about how the front elevation was portrayed with the vegetation being not mature. There is balance that is necessary in showing the mature trees and not obscuring the elevations for an appropriate evaluation of the details. Summary of Response and Analysis The project will provide larger trees, including oak (36” box) along with adding additional plantings along San Antonio Road. The mix of plantings has been adjusted to include more native plantings where possible. Additional variation in plantings along the side elevations are provided. Mediterranean Cypress trees are clustered along the side property lines. These trees City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 could achieve heights of 115 feet. Additional plantings are included on the terraces in pots. Sheet L-32 depicts the project with mature trees. This response addresses Finding #5. Notwithstanding the above, staff’s review of the landscape plan relative to the required architectural review findings concludes that some modification to the plant material is necessary to reinforce the regional indigenous drought resistant plant material provisions of the code. A condition has been added to require ARB subcommittee review for compliance with this finding. Depth and Interest Summary of Concerns The previous iteration did not provide sufficient articulation along the side elevations. While the front façade was stepped back, other details such as the cornices appeared flat. Summary of Response and Analysis In response, the rooms have been adjusted to allow for more usable terrace area. These terraces will include additional landscaping. The cornices also have deeper dimensions to increase the shadows. These cornices have increased to four feet in dimension. The Board may consider these changes as sufficient or require the subcommittee to review additional changes to achieve the desired result. Source: Project Plans, T2 Dev. 2017 Benches Summary of Concern The Board had concerns of a lack of places for people to sit outdoors. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Summary of Response and Analysis In response, the applicant proposes benches along the front of the buildings. This appears address the concern. 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, the project requires the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR was prepared by David J. Powers Associates under contract with the City. The following were identified as potential significant impacts (detailed information is provided in the previous staff report): Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. The environmental document and its appendices can be found at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133 Final EIR The Draft EIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from March 27, 2017 through May 10, 2017. The Final EIR consists of comments received by the Lead Agency on the Draft EIR during the public review period, responses to those comments, and revisions to the text of the Draft EIR (Attachment F). In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Final EIR is intended to be used by the City and any Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project. The CEQA Guidelines advise that, while the information in the Final EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the Draft EIR by making written findings for each of those significant effects. According to the State Public Resources Code (Section 21081), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Statement of Overriding Considerations The Draft EIR and the Final EIR documented that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures to mitigate them to the extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the Final EIR. Demolition of the mid-century modern structure at 744 San Antonio Road represents a substantial adverse effect to a historical resource eligible for the California Register. No mitigation measure will completely reduce the impact of demolition to implement the project and there are no feasible project alternatives that would both completely avoid significant impacts or meet all of the project objectives as stated and discussed in the Draft EIR. In instances where a local jurisdiction seeks to approve a project that will result in a significant unavoidable impact, the decision-making body must also adopt a statement of overriding considerations. In doing so, the City Council is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable environmental risks. If the project benefits outweigh the environmental impacts, a finding based on substantial evidence in the record must support that action. In preparation for the City Council report, staff will prepare a finding to support the statement of overriding considerations addressing the project benefits to the environmental risks of the project. The City Council is the local decision making body that will have the opportunity to certify the final environmental impact report. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Weekly on May 19, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 18, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments All the comments received thus far are relevant towards the EIR. The specific comments directed towards the environmental document are addressed in the “Environmental Review” section. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: DRAFT Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: CS Zoning Comparison (DOCX)  Attachment E: Comprehensive Plan Comparison (DOCX)  Attachment F: Performance standards (DOCX)  Attachment G: Parking Study-Valet Operations (PDF)  Attachment H: April 6 2017 ARB Staff Report with no attachments (PDF)  Attachment I: Transportation Demand Management Program (DOCX)  Attachment J: Project Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment K: CEQA Document (DOCX)  Attachment L: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Greendell Site Building 5 Building 3 Building 8 Building 9 Building 2 Buildin g 10 Building 10 Building 4 Building 7 Building 7 Building 12 Buildin g 11 B uilding 8 Building 6 Building 9 Building 6 Building 5 B uilding 13 Building 5 Building 2 B uilding 14 Building 2 Building 4 Building 3 Building 4 Building 15 Building 1 Building 1 Building 3 CS CS(AD) RM-15 CS CS(AD) PF PC-2711 CS PC-2640 RM-15 PC-1417 PC-4843 RM-15 R-2 CN SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FERNE AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUTHERLAND DRIVE SAN ANTONIO AVENUE KEATS COURT MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTON IO AVENUE BYRON STREET E WOO D PLAC E VE FABIAN STREET S E MIN O L E W A Y MONTROSE AVENUE SAN ANTONIO AVENUE LEGHORN STREET SAN ANTONIO COURT (Pvt.) MAP LEWOOD AVENUE 800 4171 4183 4195 486 488 481 465 4 82 490 451 485 479 473 467 461 455 452 4 476 474 464 462 460 478 443 449 525 491 495 4190418041704160 690 490 560 670 4152 4120 408140734061 4080 4088 407240644056 57 725 717 40614049 4073 711 737 625 627 62 3 6 2 1 622 7 50 75 6 762 7 6 8 7 6 9 76375 7 7 517 4 5 7 5 9 740 7 44 7 7 9 765 733 4123 4133 4118 4134 4126 4154 639 637633 633 629 631 620 62 4 62 6 628 630 634 632 638 636 642 640 416041584154 4157 6994147 4145 4149 4151 4153 4155 4 1 48 4150 4150 719 744 738 732 726 720 714 702 4109 4117 4125 4103 4113 41104102 708 749 707 713 725 731 737 743 712 718 726 708 704 700 4099 4096 765 4171 4185 750 744 748 720 716 4201 4225 4233 710 725 705 4151 760 7 9 4 7 96 792 790 786 780 774 768 762 756 750 7 75 7 74 779 785 788 780 796 770 773 767772 764 761 750 755 734 777 4017 015 4057 4055 825 4080 4074 406240304020 795 797 799 801 821 815 809 762 780 840 0 824 816 814 810808 802 800 796B 796A 788 630 6 642 644 646 648 650 4077 41564152 521 660 790 792 812 817 598 708 569 2565 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts 744-748 San Antonio Ave (Project Site) City Jurisdictional Limits abc Zone District Labels 0' 350' 744-748 San Antonio Avenue withZoning Districts Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2015-05-18 11:14:24744 748 SanAntonio SS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 744-748 San Antonio 15PLN-00314 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 proposed project complies with the zoning code, or is seeking modification to standards, or conditioned for approval to comply with applicable zoning regulations and project related findings. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan and not subject to any relevant design guidelines. There are several comprehensive plan policies that relate to this project which are summarized below: Comp Plan Goals and Policies Project Compliance The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial. The project continues the Service Commercial land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project provides a compact high-intensity hospitality development on a site. The zoning code allows up to a 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio for hotels, which is more than the typical commercial development allowance. The buildings provide step-backs from the street to minimize mass. The project includes some surface area parking; however, most the parking is placed underground, which frees up some space above ground for on-site amenities. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposed hotel project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning for the site and would add diversity to the San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, per Policy L-46. Per Policies L-5 and L-48, the project includes step backs as a part of the design to reduce visual scale of the building when viewed from public vantage points. Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project includes implementation of a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce vehicle trips. These measures include promoting on-site or nearby car-share programs, bicycle storage for employees and guests, pre-loaded transit fare cards for guests, a free hotel shuttle to and from the San Jose Airport, and subsidized transit passes for employees. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project consolidates existing driveway curb cuts to reduce potential conflicts with cyclists and pedestrians. The on-site pedestrian areas include different color and texture pavement areas to enhance safety. The project also includes extensive landscaping and outdoor furniture. 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. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio- retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. The proposed hotel project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning for the site and would add diversity to the San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, per Policy L-46. Additionally, the project will be required to meet the requirements of PAMC Section 18.16.090 and Section 18.23 as part of the Architectural Review and Planning Department review, as discussed in Policy L-4, L-5, and L-48. Per Policies L-5 and L-48, the project includes step backs as a part of the design to reduce visual scale of the building when viewed from public vantage points. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code development standards except for the request to reduce the amount of required parking by 20%. The project includes Transportation Demand Management measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled and the project also includes a valet parking program. Both aim to make parking efficient as possible and is consistent with the hotel use. The requisite number of parking spaces would be provided on site, though some of those spaces will be accessible through a valet service. 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 area is comprised of various commercial buildings of differing heights and size. Generally, the buildings range between one and three stories. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the immediate surrounding, although within a few blocks, there are buildings of similar mass and height. One of the existing on-site buildings is eligible for listing on the California Historic Register because of its age and quality of architecture in keeping with the mid-century modern style. The project seeks to demolish this structure and in doing so in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Documentation of the resource will be conducted in accordance with CEQA. Internally, the project is consistent in design, in that it provides high quality materials and finishes and the color palette is muted and appropriate for the area. The structure is one of the taller buildings in the area, which has not seen a significant amount of redevelopment. While surrounding properties have a maximum floor area ratio of .4, hotels are permitted to have an floor area ratio of 2.0. This difference in permitted floor areas necessarily creates a challenge when designing a project to be consistent with the neighborhood character and achieve context design solutions. However, this project attempts to address these challenges with building articulate and upper level setbacks as well as landscaping where visible from San Antonio Road. The project provided a shadow study and demonstrated that no public open space areas would be shaded by the project. Other adjacent areas would experience some shading; however, those are in landscaping or parking areas. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria for the applicable zone district: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the front of the buildings as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. The project has a single driveway on San Antonio Road, thus reducing conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. Color and texture pavement is used internally to help with slowing vehicles down and enhancing safety for pedestrians. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project maintains the streetscape by maintaining the 24-foot special setback, provides bicycle parking at the front and provides step-backs for the buildings along San Antonio Road to reduce its mass. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zoning development standards. However, while the massing is reduced in the front because the project steps back the upper floors, the sides of the buildings include some variation in the facades. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding is not applicable to the project since there is no low-density residential development abutting the site. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides on-site amenities areas and outdoor plaza areas for patrons. (6) 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides some surface parking for the convenience of arriving guests, however, most the parking below grade. Adequate areas are included for on-site circulation for those with disabilities, services including solid waste pick-up, emergency equipment and the project provides adequate areas for loading. The site includes one driveway from San Antonio Road to serve the site. (7) 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. Much of the immediately adjacent structures are lower profile in design. A residential development across the street reaches two to three stories in height, with significant setbacks from San Antonio. There is other commercial and mixed use development in the area that is comparable in scale that makes up some of the building patterns in the neighborhood. However, the project conforms to the development standards for the area, which is in transition. (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2). These measures include some of the following:  Building orientation to optimization to provide daylight to hotel interiors  High performance, low-emissivity glazing  A cool, solar-ready roof, and roof insulation beyond building code minimums  Use of energy-efficient LED lighting  Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures  Harvesting of collected rainwater for irrigation  Dual-plumbing systems for future use of greywater in toilets and other areas (in anticipation of future availability of greywater in the project vicinity) 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 proposes a contemporary style that is compatible with recent development within the vicinity, however, not particularly with the existing development adjacent to the project site. The project does use materials such as wood laminate, stucco plaster surfaces, and metal paneling. As conditioned, the stucco surfaces will be a smooth finish texture. The proposed colors are muted and are compatible with surrounding color schemes. 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 design of the new buildings will provide connectivity throughout the property and will result in fewer driveway cuts, which will reduce the amount of potential conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. The project provides most of its parking below grade with a single ramp down. The project provides different colors and textures for the pedestrian areas and this alerts those in vehicles to slow down in the presence of pedestrians. 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 will provide a variety of drought-tolerant planting. The plantings were selected from a California native palette. The selected varieties of trees would provide a habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. Additional landscaping is provided on the terraces of the buildings along the front elevation. Additional density of trees is located along the San Antonio Road frontage providing a larger buffer. Not all of the plant selections reflect regionally indigenous drought resistant plant material, but this can be achieved. A condition has been added to the project to require Architectural Review Board subcommittee review of the plant varieties to ensure compliance with this finding. 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. Several green building measures are included in the design and construction including:  Building orientation to optimization to provide daylight to hotel interiors  High performance, low-emissivity glazing  A cool, solar-ready roof, and roof insulation beyond building code minimums  Use of energy-efficient LED lighting  Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures  Harvesting of collected rainwater for irrigation  Dual-plumbing systems for future use of greywater in toilets and other areas (in anticipation of future availability of greywater in the project vicinity) ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 744-750 San Antonio Road 15PLN-00314 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Courtyard by Marriott & AC by Marriott,” stamped as received by the City on May 4, 2017 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 ARB 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. 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. 6. IMPACT FEES: All applicable Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. At this time, estimated Development Impact Fees are in the amount of $4,173,945.20 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040. 7. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board subcommittee with a revised landscape plan that reflects the regional indigenous drought resistant plant material required by the architectural review findings. MITIGATION MEASURES 8. MM AQ-1.1: Construction equipment shall be selected to minimize emissions. Such equipment 9. selection would include the following requirements: • All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operated on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet United States Environmental Protection Agency particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent, and/or • Use of alternative powered equipment (e.g., Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG- powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures listed above; and • The construction contractor could use other measures to minimize construction period diesel particulate matter Diesel Particulate Matter emissions to reduce the predicted cancer risk below the thresholds. Such measures may include the use of alternative powered equipment (e.g., LPG- powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to a less than significant level. • Measures to be used shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment prior to issuance of demolition permits, and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant. 10. MM BIO-1.1: Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible to avoid the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If it is not feasible to schedule construction between September 1 and January 31, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to tree removal or construction activities in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days before demolition or construction activities begin. During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other nesting habitats in and immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests. 11. MM BIO-1.2: If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone to be established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. The buffer will ensure that nests shall not be disturbed during project construction. The no-disturbance buffer shall remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes again during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present. 12. MM BIO-1.3: The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, and Community Environment, prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or Demolition Permit. 13. MM CUL-1.1: Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of the exterior of 744 San Antonio Road and the structure’s setting shall be prepared by the project applicant prior to the demolition of the structure. Following the HABS guidelines, this documentation shall include full measured drawings, large-format photography, and an historical overview of the structure. The documentation shall be filed by the applicant with City of Palo Alto Historic Preservation Officer, prior to the start of demolition. 14. MM CUL-1.2: Prior to demolition, the project proponent shall make the building available for relocation or salvage by qualified salvage companies facilitating the reuse of historic building materials. The structures shall be advertised for relocation or salvage by placing an advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, posting on a website, and on-site posting for at least 30 days. 15. MM CUL-2.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 16. MM CUL-2.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning and Community Environment finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. 17. MM HAZ-1.1: Due to the presence of localized total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, and possibly residual organochlorine pesticides impacted soil at the project site, the project shall conduct additional focused sampling and analysis under the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), or other appropriate oversight agency, in accordance with a Work Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the oversight agency. The Work Plan shall be approved prior to building demolition and site clearing or excavation and include appropriate risk-based screening levels for comparison of the sampling results. At minimum, soils in the upper 18 inches of soil will be analyzed to quantify petroleum, hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and organochlorine pesticides as part of post-demolition soil sampling following site clearing. Based upon the results of the analysis under the Work Plan and an Remedial Excavation Report, offsite disposal of excavated soil shall occur consistent with sample protocols (as required by the receiving disposal site) and in conformance with current regulatory practices. The excavated soils shall be placed at a regulated landfill appropriate to the soils analysis results. Confirmation sampling shall be conducted at the bottom of the initial excavation depths to verify that contaminated soils have been removed. A letter (or equivalent assurance) from the oversight agency documenting completion of the Work Plan for on-site testing to the satisfaction of the oversight agency shall be provided to the Department of Planning & Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits. 18. MM HAZ-1.2: A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, groundwater or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and oversight agency for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP shall include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed for demolition of existing structures; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls, other contamination, etc.) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors (if required); • Procedures for proper disposal of contaminated materials (if required); and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. 19. MM HAZ-1.3 A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared as part of the SMP prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the SCCDEH approved work plan and the proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HSP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HSP shall be required to develop a job hazard analysis specific to that task prior to performing the task. 20. MM HAZ-2.1: Soil Vapor Controls. The potential risks to human health from soil vapors from contaminated groundwater shall be reduced either by remediation of contaminated soils (e.g., excavation and off-site disposal) under MM HAZ-1.2 and/or implementation of institutional and engineering controls to ensure that any potential added health risks are reduced to acceptable levels. Institutional and engineering controls employed on the site may include passive and active ventilation systems, vapor barriers, and/or adoption of deed restrictions. Guidelines and measures for health and safety during construction activities, soil management, groundwater management, addressing vapor intrusion issues, and construction activities (unanticipated subsurface conditions) shall be addressed as part of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan under MM HAZ-1.2 and reviewed and approved by SCCDEH or other appropriate oversight agency. Final approval received from the oversight agency stating that the entire site is suitable for hotel land uses with implementation shall be issued and copied to the Department of Planning & Community Environment, prior to issuance of permits for project construction. In the event institutional or engineering controls are required for soil vapors, A No Further Action letter (or equivalent assurance) from the oversight agency documenting completion of remediation activities and/or engineering controls shall be provided to the Director of Planning & Community Environment prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 21. MM HAZ-2.2: Groundwater Handling and Disposal During Construction. Groundwater handling during construction shall be conducted in accordance with an approved Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as outlined in MM HAZ-1.2. A dewatering system shall be implemented during construction of the project. Prior to discharge to the public stormwater collection system, contaminants (including petroleum hydrocarbons and MtBE) shall be removed from dewatered groundwater. The system shall include a granulated activated carbon unit, or equivalent treatment device. A discharge plan shall be prepared and permits shall be secured from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Palo Alto. 22. MM NOI-1.1: The project applicant shall implement a noise logistics plan which would include, but not be limited to, the following measures to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical: • Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses. • Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses. • Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The contractor will prepare a detailed construction plan identifying a schedule of major noise generating construction activities. This plan shall identify a noise control disturbance coordinator and procedure for coordination with the adjacent noise sensitive facilities so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. This plan shall be made publicly available for interested community members and a public notice will be sent to neighbors within 300 feet within two weeks of the start of any on-site grading or demolition activities. • The disturbance coordinator will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the case of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site will be posted and included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL 23. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Since the project site is located within two parcels 145- 05-089 and 145-05-088 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. As shown on the attached link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2273 Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. 24. MAPPING: If the applicant intends to sell portions of the project then a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map process can also merge the two existing lots and therefore eliminating the certificate of compliance process. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. The applicant shall be aware that they may not be able to do a condo conversion after the structure is built. 25. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading and Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 26. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 27. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work associated with 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. BASEMENT SHORING: Provide shoring plans for excavation. If shoring soldier piles are required they shall be located completely within the private property, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City’s right-of -way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. The shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. 29. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition, Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 30. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. 31. WATER FILLING STATION: Applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of -way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 32. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 33. STAIRWELLS AND LIGHTWELLS: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement- level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7- 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 34. NOTICE OF INTENT: If the proposed development disturbs more than one acre of land, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post construction Best Management Practices (BMP) for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to Public Works Engineering for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 35. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES: Install tree protection measures and place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650- 496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 36. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the public road right-of - way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. If the project site is proposing to have access through the neighboring property located within Mountain View, provide a letter from the neighbor property owner that allows the access through the site along with the agreed upon schedule. 37. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 38. PERIMETER DRAIN: Perimeter drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for sites on the bay side of Foothill Expressway. The foundation shall be designed to not require a perimeter drain. 39. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide additional grading and drainage details on the plans: include the volume of earthwork (import or export), location of stockpile material and in conformance with PAMC 16.28 Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. Plan shall also include the drainage system required for all exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwell, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10- feet from back of sidewalk and 3 feet from side and rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in the landscaped area. Note: Applicant shall clearly indicate if they will apply for Grading and Excavation Permit prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 40. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing storm drain line within the site. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed runoff calculations from the site for the 10-year storm event, 6 hour duration. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 41. 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. 42. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approaches in the public right-of -way along the project frontages. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. 43. Any existing driveway to be abandoned may need to be replaced with rolled curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 44. PAVEMENT: This section of San Antonio Road was resurfaced in 2011, and is under a moratorium. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor may be responsible for resurfacing portions of San Antonio Road after project is completed.” In addition the plans submitted shall show that pavement resurfacing will be required along the entire project frontage, possibly across the median due to utility Connections. The limits of pavement resurfacing will be determined at a later date in the field, after the project is completed. 45. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plan must note that any work in the right-of -way, including utility lateral replacement, 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. In addition the following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of -way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY. 46. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496-6929”. 47. Logistics Plan may need to be revised to reflect the project construction phasing. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 48. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. GREEN BUILDING 49. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet, then the must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 50. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 51. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.a sp. 52. Recycled Water Infrastructure: If the project is greater than 100,000 square feet and is not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area, then the project must install dual plumbing for use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing. PAMC 16.14.300 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 53. Recycled Water Infrastructure: If the project is proposing 100 or more toilets and is not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area, then the project must install dual plumbing for use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing. PAMC 16.14.300 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 54. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: 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. 55. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then 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. 56. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the new non-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). See MWELO Submittal Guidelines. 57. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 58. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction- Tier 2 Mandatory for all nonresidential construction include new construction, additions, and alteration, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. PAMC 16.14.370 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 59. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new hotel structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 30% of parking spaces, among which at least 10% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.430 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54976 for additional details. 60. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.a sp. TRANSPORTATION 61. PARKING FACILITY DESIGN: An aisle and several parking stalls on parking level P2 do not meet the city’s parking facility design standards. Specifically, the drive aisle below the ramp from the ground level dead-ends without providing a turn-around area, and one parallel parking stall is less than 20-feet between structural columns/vertical obstructions. These design issues shall be resolved prior to building permit issuance. 62. VALET PARKING PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a valet parking plan. At minimum, the plan shall include a written operations plan and scaled site plan demonstrating adequate space is available to store the required number of vehicles and maintain efficient access. The written plan should include operating hours and estimated number of staff required to efficiently operate the service to prevent queuing into the public right of way. The scaled site plan shall show the quantity and location of all valet parking spaces. Assuming vehicles are parked parallel, the minimum dimensions of a valet parking stall within a drive aisle are 8-feet by 20-feet. No more than 20% of the required off-street parking may be provided with a valet program. UTILITIES: WASTE-GAS-WATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 63. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 64. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 65. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 66. The site plan (A1.1) only includes gas utility (gas meters) only. The gas main on Grant Ave. is only a 2” PE main (total gas demands is required to calculate connections capacity). 6. 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). 67. 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. 68. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 76. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 77. 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. 78. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 19. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. 79. 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. 80. 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”. 81. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 82. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 83. 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. 84. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 85. Due to high demands outside City’s control, a three to six-month wait time for some water and gas meters are expected. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide the application load sheet demands as early in the design process as possible to the WGW utilities engineering department. Once payment is made, anticipate service installations completed within said time frame (3 – 6 months). PUBLIC WORKS: URBAN FORESTRY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 85. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the 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. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public trees; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. See TPR below. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 86. 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. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s construction level TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, (list the Project Arborist here, _enter date here, 20__) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T- 3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 87. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ 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. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-321-0202"; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” e. Note #5. “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” 88. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 89. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES--PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut (see Note #4 above). a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. c. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. d. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” e. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 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. 90. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, four new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as structural grid (Silva Cell). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Each parking lot tree in small islands and all public trees shall be provided adequate rootable soil commensurate to mature tree size. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). c. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. LANDSCAPE PLANS 91. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist. 92. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. b. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. A turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) required for best tree performance. c. Add note: “Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 93. 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. 94. 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. 95. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (name of certified arborist of record and phone #), 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. 96. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 97. 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. 98. 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. 99. 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 100. 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). 101. 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. 102. 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. 103. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 104. 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. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 744-748 San Antonio Road, 15PLN-00314 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 1.91 acres (83,440.93 sf) 1.91 acres (83,440.93 sf) Minimum Front Yard 10-12 feet to create an effective sidewalk (1), (2), (8) 744 San Antonio: 24 ft. 748 San Antonio: 4 ft. Not Applicable Rear Yard None 744 San Antonio: 70 ft. 748 San Antonio: 84 ft. 10 feet Interior Side Yard (if abutting residential zone district None 20 feet 10 feet Street Side Yard None Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) 141 feet (50%) No Street side yard 186 feet (77%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 744 San Antonio: 24 ft. 748 San Antonio: 4 ft. 24 feet Max. Site Coverage None 36% (30,200 sf) 39.63% (33,075 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft 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 feet 49’-4” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Hotel: 2.0:1(166,882 sf) 37.84% (31,575 sf) 166,020 (1.99:1) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotels* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom 75 spaces 294 spaces, includes 58 valet spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms (100% LT) 30 spaces Loading Space 2 loading spaces for 30,000 - 69,999 sf 2 spaces * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements ATTACHMENT F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 744 San Antonio Road / File No. 15PLN-00314 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 Service Commercial. The project continues the Service Commercial land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project provides a compact high-intensity hospitality development on a site. The zoning code allows up to a 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio for hotels, which is more than the typical commercial development allowance. The buildings provide step- backs from the street to minimize mass. The project includes some surface area parking; however, most the parking is placed underground, which frees up some space above ground for on-site amenities. The proposed hotel project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning for the site and would add diversity to the San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, per Policy L-46. Per Policies L-5 and L-48, the project includes step backs as a part of the design to reduce visual scale of the building when viewed from public vantage points. Although, it could be argued that this does not go far enough. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Goal T-3 is met because the project will implement Transportation Demand Management measures reducing vehicle use. These measures include promoting on-site or nearby car-share programs, bicycle storage for employees and guests, provide pre-loaded transit fare cards for guests, provide a free hotel shuttle to and from the San Jose Airport, and subsidized transit passes for employees. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project consolidates existing driveway curb cuts to reduce potential conflicts with cyclists and pedestrians. The on-site pedestrian areas include different color and texture pavement areas to enhance safety. 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. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Performance Criteria 18.23 744 San Antonio Road 15PLN-00314 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 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. 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 trash enclosures are in the rear of the property, opposite from the residential areas across San Antonio Road. Noise associated with the servicing of the solid waste facilities would be shielded by the new buildings. 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 the neighboring residents. Outside lighting on the proposed building would be limited, focused at the ground floor level, and comparable in brightness to the ambient lighting in the surrounding area. Landscape or architectural accent lighting that is aimed upward, would contain glare control, louvers or be shielded from direct vertical uplight, consistent with this PAMC Section. 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 hotel includes ancillary uses that are associated with guest services and not open to the public. Any loading would occur in the rear of the property opposite the residents across from San Antonio Road. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 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 provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides the required setback and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. 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 project will comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The trash enclosures are in the rear of the property. 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 provides most of its parking below grade. The parking that is located at-grade is shielded by the new buildings and not visible from San Antonio Road. 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 access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular parking is valet and most of the parking is below ground. Pedestrian areas include colored and textured pavement that would enhance safety. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. 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 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials November 11, 2016 Mr. Mont Williamson T/2 Hospitality 620 Newport Center Drive, 14th Floor Newport Beach CA 92660 Re:Parking Study for Hotels Dear Mr. Williamson: This letter describes research that Hexagon has conducted regarding the number of parking spaces required for hotels in Santa Clara County.Hexagon conducted counts of the parking demand at one hotel in 2014 and two hotels in 2015 (see Table 1). The 2014 count was conducted at the Aloft Hotel located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. The Aloft Hotel in Cupertino includes meeting space, a snack bar, a lounge and bar, and free underground parking. The two hotels counted in 2015 include the Hilton Garden Inn (located at 840 East El Camino Real, Mountain View) and the Courtyard by Marriott (located at 660 West El Camino Real, Sunnyvale). Each hotel is located on a major arterial and has a mix of meeting/conference space, a restaurant and bar/lounge area, and free parking. The restaurant and bar/lounge space is owned and operated by the hotel and primarily serves customers who are hotel guests. Survey Results Table 2 shows that the overall peak parking demand was observed at midnight, after the hotel restaurant had closed. The peak parking ratios for the hotels on weekdays were observed to range from 0.61 to 0.74 with an average of 0.68 occupied parking spaces per occupied room.The peak parking ratios observed on Saturdays ranged from 0.56 to 0.80 with an average of 0.70 occupied spaces per occupied room. Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Table 1 Hotel Size and Features Rooms Employees (maximum per shift) Restaurant Size 3,842 s.f.9,715 s.f. Meeting/Conference Space 2,112 s.f.550 s.f. 1,100 s.f. Parking Spaces Provided Parking Spaces/Room TDM Measures a The Aloft Hotel in Cupertino does not include a full-service restaurant. On-site dining options available at the hotel include a snack bar and bar/lounge space. 123 38 19 n/a 162 127 n/a n/a a b Unknown if this site has implemented additional TDM measures. Guest shuttle service b Hilton Garden Inn Mt. View Courtyard Marriott Sunnyvale None Bike parking, showers, lockers, changing rooms, transit subsidies for employees, guaranteed ride home program Aloft Hotel Cupertino 160 145 1.01 0.88 n/a Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Table 2 Observed Hotel Parking Usage Survey Date Thurs. 4/30/15 Sat. 5/2/15 Thurs. 4/30/15 Sat. 5/2/15 Wed. 6/11/14 Sat. 6/14/14 Time Total Total Total Total Total Total 6:00 PM 69 64 26 55 31 36 6:30 PM 66 69 22 53 30 34 7:00 PM 62 65 20 50 35 33 7:30 PM 60 67 23 57 31 39 8:00 PM 75 72 21 58 33 40 8:30 PM 76 74 24 57 32 42 9:00 PM 87 77 26 61 42 43 9:30 PM 102 82 34 72 56 47 10:00 PM 109 91 44 78 68 49 10:30 PM 112 117 48 80 71 57 11:00 PM 113 117 52 92 73 61 11:30 PM 114 122 53 100 74 64 12:00 AM 115 125 55 107 76 67 Total Rooms 160 160 145 145 123 123 Occupied Rooms 155 156 82 144 123 121 Restaurant Size 3,842 s.f.9,715 s.f. Total Parking Spaces 162 162 127 127 Peak Parking Demand (spaces)115 125 55 107 76 67 Hotel Only 0.74 0.80 0.67 0.74 0.61 0.56 Hilton Garden Inn Mt. View Courtyard Marriott Sunnyvale Aloft Hotel Cupertino a b The site does not include a full-service restaurant. On-site dining options available at the hotel include a snack bar and bar/lounge space. a The survey at this site ended at 10 PM. Parking occupancy after this hour was projected based on the time-of- day variation in parking demand observed at the other hotels. Parking Ratio (occupied parking spaces/occupied rooms for hotel at 12:00 AM midnight; restaurant is closed) n/a b Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Thank you for the opportunity to provide the results of these parking counts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President Randolph B. Popp A R C H I T E C T 2 1 0 H i g h S t r e e t P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 6 5 0 . 4 2 7 . 0 0 2 6 i n f o @ r p -a r c h . c o m P a g e | 1 of 1 17 January 2017 Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 744-750 San Antonio Road Application 15PLN-00314 Valet Parking Program Mr. Ah Sing: Regarding your request for clarification of the Valet Parking Program: The Hotel Operator will implement and maintain an on-site valet program which will render the property 100% valet parked. The program will consist of 24-hour coverage by hotel staff and will be consistent across both hotels. This parking approach is included as one of the amenities for the property, intended to increase the overall guest experience and serve as an indication of service level. In practice, the guest would be greeted by the valet team right after departure from San Antonio, and entry to our site. The circular drive with entrances to the hotels will serve as the transition and staging area. Guests may call for their car from their room prior to departure so the valet team can have it delivered to the lobby entry for efficient departure. The total number of spaces provided is defined on the Drawing A-2.0. This quantity and arrangement is substantiated in the “Parking Study for Palo Alto Hotels” document provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated November 11, 2016. Based on our experience and the documentation we have submitted, we are confident the parking program we have defined, including the efficiency produced by a valet team, will yield a comfortable and manageable parking situation for the project. Thank you, Randy B. Popp, Architect _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: April 6, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 JOINT SESSION WITH THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2016 (ARB/HRB) 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICAL. 901 High Street [15PLN- 00052]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit for a 17,942 Square Foot Mixed Use Building With Retail and 25 Residential Units on a Vacant 20,288 Square Foot Parcel. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From February 26, 2016 to March 17, 2016. Zoning District: RT-35. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org THE HEARING WILL CONTINUE WITH JUST THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDMEMBERS. 5.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us 6.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has Been Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Comment Period for the DEIR is From March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 7.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2555 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Architectural Review of a Minor Project to Allow Design Changes to Exterior Materials and Architectural Features of a Previously Approved Project to Construct a 23,269 sf Three-story Office _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Building with One Level of Below-grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report was Certified and Statement of Overriding Considerations was Adopted on June 1, 2015. Zoning District: CC(2) District. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 8.March 16, 2017 Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Transportation Demand Management Program The project will implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce vehicle trips generated by the employees and guests. The TDM measures proposed by the project applicant are listed below. These measures are divided into four categories: hotel TDM infrastructure, guest TDM programs, employee TDM programs, and guest & employee (dual) programs. Hotel TDM Infrastructure:  Free on-site bicycle program (hotel bikes for employee and guest use)  On-site/nearby car-share program (Zipcar/WeCar)  On-site amenities and vending services.  Ground floor facades, entrances, and pathways that will encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement  Transportation kiosk and/or mount a real-time transportation information screen in lobby  Passenger loading zone  Bicycle parking/storage for employees and guests  Add transit resources to the hotel’s website (e.g., free Palo Alto and Marguerite shuttles, the Bike Station, Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority [VTA], etc.) Guest TDM Programs:  Pre-loaded Clipper Cards available for purchase for guests transit travel  Train reservation staff to provide transit connection information for VTA and Caltrain and transfers to the San Francisco International Airport via the Millbrae BART Station  Include hotel confirmation email with information about reaching the hotel without a vehicle  Place a getting around Palo Alto map/brochure in each guest room  Free hotel-operated shuttle to the San Jose International Airport  Hotel-operated shuttle to the North Bayshore area Employee TDM Programs:  One-hundred (100) percent subsidized transit passes (Caltrain and VTA)  Cash incentive/allowance for carpooling, biking and walking to work  Ridematching assistance  Free, preferential carpool/vanpool parking  Commuter bike program (provide commuter bikes for employees).  Secure bike storage, showers and clothes lockers  Commuter rewards – fuel cards, movie tickets, gift card  Emergency ride-home program  Hotel-funded annual car-share membership  New employee orientation training by a designated commute coordinator  Annual employee TDM survey  Free employee overnight accommodation (subject to room availability) for employees who are scheduled to work a late evening shift (ending at 11:00 p.m. or later) and a morning shift the following day Guest & Employee (Dual) TDM Programs:  Free hotel-operated San Antonio Caltrain Station shuttle (the shuttle will also be open to neighborhood free of charge)  Hotel membership in Palo Alto Transportation Management Association  Access to on-site exercise facilities  Annual contribution to the Palo Alto Shuttle Program to extend route of the Crosstown shuttle to the project site May 14, 2017 comments by Kyle Kashima 3.1.2.2 Impacts to Existing Visual Character The 24-foot setback is too small for a large complex that starts at a three-story height and rapidly rises to a five-story height on that part of San Antonio Road. Across from the proposed site, the Greenhouse residential buildings are only 3-story, setback from San Antonio by at minimum of 75 feet, and shielded by a sound wall from San Antonio. The proposed Mariott buildings at five-stories and close proximity to the road would dominate all the buildings in that section of San Antonio and negatively impact the area. At minimum the plan should be modified to increase the setbacks for the three-story section to match that of the Greenhouse and to remove or to setback the higher stories even farther. 3.4.2.3 Archaeological or Paleontological Resource Impacts The EIR failed to mention the nearby historically important ‘Castro Mound’ that was located at the current site of Google offices at San Antonio Road and Central Expressway (the former Mayfield Mall). As I understand, it was one of the largest burial sites for the Ohlone people in the area. The EIR should be amended to accurately reflect this fact and the possibility that the project site could contain artifacts or remains of importance. 3.6.1.2 Existing Conditions Geological Setting and Topography: San Antonio Road roughly follows the original path of the San Antonio Creek, as can be seen on very old maps of the area. Even though the creek was paved over, it seems likely that the topography still favors channeling water along this route toward the bay. As evidence of this, several years ago a neighbor of mine on San Antonio Drive had significant problems capping an overflowing groundwater well. 3.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Groundwater: The groundwater measurements cited in the EIR were taken in 2015 during the drought. I am concerned that the estimated levels were not representative and the dewatering part of the project might require draining a significant amount of groundwater from the San Antonio ‘creek’. I am also uncertain on the effect the dewatering will have on the groundwater and how this might affect the city- owned and city-protected Oak trees along San Antonio Drive. The project plan should include steps by the city to monitor the groundwater levels and mitigate any problems, such as watering the oaks if the water table drops. 3.11.3 Noise Impacts The EIR claims that “vehicular traffic generated is not anticipated to increase noise levels substantially” citing the Hexagon’s Traffic Impact Analysis report of October 11, 2016. Hexagon’s Traffic Impact Analysis report only analyzes traffic volumes and flows. Their report does not discuss noise levels anywhere. There is no information in their report that attempts to analyze noise levels or noise level changes due to changes in the traffic level. The EIR makes a claim that is unsupported regarding the noise levels. May 14, 2017 comments by Kyle Kashima The EIR states that the current levels of noise for the project site “range from 60 dBA to 70 dBA primarily as a result of traffic along San Antonio Road” and “The ‘normally acceptable’ outdoor noise level standard for the nearby residences would be 55 dBA Ldn, and existing ambient levels exceed this threshold.” The noise levels from San Antonio Road to my nearby single family house on San Antonio Drive are already high (about 70 dBA according to the Noise Contour map of the Comprehensive Report). Unlike that of most other Palo Alto roads, San Antonio Road traffic includes heavy commercial vehicles because this road is the primary commercial route from 101 for Palo Alto, Stanford University, Mountain View’s retail stores along San Antonio Road, and downtown Los Altos. Any increase in traffic will raise the approximately 70 dBA outdoor noise to even more unpleasant levels. For these reasons, I cannot support the project until a proper noise impact study is undertaken and steps are taken to mitigate the high level of noise along the single family residences of San Antonio Drive. Comment: The recent (decades)-long-awaited repair of San Antonio Road improved some things. • When the city removed stone pine trees whose roots uplifted parts of the roadway and repaved the street, the vibrations and banging from bouncing of cargo semi-trucks and construction trucks improved. • When the city raised the medians and planted it with trees and plants, the change deterred the reckless jaywalkers who would dart across San Antonio Road between the onrushing traffic. Unfortunately, the repair did little to address the continuing high of outdoor noise. • The plants in the median provide little, if any, reduction in the noise. There are sizeable gaps between plants and it is unclear if they would attenuate noise levels even if the gaps were filled by plants. • During a community meeting on the San Antonio Road repair, I and several other neighbors requested a medium height (4’ to 6’) sound wall to be built in the median, but to no avail. The outdoor noise level along San Antonio Drive remains well above ‘normally acceptable levels’. Years ago, when Palo Alto designated San Antonio Road as Palo Alto’s principal and primary commercial truck route the noise levels worsened. When the residential complexes and Hauser School on the southeast side of San Antonio were built, sound walls were approved by the city, but these same sound walls reflect noise back across San Antonio Road toward the single family residences on San Antonio Drive. Goal N-8 of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide an environment that minimizes adverse impacts of noise. Can the city study the noise problem along San Antonio Drive and provide reasonable options for the single family residents to mitigate the high level of outdoor noise? From:BOBBIE ARNOLD To:Architectural Review Board Subject:Concerns About Construction -744-748 San Antonio Road Date:Wednesday, April 5, 2017 6:59:02 PM  Sheldon S. Ah Sing/ARB Members, I am the original owner of one Condo located at 765-1 San Antonio Road, PA -GreenHouse II. As a homeowner, Ineed to express my unhappiness with your decisions to allow Marriott to build two five story building across thestreet from our homes. I have lived on San Antonio Road for 39 years, during that time I have endured dust, sand,gravel, wind storms, fallen trees, re-modeling of the middle divider and the building of the new shopping center atSan Antonio Rd. and El Camino real. Keep in mind this has been a 2 year project that brought dust, sand, 15-20large trucks hauling everything all day long to this project. Along with the trucks there was traffic back ups all daylong. Please don't forget the JCC & Muslim bldg. that took 2 yrs. to complete, same issues as stated above that wehad to endure.... I am sending a copy of my concerns and complaints to my Lawyer. My reasons are: 1) None of the City Councilmembers live in Greenhouses 1 & II therefore, you have no idea of the issues we have to and have had to contendwith. 2) Many of the owners are ill, elderly, some have children who needs to play in a safe area, which they will nothave in the future; nor will their parents feel safe in allowing their children to ride on the side walk. 3) Environmental Issues: Greenhouse I & II stated the following last year-there be no Sun, no shade in the summerand no protection for pollen and etc. 4) Many of the Owners have sinus problems, and in some cases their illnesses the fire and ambulance have to enterthe area....this doesn't matter to the ARB!!! 5) ARB folks, your actions in completely ignoring the Homeowners wishes is offensive and are similar to that ofyour Pres. who does whatever he wants to people. We are not going to stand for it we are home owners withintegrity, we love our selves, neighbors and their children and wish that you all for one day would come and visit me and see for yourself what we are going through and what the future holds for any additional building on San Antonio Road.. A Concerned 39 year Owner--BA From:Joan Larrabee To:Sheldon Ah Sing Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Comments on 744-750 San Antonio Road DEIR Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2017 3:42:20 PM Dear Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, The Environmental Impact Report Draft for the proposed Marriotts Hotels is incomplete, inadequate and may bechallenged on several key points. SOILS AND WATER, APPENDIX H, SECTION 3The soils and water studies were only conducted at 744 San Antonio Road. None were made at the adjoining parcel748-750 where the Courtyard by Marriott is planned. This parcel, almost an acre, is even closer to the SanFrancisco Bay and has a lower elevation, The study was completed two years ago, in 2015, prior to one of the wettest rainy seasons on record. Palo Altoreceived almost 30 inches of rain in the 2016-2017 winter, almost 200% of normal. Even so, during the drought,water was observed during the survey at only 7.5 feet below grade. In historically wet years, water would be foundonly 4.5 feet below grade, according to the engineers doing the survey. The soils and water studies need to be redone. The excavation and dewatering of such a magnitude, as to provide two levels of underground parking, would affectthe lateral support of the adjoining properties.The work could also affect the lateral support of San Antonio Road itself. San Antonio Road has storm and sanitarysewers, phone and computer lines, electrical and gas lines underground, for South Palo Alto and communities to thewest. During the heavy rains this winter, these utilities were affected.None of this was reported in the DEIR and needs to be addressed. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, APPENDIX I Table 3, titled "Existing Level of Service," shows that the intersections of San Antonio/Charleston and SanAntonio/Middlefield near the proposed hotels to be level of service D during the evening peak traffic.And these Levels of Service (LOS) were determined in September, 2012, almost FIVE years ago. More trafficcongestion now! The engineers observed traffic conditions and saw that it often took two cycles of the signals to clear theintersections, that traffic overflowed the left turn pockets."Level of Service represents an average of all movements at an intersection. Thus, if one movement is congested,but other movements do not experience lengthy delays, the average level of service can be acceptable." So, in other words, the heaviest movements might actually be as low as E or F now, "unacceptable by mostdrivers." As the proposed hotels are mid-block, turning movements at the above intersections will be required foraccess and egress. The authors of the DEIR ignored the City of Palo Alto's Engineering and Traffic Surveys for San Antonio Road,from the East City Limit Line to Alma Street. In all three sections, the primary land use is residential, schools,churches and small businesses. And the section from Charleston to the East City Limit has twice the accident rate ofsimilar streets in California. ALTERNATE USES FOR THE PROPERTYThe land use along San Antonio Road is primarily residences: single-family homes, condominiums, townhouses,apartments and senior housing at Oshman Family Jewish Community Center. There are schools, a church, and businesses. We prefer to see the primary land use, residential, continue. Incorrectly, the DEIR states that there is no transit service near the property and therefore housing should be located near the California Avenue and University Avenue Caltrain Stations, not at 744-750 San Antonio Road. 3.10.2.8HOWEVER, the Caltrain Station at San Antonio and Alma is listed as traffic mitigation for the hotels. It is pointedout that during the weekdays, there are "20-30 minute head ways during the AM and PM commute hours and 60-minute headways midday, at nights, and on weekends." So, yes, there is transit. OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, 0.3 miles away, is mentioned several times as a reason to allow the two five-storyhotels. Oshman provides senior residences, cultural activities and services to the community and is called "sixstories tall."Access to the Center is on Fabian Way, north of the Center, not on San Antonio Road. The main egress is also onFabian Way, not on San Antonio. There is a little-used exit onto San Antonio. It has its own acceleration lane anddoes not in any way impede traffic. The Center is an excellent neighbor to all of Palo Alto and does not cause anyconcerns. All construction activities for the Center came in from Fabian Way, not from San Antonio Road. CONSTRUCTION HOURS2.3.3.3The DEIR states it would be acceptable to close one lane of the four-lane San Antonio Road from 9:00 am to 4:00pm, Mondays through Saturdays. This is totally unacceptable to anyone traveling on San Antonio Road. CONCLUSIONThe Environmental Impact Report for the two hotels proposed for 744-750 San Antonio Road is incomplete,unacceptable and often inaccurate. It should not be certified. Joan Larrabee777 San Antonio Road,Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Kyle To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing; Architectural Review Board Subject:Comments on EIR for 744 San Antonio Road proposal Date:Sunday, May 14, 2017 8:44:50 PM Attachments:744SanAntonioEIRComment.docx May 14, 2017 Dear City Council, City Planner Ah Sing, and ARB members, I quite recently learned about the Mariott hotel building project proposed for 744-750 San Antonio Road. Although it is a few days past the deadline, thought I would submit my comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report anyway. Summary of my points: · The proposed setback is much too small for the three to five story buildings in that local area. The proposed buildings’ height and size greatly exceed that of neighboring structure in that mixed-use block of San Antonio Road. · The EIR fails to mention the nearby ‘Castro mound’, a significant archaeological and cultural site of the Ohlone people. · The EIR makes a claim that the noise impact from the increase in traffic is “not anticipated to increase substantially.” The document cited as support contains no analysis of noise levels, so the claim is at best unsupported, at worst, fabricated. · Existing outdoor noise levels at single family residences adjacent to San Antonio Road on San Antonio Drive are about 70 dB, according to the noise contour map of the Comprehensive Plan. (70 dB is over 31 times louder than 55 dB, the ‘normally acceptable’ outdoor noise level.) San Antonio Drive is one of the few single family residence area along the primary commercial route from 101 into Palo Alto and neighboring areas. Can the city study of this noise problem and provide a reasonable mitigation for the single family residences? I have attached a Word document containing my comments. Best regards, Kyle Kashima San Antonio Drive From:Esther Nigenda Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:Comments on EIR for 744-750 San Antonio: Marriott Hotel Project Date:Monday, May 8, 2017 7:53:39 PM Dear Mr. Ah Sing, I am puzzled by the 744 -750 San Antonio Road DEIR (03-21-17). Page 7 says, “The project proposes to . . construct two, five-story hotel buildings with shared amenity facilities and two levels of below-grade parking. Page 15 of the same document states: “The proposed project would require excavation to approximately 20 feet below grade to construct one level of below- grade parking. So which is it? One level or two levels? Meanwhile, the Geotechnical Report (Appendix E of the DEIR) refers to one- level underground construction (see Appendix E Project Description, page 1 and all other references to underground construction) throughout. The current DEIR does NOT support a 2-level garage as it explicitly says, Appendix E, p. 15, “Please note there are some significantly thick, relatively clean sand layers below a depth of about 20 feet that will generate a significant volume of water. If possible not penetrating into those layers with the dewatering wells is desirable . . . Provided that draw down of groundwater is limited to a maximum depth of 18 feet below existing site grades (i.e. about 10 feet below current ground water levels), settlement [of adjacent improvements and structures] due to dewatering should be low.” Additionally Appendix E, page 4 says, “Historic high groundwater is mapped at about 5 feet below the existing ground surface in the site area.” The DEIR/Geotechnical Report does not address the impacts of sea level and groundwater level rise due to climate change. In view of the high water table at this location, I believe these impacts should be addressed in this project’s EIR. Current dewatering regulations (5-4-17) state that when dewatering is needed, applicants are now required to verify the anticipated drawdown curve with a pump test using actual wells and that the pumping rate and total amount of water to be pumped out is limited to that determined during the verification. The DEIR needs to be updated to incorporate these requirements. In summary, this DEIR does not support the currently proposed project with a 2-level garage, does not address the impacts of climate change to this project, does not meet the new dewatering regulations and it does not address the environmental impacts of the scale of dewatering needed at this location. Thank you for considering my comments, Esther Nigenda, Ph.D. From:Joan Beitzuri To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Correction/Rooms - Fwd: EIR Responses - 744-750 San Antonio Road Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:45:22 AM Please correct the number of hotel rooms from 194 to 294. Thank you. Begin forwarded message: From: Joan Beitzuri <joan.beitzuri@comcast.net>Date: May 2, 2017 at 8:50:46 AM PDTTo: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, SAhsing@m-group.us, Arb@cityofpaloalto.org, Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.orgSubject: EIR Responses - 744-750 San Antonio Road Our group questions and does not agree with the conclusions arrived at by thisEIR that this massive, dense, architecturally disjointed 2 - Five Stories, 294 room commercial Hotels will have "No Significant Impact" on our neighborhood.Those conclusions are based on wishful thinking but not current facts or reality. Following are the major categories in question. 1. Regarding Visual Character Degradation The EIR's own comparison pictures absurdly conclude that "The visual character degradation would be less than significant" as shown in their "Existing view" and"Proposed Hotels" pictures below. That EIR conclusion is absurd! Having to look at those disturbing, massive, dense, unpleasantly designed 5 story buildings, rather than beautiful, pleasantsurroundings is absolute visual degradation! 2. Traffic We submit that the EIR traffic conclusions are not based on current data or appropriate data analysis. (See email addressing those specifics from our trafficanalyst Lu Lu dated April 5, 2017). The only Entrance/Exit to these 2 commercial Hotels is on San Antonio Road! With business people occupying 294 rooms requiring car rentals, taxis, Ubers,delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc., of course this will add more traffic on an already congested 4-lane San Antonio Road! In addition, cars already have to wait ~ 2 minute cycle to make a left turn off SanAntonio Road at Leghorn, and only 2 cars go thru before the light changes. This is done in order to favor traffic on San Antonio Rd. With the added hotel trafficneeding to make U-Turns, this will certainly cause a tremendous backup of traffic at this light. These facts therefore negate EIR's conclusion, and prove these Hotels will in facthave a significant increased impact on traffic on San Antonio Road. 3. Dewatering Two story underground garage to be build requiring major dewatering. Per EIR, drilling was done in 2014, THREE YEARS AGO! Water wasencountered at 7 feet below grade. However, the EIR stated that historically during very wet years, water would rise to 4 feet below grade. Lastwinter has been very wet. So the water could be as high as only 4 feet below grade!!! 4. Aesthetics and Noise The architecture is unpleasant to look at. It is massive, dense, obtrusive, undefined, bland, disjointed architecture. The 24/7 long hours of commercial hotel operation is an intrusion to a currently quietresidential/small businesses neighborhood. Result: A significant impact on our neighborhood. 5. Historic Resource EIR Point 3.4.3: 744 Designated as a historic resource. "...Demolition wouldresult in the loss of a California Register eligible structure...". We agree with this point. This massive, dense, architecturally disjointed commercial hotel project is not afit in our neighborhood. We hope you will listen to and positively react to our substantiated facts, and do the right thing by acknowledging that these twocommercial hotels will have a significant detrimental, negative impact on our neighborhoods and that you will deny approval of this project. Joan Beit-Zuri Greenhouse 1 Sent from my iPhone From:Joan Beitzuri To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:EIR Responses - 744-750 San Antonio Road Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:51:04 AM Our group questions and does not agree with the conclusions arrived at by this EIR that thismassive, dense, architecturally disjointed 2 - Five Stories, 194 room commercial Hotels will have "No Significant Impact" on our neighborhood. Those conclusions are based on wishfulthinking but not current facts or reality. Following are the major categories in question. 1. Regarding Visual Character Degradation The EIR's own comparison pictures absurdly conclude that "The visual character degradation would be less than significant" as shown in their "Existing view" and "Proposed Hotels"pictures below. That EIR conclusion is absurd! Having to look at those disturbing, massive, dense, unpleasantly designed 5 story buildings, rather than beautiful, pleasant surroundings isabsolute visual degradation! 2. Traffic We submit that the EIR traffic conclusions are not based on current data or appropriate data analysis. (See email addressing those specifics from our traffic analyst Lu Lu dated April 5,2017). The only Entrance/Exit to these 2 commercial Hotels is on San Antonio Road! With business people occupying 194 rooms requiring car rentals, taxis, Ubers, delivery trucks, garbagetrucks, etc., of course this will add more traffic on an already congested 4-lane San Antonio Road! In addition, cars already have to wait ~ 2 minute cycle to make a left turn off San AntonioRoad at Leghorn, and only 2 cars go thru before the light changes. This is done in order to favor traffic on San Antonio Rd. With the added hotel traffic needing to make U-Turns, thiswill certainly cause a tremendous backup of traffic at this light. These facts therefore negate EIR's conclusion, and prove these Hotels will in fact have a significant increased impact on traffic on San Antonio Road. 3. Dewatering Two story underground garage to be build requiring major dewatering. Per EIR, drilling was done in 2014, THREE YEARS AGO! Water was encountered at 7 feet below grade. However, the EIR stated that historically during very wet years, water would rise to 4 feet below grade. Last winter has been very wet. So the water could be as high as only 4feet below grade!!! 4. Aesthetics and Noise The architecture is unpleasant to look at. It is massive, dense, obtrusive, undefined, bland, disjointed architecture. The 24/7 long hoursof commercial hotel operation is an intrusion to a currently quiet residential/small businesses neighborhood. Result: A significant impact on our neighborhood. 5. Historic Resource EIR Point 3.4.3: 744 Designated as a historic resource. "...Demolition would result in the loss of a California Register eligible structure...". We agree with this point. This massive, dense, architecturally disjointed commercial hotel project is not a fit in our neighborhood. We hope you will listen to and positively react to our substantiated facts, anddo the right thing by acknowledging that these two commercial hotels will have a significant detrimental, negative impact on our neighborhoods and that you will deny approval of thisproject. Joan Beit-ZuriGreenhouse 1 Sent from my iPhone From:Esther Nigenda To:Sheldon Ah Sing Cc:arb@cityofpalo.org; Council, City Subject:Comments on EIR for 744-750 San Antonio: Marriott Hotel Project Date:Monday, May 8, 2017 7:02:31 PM Dear Mr. Ah Sing, I am puzzled by the 744 -750 San Antonio Road DEIR (03-21-17). Page 7 says, “The projectproposes to . . . construct two, five-story hotel buildings with shared amenity facilities and two levels of below-grade parking. Page 15 of the same document states: “The proposed projectwould require excavation to approximately 20 feet below grade to construct one level of below-grade parking. So which is it? One level or two levels? Meanwhile, the Geotechnical Report (Appendix E of the DEIR) refers to one-levelunderground construction (see Appendix E Project Description, page 1 and all other referencesto underground construction) throughout. The current DEIR does NOT support a 2-level garage as it explicitly says, Appendix E, p. 15,“Please note there are some significantly thick, relatively clean sand layers below a depth ofabout 20 feet that will generate a significant volume of water. If possible not penetrating intothose layers with the dewatering wells is desirable . . . Provided that draw down ofgroundwater is limited to a maximum depth of 18 feet below existing site grades (i.e. about 10feet below current ground water levels), settlement [of adjacent improvements and structures]due to dewatering should be low.” Additionally Appendix E, page 4 says, “Historic high groundwater is mapped at about 5 feetbelow the existing ground surface in the site area.” The DEIR/Geotechnical Report does notaddress the impacts of sea level and groundwater level rise due to climate change. In view ofthe high water table at this location, I believe these impacts should be addressed in thisproject’s EIR.  Current dewatering regulations (5-4-17) state that when dewatering is needed, applicants arenow required to verify the anticipated drawdown curve with a pump test using actualwells and that the pumping rate and total amount of water to be pumped out is limited to thatdetermined during the verification. The DEIR needs to be updated to incorporate theserequirements. In summary, this DEIR does not support the currently proposed project with a 2-level garage,does not address the impacts of climate change to this project, does not meet the newdewatering regulations and it does not address the environmental impacts of the scale ofdewatering needed at this location. Thank you for considering my comments,Esther Nigenda, Ph.D. From:Architectural Review Board To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Sheldon Ah Sing Subject:FW: Comments on EIR for 744 San Antonio Road proposal Date:Monday, May 15, 2017 5:58:59 AM Attachments:744SanAntonioEIRComment.docx From: Kyle [mailto:pikapika2@att.net] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 8:44 PMTo: Council, City; SAhsing@m-group.us; Architectural Review BoardSubject: Comments on EIR for 744 San Antonio Road proposal  May 14, 2017 Dear City Council, City Planner Ah Sing, and ARB members, I quite recently learned about the Mariott hotel building project proposed for 744-750 San Antonio Road. Although it is a few days past the deadline, thought I would submit my comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report anyway. Summary of my points: · The proposed setback is much too small for the three to five story buildings in that local area. The proposed  buildings’ height and size greatly exceed that of neighboring structure in that mixed-use block of San Antonio Road. · The EIR fails to mention the nearby ‘Castro mound’, a significant archaeological and cultural site of the Ohlone people. · The EIR makes a claim that the noise impact from the increase in traffic is “not anticipated to increase substantially.” The document cited as support contains no analysis of noise levels, so the claim is at best unsupported, at worst, fabricated. · Existing outdoor noise levels at single family residences adjacent to San Antonio Road on San Antonio Drive are about 70 dB, according to the noise contour map of the Comprehensive Plan. (70 dB is over 31 times louder than 55 dB, the ‘normally acceptable’ outdoor noise level.)  San Antonio Drive is one of the few single family residence area along the primary commercial route from 101 into Palo Alto and neighboring areas. Can the city study of this noise problem and provide a reasonable mitigation for the single family residences? I have attached a Word document containing my comments.   Best regards, Kyle Kashima San Antonio Drive   From:Gitelman, Hillary To:Sheldon Ah Sing Subject:FW: HOTEL NO / HOUSING YES Date:Monday, May 8, 2017 10:17:52 AM For your file 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: Ralph Cahn [mailto:ralphgc66@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 4:36 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: HOTEL NO / HOUSING YES Dear Palo Alto City Council Membersl, My wife and I are homeowners and live in our home at The Greenhouse on San Antonio Road.Please do not approve the 2 hotels Marriott wants to build here. Designate the space for badly needed housing. It's one area in Palo Alto where more housingis welcome. Please don't add 294 (already-awful traffic) hotel rooms on this busy street. The commute time traffic statistics Marriott provided are fake news. There are already hotels going up like crazy in Palo Alto.Please! thank you, Ralph Cahn777-119 San Antonio Road (Treasurer, PAGHOA )ralphgc66@gmail.com phone: 650 858.1012 From:thomas irpan To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Sheldon Ah Sing; arb@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Joan Larrabee Subject:Fwd: Greenhouse II & huge hotels Date:Monday, May 15, 2017 12:32:09 PM To: Mayor, City Council, City Planner, Architectural Review Board. We agree with our neighbor Joan that the proposed hotels have negative impact to our living environment. Boutique small hotel might work best for our neighborhood. Thomas Irpan Resident of Greenhouse II unit #7 Sent from my iPhone From:thomas irpan To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing; Architectural Review Board Cc:Joan Larrabee Subject:Fwd: Greenhouse II & huge hotels Date:Monday, May 15, 2017 12:32:46 PM To: Mayor, City Council, City Planner, Architectural Review Board. We agree with our neighbor Joan that the proposed hotels have negative impact to our living environment. Boutique small hotel might work best for our neighborhood. Thomas Irpan Resident of Greenhouse II unit #7 Sent from my iPhone From:A Hilton To:Sheldon Ah Sing Subject:Fwd: Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Rd. Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:52:18 PM This email came back to me as not delivered. I'm am attempting so send it again. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: A Hilton <annettehilton99@gmail.com>Date: Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:19 PM Subject: Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Rd.To: sahsing@mgroup.us Cc: sahsing@m-group.us May 7, 2017 I am writing to be on record as opposing the proposal for two Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto. The DEIR for this project is outdated and therefore not correct. * The drawings on p 7 of the April 6, 2017 handout show tall trees on the median strip. Thecity removed all of those trees a few years ago, and put in small plants, so there is nothing to lessen the view of two 5-story hotels or the noise associated with them. * The traffic report is also incorrect as we now have many Google commute buses using SanAntonio Road in addition to all truck traffic off 101. Trucks cannot use the other Palo Alto off- ramps from 101. There are over 200 residential units on the ONE San Antonio block betweenMiddlefield and Leghorn. The signal lights at both Middlefield & Leghorn/San Antonio are already backed up on a regular basis. * Greenhouse I and II condominiums are two-stories, not three as stated in the April 6 staffreport. Was that misprint given to indicate that two 5-story hotels would not be that much taller than what is already on the block? * On p.13 of the April 6 report, it states that the intersection of San Antonio & Middlefield is"within a designated walking route for Hoover Elementary" school. In fact, the intersection is also within the walking route of Fairmeadow, Greendell , JLSMiddle School, and two private schools in the area. I have other concerns about this dense project; however, the traffic issue alone should disqualify the two proposed hotels from being built.Thank you, A. Hilton765 San Antonio Road Palo Alto From:Joan Larrabee To:Sheldon Ah Sing Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Comments on 744-750 San Antonio Road DEIR Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2017 3:42:24 PM Dear Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, The Environmental Impact Report Draft for the proposed Marriotts Hotels is incomplete, inadequate and may bechallenged on several key points. SOILS AND WATER, APPENDIX H, SECTION 3The soils and water studies were only conducted at 744 San Antonio Road. None were made at the adjoining parcel748-750 where the Courtyard by Marriott is planned. This parcel, almost an acre, is even closer to the SanFrancisco Bay and has a lower elevation, The study was completed two years ago, in 2015, prior to one of the wettest rainy seasons on record. Palo Altoreceived almost 30 inches of rain in the 2016-2017 winter, almost 200% of normal. Even so, during the drought,water was observed during the survey at only 7.5 feet below grade. In historically wet years, water would be foundonly 4.5 feet below grade, according to the engineers doing the survey. The soils and water studies need to be redone. The excavation and dewatering of such a magnitude, as to provide two levels of underground parking, would affectthe lateral support of the adjoining properties.The work could also affect the lateral support of San Antonio Road itself. San Antonio Road has storm and sanitarysewers, phone and computer lines, electrical and gas lines underground, for South Palo Alto and communities to thewest. During the heavy rains this winter, these utilities were affected.None of this was reported in the DEIR and needs to be addressed. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, APPENDIX I Table 3, titled "Existing Level of Service," shows that the intersections of San Antonio/Charleston and SanAntonio/Middlefield near the proposed hotels to be level of service D during the evening peak traffic.And these Levels of Service (LOS) were determined in September, 2012, almost FIVE years ago. More trafficcongestion now! The engineers observed traffic conditions and saw that it often took two cycles of the signals to clear theintersections, that traffic overflowed the left turn pockets."Level of Service represents an average of all movements at an intersection. Thus, if one movement is congested,but other movements do not experience lengthy delays, the average level of service can be acceptable." So, in other words, the heaviest movements might actually be as low as E or F now, "unacceptable by mostdrivers." As the proposed hotels are mid-block, turning movements at the above intersections will be required foraccess and egress. The authors of the DEIR ignored the City of Palo Alto's Engineering and Traffic Surveys for San Antonio Road,from the East City Limit Line to Alma Street. In all three sections, the primary land use is residential, schools,churches and small businesses. And the section from Charleston to the East City Limit has twice the accident rate ofsimilar streets in California. ALTERNATE USES FOR THE PROPERTYThe land use along San Antonio Road is primarily residences: single-family homes, condominiums, townhouses,apartments and senior housing at Oshman Family Jewish Community Center. There are schools, a church, and businesses. We prefer to see the primary land use, residential, continue. Incorrectly, the DEIR states that there is no transit service near the property and therefore housing should be located near the California Avenue and University Avenue Caltrain Stations, not at 744-750 San Antonio Road. 3.10.2.8HOWEVER, the Caltrain Station at San Antonio and Alma is listed as traffic mitigation for the hotels. It is pointedout that during the weekdays, there are "20-30 minute head ways during the AM and PM commute hours and 60-minute headways midday, at nights, and on weekends." So, yes, there is transit. OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, 0.3 miles away, is mentioned several times as a reason to allow the two five-storyhotels. Oshman provides senior residences, cultural activities and services to the community and is called "sixstories tall."Access to the Center is on Fabian Way, north of the Center, not on San Antonio Road. The main egress is also onFabian Way, not on San Antonio. There is a little-used exit onto San Antonio. It has its own acceleration lane anddoes not in any way impede traffic. The Center is an excellent neighbor to all of Palo Alto and does not cause anyconcerns. All construction activities for the Center came in from Fabian Way, not from San Antonio Road. CONSTRUCTION HOURS2.3.3.3The DEIR states it would be acceptable to close one lane of the four-lane San Antonio Road from 9:00 am to 4:00pm, Mondays through Saturdays. This is totally unacceptable to anyone traveling on San Antonio Road. CONCLUSIONThe Environmental Impact Report for the two hotels proposed for 744-750 San Antonio Road is incomplete,unacceptable and often inaccurate. It should not be certified. Joan Larrabee777 San Antonio Road,Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Lu Lu To:Architectural Review Board; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Comments on EIR on Marriotts / AC Hotels project Date:Wednesday, April 5, 2017 1:43:21 PM Dear ARB / City Council members, My name is Lu Lu and I'm a resident in Greenhouse II. I have some questions/concerns regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis in the EIR on Marriotts / AC hotels project: 1. In the report, on page 16, in the "project trip generation under existing conditions" table, it estimates that there will be 1672 trips generated by the hotel per day. In which 1522 trips are generated by guests. However, among these 1522 trips, only 107+108=215 trips are considered to be morning peak + evening peak trips, which is <15% of all the trips. This number sounds too small to me. Palo Alto is not a tourists destination, I would expect most of the guests are business travelers coming to visit the companies nearby and most of they will follow the regular commuting travel patterns and leave / return during peak hours. The trip estimation is the foundation of the analysis, all of the conclusions are based on the assumption that only 215 peak hour trips will be made by the guests in a day, which IMHO is far from the reality. The trip patterns in other hotels in Palo Alto / Mountain View area should be used to estimate the morning / evening peak trips instead of the generalized trip rate estimation guidelines. 2. The report mentioned in multiple places that the Intersection Levels of Service analysis shows that all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak hours. I understand that this refers to some "standard" manuals and tables. However, these manuals are simplified for convenience and generalization purposes. IMHO we should not just blindly refer to these hard numbers/methodologies and pretend to not see the reality. For example, all residents in this area know how bad the traffic is during peak hours in the San Antonio & Middlefield road intersection. The numbers show that there is a 50/37 sec delay in the intersection during peak hours (with 2015 data for morning peak and 2012 data for evening peak, I believe the number is much worse today). Note that this is the average delay across all directions / lanes. The delay on the more crowded direction / lanes are much worse. This is something else I feel too simplified in the standard: we use the average delay to decide the service level rather than the maximum delay. Based on this standard, drivers in the most crowded direction have to bear with huge delay just because the other lanes have much less car and we use average number to tell them it's "acceptable". Need further research, but friends in relevant areas told me there have been studies about these Intersection Levels of Service methods not being to reflect the reality and these methods have already been phased out in many places. In summary, the report is based on very questionable fundamental trip estimations and the standard the report is referring to is so low that makes me sad. We can't make Palo Alto a better place if our rules and standards believe the traffic condition in one of the most congested area in the city is acceptable and it's OK to be worse. Thanks, -- Lu Lu From:patricia markee To:Joan Larrabee; Architectural Review Board; Sheldon Ah Sing Subject:Re: Marriott Hotels" Proposed Site, San Antonio Road, Before & After Date:Tuesday, April 4, 2017 4:47:36 PM Dear arb, Joan and Sheldon, I have written many departments in the city about this proposed construction. All to no avail, as the paperwork process has continued by leaps and bounds without my being notified; in fact, I wasn't notified this time but Greenhouse II was; now I think I understand why the paperwork has made such leaps and bounds: the first picture below is a lie; it resembles nothing that I see on the other side of my street, 777 San Antonio. I have walked that block many times and it's all business construction. I have not seen so many trees on that side of the street for at least 30, if not, 40 years. What worries me is why have they disguised this street? What do they hope to gain? I figured they must be smarter than that to expedite the paperwork in a way that none of us in this condo were notified. I guess they are not so smart, so my conclusion is--I hate to say it--that they are carefully insinuating money into the city. I browsed the environmental report, which states that there would be no noticeable impact on traffic. Huh? Two large 5-story hotels have no noticeable impact on traffic? The traffic on San Antonio has increased considerably since the construction of apartment houses and businesses where Sears used to be: San Antonio and El Camino Real. To get into my condominium complex I usually have to wait two light cycles now: one to get into the left turn lane and the 2nd to turn left, sometimes even three. With this construction, I'll bet that I'll have to wait three light cycles regularly to make that left. Unless the city extends the left turn lane. Anybody want to take that bet??? Sincerely, Patricia M. Markee From: Joan Larrabee <joan.larrabee@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:02 PM To: thomas irpan; penny proctor; patstarrett; janet kahle; Thomas Shou; Susie Mitchell; Sheldon Ah Sing; Sandra Chinoporos; Richard & Barbara; Ralph Cahn; Phyllis The'; Patricia Markee; Matt Hengehold; Lu Lu; John F Petrilla; Joan Beitzuri; Edith Large; Dixie Storkman; Carole Steger; A P Wegner; simucom@earthlink.net; robhsiang@yahoo.com; ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net; ncmartin@comcast.net; mbauriedel@ursu.com; lbach@edtg.com; jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com; dtottingham@gmail.com; alex@pavineyard.org; kirk miller; brenthan01@gmail.com; huijuan.lu@hotmail.com; Pete Gradowski; cbrosnan@yahoo.com Subject: Marriott Hotels' Proposed Site, San Antonio Road, Before & After Looking northeast to 744-750 San Antonio Road. Top photo is existing condition. Bottom photo is the developer's conception of the two Courtyard by Marriott and AC by Marriott Hotels. They say that the "Visual character degradation would be less than significant." Do you believe that? Is that what you see? What do you think? Please express your concerns and views about the proposals to the Mayor and City Council, the Architectural Review Board, and Contract City Planner Sheldon Ah Sing: Citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org arb@cityofpaloalto.org Sheldon Ah Sing (408) 340.5642 SAhsing@m-group.us Attend the ARB Meeting Thursday morning, April 6, in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers. Thank you! Joan Larrabee Greenhouse One Sent from my iPad From:patricia markee To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing; Architectural Review Board; joan.larrabee@att.net; Michelle Hogan Subject:Marriott hotels on San Antonio Date:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:35:39 AM I am deeply concerned about the Marriott proposal for two hotels on San Antonio in South Palo Alto. These 5-story hotels might be an eyesore in our neighborhood. Directly across the street, the Greenhouses are hidden behind walls and trees. The rest of the neighborhood consists of one to two-story businesses, condos, single family homes, schools, community centers, a park, and a daycare center. The Jewish Community Center, a multi-storied residence and community center, is on the edge of the community, next to 101. Marriott's report on future traffic states: no impact. I guess their 294+ guests plus employees, including valets, are going to walk. This proposal would bring at least 294 transients into our neighborhood on a daily basis, placing our safety and that of our possessions in jeopardy. Residences would create a more appropriate growth of our neighborhood and help to meet Palo Alto's housing needs, Marriott could place its hotels in the commercial area on the corner of San Antonio and El Camino Real. Sincerely, Patricia Markee The Greenhouse Palo Alto From:Ralph Cahn To:Sheldon Ah Sing Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Marriott Report Draft Date:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 11:57:38 AM Dear Mr. Ah Sing, The Marriott hotels application and EIR for ARB is deceptive, misinterpreting or omittingvital information; the project does not meet needs of the local community or appropriate goals of the City. It should be disapproved. The Primary Issue -- Housing Regardless of zoning, the overwhelming use of the affected area is Residential. San Antonio Road in the Palo Alto City area from 101 to Alma includes the longstanding PC PlannedResidential Communities Palo Alto Greenhouses I and II (228 homes), as well as the recently built JCC/Oshman complex (hundreds of condo/apartment homes), and condo property southof Middlefield. In addition, there are numerous single-family homes just off of Middlefield. The residential nature of the area is further evident given the two schools (Hauser K-8 andAthena Accademy), a religious institution, local garden center, Cubberly and local grocery stores and public transportation on, or within easy walking distance from San Antonio. The imposition of overwhelming, 5 story 294 room hotels (squeezed onto less than 2 acres of land) in the midst of the area where no such imposing development exists, will change thenature of the surroundings for the worse and forever! It will presage further traffic-drawing development of the same ilk and will not meet the more important housing needs of the City.San Antonio Road is residential – permanent residential housing is what should occur here. Traffic impacts Residents on San Antonio far more than the EIR indicates. The Charleston/San Antonio intersection, with heavy traffic from west and east; the Middlefieldintersection, always challenging, and the steady stream of cars exiting 101 all flow on San Antonio in both directions, day and night. The studies showing otherwise are out of date andtherefore misleading. The location of the proposed hotels is such that San Antonio – Leghorn U turns would benecessary for those wishing to go from the hotels to El Camino locations, and U turns at Middlefield for those driving south on San Antonio to reach the hotel from 101, thus many ofthe individual trips would include travel on both sides of San Antonio. Adding >1200 trips per day in and out; significantly more by contractors, employees and service providers onto anovercrowded road exaggerates the problem. Conclusion. The proposal should be denied. Future development should continue the existing residential nature of the area: single-family homes, town houses, condominiums. Ralph Cahn 777 – 119 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 650.858.1012 -- From:R C To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Sheldon Ah Sing; arb@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Note: Support the Proposed Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Road Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:55:51 PM I am a resident and a business owner in Palo Alto and I fully support the construction of two Marriott hotels on San Antonio Road. I own a commercialbuilding and a condo close to the proposed site. I believe that the hotels would bring in more job opportunities further strengthening the financialposition of the City of Palo Alto (producing income/funds which can be used to create a sustainable neighborhood). The proposal would also establisha more attractive developed area, much better than its current state. I welcome responsible development of the site and hope that the proposal will beconsidered for approval. Rachelle Cagampan From:Molly Kawahata To:Sheldon Ah Sing Subject:Opposition to Proposed Hotels on Middlefield and Leghorn in Palo Alto Date:Friday, May 12, 2017 4:08:14 PM Dear Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing: I am writing to express my opposition to the two proposed hotels on San Antonio Road between Leghorn and Middlefield Road. This is something that will not be good for theneighborhood or community feel of Palo Alto, and will be particularly harmful to the environment, which is something many of us are very passionate about conserving andprotecting. Please do the right thing for the community and environment. Thank you, Molly Kawahata 384 Calcaterra PlacePalo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 387-6088 From:Chris Brosnan To:ncmartin@comcast.net; Larrabee, Joan Cc:thomas irpan; penny proctor; patstarrett; Kahle, Janet; Thomas Shou; Mitchell, Susie; Sheldon Ah Sing; Sandra Chinoporos; Richard & Barbara; Ralph Cahn; The", Phyllis; Patricia Markee; Lu Lu; John F Petrilla; Beitzuri, Joan; Edith Large; Dixie Storkman; Carole Steger; A P Wegner; simucom@earthlink.net; robhsiang@yahoo.com; ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net; mbauriedel@ursu.com; jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com; Tottingham, Dean; alex@pavineyard.org; kirk miller; brenthan01@gmail.com; huijuan lu; Gradowski, Pete Subject:Re: Marriott Hotels" Proposed Site, San Antonio Road, Before & After Date:Monday, April 17, 2017 2:51:27 PM Ugh, I'm upset I missed the meeting. Can anyone please fill me in on what happened there? On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:12 PM, "ncmartin@comcast.net" <ncmartin@comcast.net> wrote: Hi All- I have been out canvassing the businesses in the area to get support for no hotels and representation at the ARB meeting. Dave from Hengehold will be there Thurs. Unfortunately Larry Bach is on vacation in Europe. I spoke with his assistant and suggested that she ask him to send an email. He would be greatly negatively affected by the hotels and supports a NO on hotels. I got the name andphone number of the owner of the buildings where the market, PA Plumbing, etc are located. He refused to sell to the developers back when this deal was being put together because his tenants had been with him for 30+/- years. I called him and left a message. I talked with tenants in his buildings and asked them to send emails as business owners. Sherman still owns the building where The Car Doctors are located. Gary will call him to get him to send emails or come to the meeting. Summer Winds is own by investors in Idaho and is up for sale. If it is sold, Summer Winds will have a 20 year lease. Info for email or protest will be passed on to the owners. I talked with several employees of businesses where the owner was not on site; but they will pass the info onto the property owners. Many other business owners who don't own their buildings will contact their property owners; several of whom are big corporations. Bad news is that the 2 buildings next to Mechanica on the corner were bought by Google. Larry's Autoworks also sold to Google...a major future problem. Everyone on Leghorn complained about the traffic there and the parking problems due to people parking all day for the Genentech bus . And on and on and on. I think our best approach is to push for housing as opposed to the hotels. All the business in the buildings affected have closed and/or moved. Seems to me building something is pretty much a done deal. We can fight the EIR; but compromise would be for housing. Let's go for them. Nancy From: "Joan Larrabee" <joan.larrabee@att.net> To: "thomas irpan" <thomasirpan@gmail.com>, "penny proctor" <pennyproctor@comcast.net>, "patstarrett" <patstarrett765@comcast.net>, "janet kahle" <JNTKL77@yahoo.com>, "Thomas Shou" <thomasshou@yahoo.com>, "Susie Mitchell" <s_mitchell07@comcast.net>, "Sheldon Ah Sing" <SAhsing@m-group.us>, "Sandra Chinoporos" <grecoiberian@gmail.com>, "Richard & Barbara" <urandab@sbcglobal.net>, "Ralph Cahn" <ralphc66@sbcglobal.net>, "Phyllis The'" <pst54@comcast.net>, "Patricia Markee" <pmmarkee@hotmail.com>, "Matt Hengehold" <matt@htrucks.com>, "Lu Lu" <apollu07@gmail.com>, "John F Petrilla" <john.petrilla@foit-foxconn.com>, "Joan Beitzuri" <joan.beitzuri@comcast.net>, "Edith Large" <edielarge@gmail.com>, "Dixie Storkman" <DStorkman@aol.com>, "Carole Steger" <carolesteger@gmail.com>, "A P Wegner" <apwegner@aol.com>, simucom@earthlink.net, robhsiang@yahoo.com, ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net, ncmartin@comcast.net, mbauriedel@ursu.com, lbach@edtg.com, jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com, dtottingham@gmail.com, alex@pavineyard.org, "kirk miller" <captkirk@sfbaysail.com>, brenthan01@gmail.com, "huijuan lu" <huijuan.lu@hotmail.com>, "Pete Gradowski" <pgradowski@gocompass.com>, cbrosnan@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 2:02:20 PM Subject: Marriott Hotels' Proposed Site, San Antonio Road, Before & After [image/jpeg:FullSizeRender.jpg] Looking northeast to 744-750 San Antonio Road. Top photo is existing condition. Bottom photo is the developer's conception of the two Courtyard by Marriott and AC by Marriott Hotels. They say that the "Visual character degradation would be less than significant." Do you believe that? Is that what you see? What do you think? Please express your concerns and views about the proposals to the Mayor and City Council, the Architectural Review Board, and Contract City Planner Sheldon Ah Sing: Citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org arb@cityofpaloalto.org Sheldon Ah Sing (408) 340.5642 SAhsing@m-group.us Attend the ARB Meeting Thursday morning, April 6, in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers. Thank you! Joan Larrabee Greenhouse One Sent from my iPad From:Jiniko Martinez To:Christina McCandless Cc:Architectural Review Board; Lori Lehr-Wiens; eugene.vinsky@live.com; Anupam Joshi anupamjo@gmail.com; Pat Wegner; Jana Jenkins Subject:Re: P.A. City Staff Report # 7846 / Marriott Hotel Project - AGAINST Date:Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:16:17 PM Wow, a LOVELY letter!​   Jiniko~ On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Christina McCandless <cmccandless@principleam.com>wrote: Please find attached a letter regarding the Marriott Hotel Project on behalf of the 88homeowners located at 765 San Antonio Rd, Palo Alto, all of whom would be affected bythis inappropriate hotel. Please take our letter into consideration as you make a decision about this hotel on ourbehalf. Thank you Christina McCandless, CCAM, CMCA President/CEO Principle Association Management, Inc. East Bay Office 39 California Ave., Suite 108 Pleasanton, CA 94566 San Francisco Office 888 7th Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Direct. 925.401.7037 Ext. 700 Toll Free. 888.747.5548 www.PrincipleAM.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, dissemination or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to cmccandless@principleam.com, or by telephone at (888) 747-5548, and delete and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without duplicating or saving in any manner. Thank you for your cooperation. From:Dennis Clark To:Council, City Subject:San Antonio Road hotels Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:18:33 AM Please do not allow hotels to be built on San Antonio at Middlefield. Traffic is already horrible on San Antonio ALL DAY LONG. I have lived nearby for over 30 years and have watched traffic just get worse and worse. These however many hundred room Marriots will produce gridlock. I understand the need for housing which has made Palo Alto’s traffic bad, but we don’t need more hotels. Dennis Clark 4077 Ben Lomond Dr Palo Alto From:Josette Lin To:Council, City Subject:Two New Hotels on San Antonio Rd Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:51:33 AM Mr. Mayor & City Council Members, We are writing to protest the building of 2 new hotels on San Antonio Rd between Leghorn and Middlefield. Apparently you do not travel frequently on this stretch of San Antonio Rd. The whole area is already so congested. Having two 5 story hotels will make traffic even worse. There are already a Hilton and a Marriott close by on El Camino Real. How many hotels does Palo Alto need in this part of the city? We urge you to consider VERY carefully and prudently. Please focus on the impact of such an addition. Thank you for your attention. Josette Lin 4223 Briarwood Way Theresa Chin 4288 Briarwood Way Sent from my iPad Attachment K Project Environmental Impact Report The project Environmental Impact Report is available on-line at the following address, which includes the Appendices. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133 Attachment L Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans 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 Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “744 San Antonio Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “ARB Major Re-submittal 744 San Antonio 171905” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8084) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 260 California Avenue - ARB Hearing Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 260 California Avenue [16PLN-00352]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Approval of a Minor Architectural Review for an Outdoor Seating Area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P). For more information, contact the project planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):  Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to revised conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: 260 Cal Partners, LLC Architect: Keith Morris / Studio KDA Representative: Mark Conroe Legal Counsel: None Identified Property Information Address: 260 California Avenue Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 13,509 square feet Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, in City sidewalk fronting property Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): 3 story mixed use building with basement garage; 37 feet in height; c. 2015 Existing Land Use(s): Ground floor retail/restaurant shell / 2nd and 3rd floor office space Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Northwest: PC-4172 (Parking Garage) Southeast: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Southwest: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CC(2)(R)(P) Comp. Plan Designation: CC (Regional/Community Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Coordinated Area Plan: Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on 5/31/2017 HRB: None ARB: None Director: Tentative Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Architectural Review on April 6, 2017 Project Description and Request for Hearing The subject application is a minor Architectural Review (AR) for an outdoor seating area in conjunction with a proposed restaurant. The restaurant will occupy a ground floor lease area in the existing mixed use building at 260 California Avenue. The minor AR application was previously reviewed at the staff level, and tentatively approved on April 6, 2017 by planning staff on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. On April 17, 2017, hearings were requested due to concerns related to parking for the restaurant use and the impact of the outdoor seating area on the Gross Floor Area of the building. In addition to the minor AR request, an application for a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales in conjunction with the restaurant was filed and approved by the Director’s designee. The planning department also received a hearing request for the CUP application, which is set for hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission on May 31, 2017. Hearing Request The request for hearing was based on concerns that the proposed outdoor dining area exceeded the permitted floor area and resulted in a parking deficiency. The hearing request letter is included in Attachment E and additional correspondence is included in Attachment F. A description of the gross floor area and parking issues is addressed below. Gross Floor Area Since receiving the hearing request, staff determined that an error had been made by not including the covered outdoor service area of the proposed restaurant towards the gross floor City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 area for the building. The outdoor seating area proposed for the restaurant would be located beneath a glass canopy cover and building eave, and in accordance with Section 18.04.030 of the Municipal Code, such covered service areas are included in the gross floor area. The hearing requestor also questioned the extent of the outdoor seating area as shown on the project plans, indicating that the plans understated the size of the area by not including covered areas in front of the building entrance and to the left of the building door. While the code does not specifically define the term “covered outdoor service area”, staff understands the term to include areas for tables, seating, and the space needed to access such seating. The service area would not include areas where customers cannot be served, like the areas immediately in front and to the left of the building entrance. The covered outdoor seating area shown in the project plans does not account for the building eave and is slightly more than 150 square feet. The revised conditions of approval include a provision to clarify the extent of the area with the plans submitted for building permit. Furthermore, the building’s original entitlement excluded from gross floor area several storage areas in the basement parking garage. At the time of the building’s entitlement in April 2013, these storage areas were incorrectly considered accessory to the parking facility and exempted from gross floor area. Under a strict application of the code, these storage areas should have counted toward gross floor area. To remedy this condition, staff recommends two options: 1. Convert, to the extent necessary, existing fenced off storage areas to bicycle parking, which is exempt from gross floor area, or, 2. Remove the chain link fencing surrounding the storage areas to the extent necessary to comply with the maximum floor area for the site, including the proposed covered outdoor dining area. Removing the chain link fencing would convert the storage areas to interstitial garage space, which is exempt from gross floor area. The property owner has expressed a willingness to implement either of the above options. The individual requesting the hearing, however, found option 1 objectionable due to concern about enforcement and ensuring the space remains dedicated to bicycle parking. It is unknown if the hearing requester has any objection to option 2 above. A revised condition has been incorporated into draft revised Conditions of Approval requiring compliance with either of the above options. Parking The hearing requestor also requested information on the parking for the building and the proposed use. The existing building was approved on April 22, 2013 with 97 parking spaces; 41 parking spaces onsite and an additional 56 spaces provided through payment into the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. The request to intensify the retail to restaurant use requires two additional parking spaces. The applicant proposes to meet this demand by adding mechanical parking lifts that would be used by the office tenant occupying the building. The City Council amended PAMC 18.54.020(b) to address and specifically authorize mechanical lifts City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 under certain circumstances; use of the proposed lifts would comply with those recently adopted regulations. With the draft, revised conditions of approval, staff has determined that the project is consistent with the applicable development standards in the Municipal Code. 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, the project Is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 19, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 18, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff has received public comments on the project which led to the hearing request, and these comments and staff’s response are included in Attachment (F). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend project approval with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Staff Approval Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Draft Revised Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Attachment E: ARB Hearing Request (PDF)  Attachment F: Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) F Molly Stone's Market County Courthouseand Jail 5 Bank of the West Bldg 8 Bldg 7 J H G E B D C A 40.1' 90.0' 312.4' 309.7' 40.0' 121.4' 40.6' 75.0' .6' 46.4' 75.2'125.0' 60.2' 15.7' 40.5' 74.7' 84.4' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 125.0' 46.0' 40.0' 46.4'85.0' 92.4' 125.0' 46.8' 125.0' 46.9' 95.0'125.0' 95.0'125.0'125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 110.0' 195.0' 110.0' 195.0' 125.0' 130.2' 115.0' 14.1' 120.3' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 351.6' 120.0' 15.7' 341.6' 160.0' 351.6' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 381.6' 140.0' 381.6' 140.0' 50.4' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 99.9' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.9' 100.0' 99.9' 50.0' 150.0' 70.0' 50.0'70.0' 50.0' 80.0' 50.0' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 96.0' 110.0' 96.0' 125.0' 96.0'125.0' 96.0' ' 75.0' 100.0' 100.0' 0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 4' 50.4' 50.0' 5.0' 50.0' 110.0' 82.5'110.0' 82.5' 110.0' 250.0' 110.0' 250.0'132.2' 50.0' 132.3' 132.0' 50.0' 132.2' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 132.0' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.5' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.6' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 131.1' 37.5' 131.2' 37.5' 30.9' 50.0' 131.1' 131.2' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5'37.8' 131.5' 37.5' 131.4' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5' 131.4' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 14.1' 40.0' 110.0' 50.0' 40.0' 90.0' 40.0' 90.0' 85.0' 100.0' 85.0' 100.0' 125.0' 92.0'125.0' 92.0' 135.6' 100.0' 10.0'9.5' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 171.2' 257.7' 218.5' 121.5' 25.0' 135.0' 157.6' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.1' 20.0' 10.0' 25.1' 135.0' 45.0 125.0' 50.0' 45.2' 49.5' 86.5' 2 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99.0' 26.0' 26.0' 99.0' 41.0' 41.0'41.0' 125.0' 84.0'62.9' 26.2' 26.2'26.2' 36.7' 45.5' 45.5' 125.0' 125.0' 46.5' 46.5' 126.0' 126.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 57.5' 57.5' 67.5' 67.5' ERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STRE NEW MAYF IELD LANE CALIFORNIA A VENUE LANE BIRCH ST REET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVEN PARK BOULEVARD CAL PA R K BO ULEV AR D SH JACARANDA LANE SHERMAN AVENUE BIRCH STREET NOGAL LANE PF(R) PF(R) CC(2)(R) -2 PF(R) PC-4127 (R) CC(2)(R) CC(2) (R)(P) RM-40 PF CC (2)(P) RM-40 R) C(2)(R) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'135' 260 California Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altogowen, 2017-05-11 14:36:19 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachments: Findings and Conditions of Approval DRAFT REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, development and operation shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Protégé Restaurant, 260 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301”, stamped as received by the City on April 5, 2017. The approved plans are on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301. 2. PARKING LIFTS. The project plans include the use of puzzle-style mechanical parking lifts to provide two (2) additional parking spaces in the on-site parking garage. The lifts shall provide independently-accessible spaces, and provide sufficient vertical clearance to accommodate a mid-sized sports utility vehicle. The property owner shall ensure that the lift system is maintained in proper working condition and that any repairs are conducted in a timely fashion. 3. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the Protégé restaurant. The outdoor seating area for the restaurant shall be limited to 150 square feet of covered service area, including the glass awning and roof eave. Gross floor area in the basement garage shall be limited to 232 square feet. All other existing garage storage areas shall be converted to either dedicated bicycle parking areas or interstitial vehicle parking areas. 4. APPROVAL LETTER. This approval letter, including the Conditions of Approval, shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit review, as applicable. 5. RESTAURANT USE. This conditional use permit allows the sale of beer, wine, and liquor service, in conjunction with a restaurant use, to be located within an existing building and dedicated outdoor seating area. A full service food menu shall be provided during all business hours. 6. KITCHEN FACILITIES. Suitable kitchen facilities shall be maintained for the eating and drinking establishment. 7. HOURS. Alcohol services shall not be served beyond the hours of operation. The use is allowed to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per Zoning Code Section 18.16.040(b). All clean up or set up activities shall be conducted within these approved business hours. 8. SIGNAGE. This approval does not include new signage or adjustments to existing signage. 16PLN-00289 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 3 9. INTENSIFICATION. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and any other entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 10. EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 11. GENERAL OPERATION. This conditional use permit allows indoor and outdoor sales and service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use. The consumption of beer, wine and liquor shall be consistent with the established hours of operation and permitted functions of the restaurant. A full service menu selection shall be available during all operating hours. 12. ENTERTAINMENT. This permit does not allow any operations associated with a nightclub- type use and live entertainment shall not be permitted. There shall be no live entertainment, live music dancing or other amusement facilities or devises. An amendment to this use permit shall be required to permit these uses at the restaurant. 13. CODE COMPLIANCE. The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business regulations) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 14. AGREEMENT. The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 15. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 16. REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF APPROVALS: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 17. PLANNING 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. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen, to schedule this inspection. Additionally, access to the below-grade parking garage shall be provided in perpetuity upon request by City Staff for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Conditions #2 and #3. 16PLN-00289 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 3 18. 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. PUBLIC WORKS 19. TABLES, CHAIRS, AND PLANTERS: Restaurant tables, chairs, and planters may be placed on the sidewalk in the public right-of-way if the restaurant owner first applies to the Planning Division for architectural review and, upon approval, applies for and receives an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center. An 8-ft wide pedestrian pathway clear of all obstructions, including the tables, chairs, and planters, must be maintained along the frontage. FIRE 20. FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE. Fire sprinkler protection is required under any covered outside seating areas. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 260 California Avenue, 16PLN-00289 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 13,509 sf No change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0 feet No change Rear Yard No Requirement 0 feet No change Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement 0 feet No change Street Side Yard (left) No Requirement 0 feet No change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Not applicable Not applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 77% No change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement Unknown Unknown Max. Building Height 37 feet (4) 37 feet No change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (27,018 sf) 27,343 sf 27,013 sf with revised Conditions of Approval Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) Not applicable Not applicable (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office and Restaurant Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per 310 sf for office: 75 spaces 1 space per 155 sf for restaurant: 25 spaces Total: 99 spaces 41 spaces on site, 56 spaces in Assessment District, Total of 97 spaces 99 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 per 3,100 sf for office (40% long term and 60% short term): 7 spaces 1 per 1,500 sf for restaurant (no class requirement): 3 spaces Total: 10 spaces 10 spaces (6 long term, 4 short term) Additional bicycle areas to be provided per Revised Conditions of Approval Loading Space 1 space for 10-99,999 sf for office 0 loading spaces for 0 - 4,999 sf of restaurant 1 space No change From:Owen, Graham To:"Jeff Levinsky"; "Paul Machado"; "Neilson Buchanan" Subject:260 Cal Ave - Meeting Followup Date:Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:54:00 PM Attachments:image001.png 260 California Avenue - ARB Approved Plans.pdf DRAFT REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.docx Hi Jeff, Paul, and Nielsen, I’ve looked into the questions that were outstanding from our meeting last week, and have the following responses. I hope I’ve addressed everything, but if anything remains please let me know. Bicycle Parking: I’ve reviewed the project with the Transportation Division, and the section of the code that you’ve referenced (18.54.060) contains standards for bicycle parking that is a component of a new building, addition, or change in use requiring the provision of additional bicycle parking spaces per Section 18.52.060. The project would dedicate these areas for bicycle parking in excess of the minimum required number of bicycle spaces, and therefore this section does not apply. As we discussed in the meeting, another option would be to remove the existing chain link fences entirely. From the City’s perspective, it would be preferable for the project to dedicate these areas for bicycle parking in order to encourage cycling for the office and restaurant employees, rather than revert these areas to interstitial garage space which would be exempt but, due to the design of the garage, would serve no function. The applicant has indicated their willingness to do either, and I’ve amended the conditions of approval to allow for either scenario. Code Enforcement: As a condition of approval, the City will reserve the right to inspect the garage areas for conformance with the bicycle parking conversion requirement and the lift operation. This condition has been added in the attached draft (Condition #17). Parking Assessment Spaces: The original development was credited with 56 parking spaces in the assessment district (see attached ARB plans). This number is associated with the most recent assessment of the site prior to the redevelopment, and is shown in the approval for the building. With the expiration of the assessment district the City considers the site to remain credited for these 56 spaces, and the intensification of the use from retail to restaurant requires additional parking for the delta. Planters: The planters are permitted to encroach into the sidewalk, and this allowance has been added to the Public Works condition of approval requiring an encroachment permit. As I had assumed in our meeting, Public Works will indeed require that the planters be rolled indoors at the end of each evening. Seating area: The area in front of and to the immediate left of the front door is not considered a service area as there is no proposed seating. As you referenced in the meeting, Section 12.12.020 of the Municipal Code permits encroachments for the eating areas of eating and drinking establishment uses. Public Works handles encroachment permits and has their own language to describe the areas that are permitted encroachments, and they are not equivalent to the covered service areas that Planning defines for the purpose of determining the Gross Floor Area of the site. Regardless, the draft revised conditions of approval include a provision to explicitly allow no more than 150 square feet of covered outdoor service area, which will be clarified on the building permit plans to include the areas under both the glass cover and the red roof eave at the top of the building. I have included a second draft revision to the Conditions of Approval here for your review, which captures the added condition for garage and lift inspections, and affirms that planters are permitted encroachments. If you wish to withdraw the hearing requests please let me know and we will issue the revised approval letter accordingly. Best, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org     Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From:Jeff Levinsky To:Owen, Graham Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado Subject:Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Date:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:58:51 AM Attachments:1998-1999_92-13_Assessment_Roll.pdf Hi Graham: Thanks again for meeting with us yesterday. As you requested, please find attached a city record for the California Avenue Assessment District. There's an entry for 260 Cal Ave on the top of PDF page 6 (document page 3). It shows that the property was required to have 62 spaces in 1968 but was providing 54 (via an adjacent lot, per our research), and so only had to pay for 8 spaces. In 1986, it was providing just 5 spaces and thus needed to pay for 57 spaces. It then adjusted a bit again in 1987 (more intense use?) and again in 1995. The final numbers of needing 62 and having just 6 equals the 56 spaces you are crediting the building with. There's also an entry at the bottom of the prior page for the vacant lot -- which didn't have to provide any parking. If you skim through the report, you'll see many other such examples of buildings whose contribution to the assessment district varied over the years. Since the City credits 260 Cal Ave with 56 spaces when for many years it paid for fewer spaces, my question is where is the policy that governs how many spaces to credit it with? Would a building that paid for many spaces in most years but just a few in the final year only get credit for the few? That doesn't seem fair. So I was hoping to find our City has a written policy that addresses all this. For the Downtown Assessment District, the Municipal Code actually dictates what report to use to determine how many spaces to credit a building with. That rule had a problem that we protested and staff and the Council fixed a few years ago. There's nothing in the Code though for Cal Ave. Thanks, Jeff From:Owen, Graham To:"Jeff Levinsky" Subject:RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Date:Monday, May 01, 2017 3:59:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Jeff, That’s fine, I’ll see you tomorrow at noon. Our conference room is on the 5th floor of City Hall, so just check in with our receptionist Phyllis Davis when you arrive. Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:55 PMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: No -- let's go ahead and meet at noon tomorrow. It's certainly not necessary from our perspective that the applicant be present. We would really like to discuss the issues with you and I'd hope you could convey to the applicant anything relevant that arises. Thanks very much, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 2:50 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Thanks. I’ve checked with the applicant and they can make a meeting on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. I’m looking at the meeting room schedules and 4pm or 5pm on Wednesday or Thursday could work. Would either day/time work for you and the others with PAN? Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:26 AMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: That sounds fine. Tomorrow at noon sounds best -- I checked and I think one or more other PAN people involved in the hearings request can be there then as well. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:17 AM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, I’m happy to meet, it might make sense for the applicant to be there as well so everyone can be on the same page. Are there any times that work best for you? I could do tomorrow at 12pm or 4pm, Wednesday at 9am or 12pm, or Thursday at 12pm or 4pm. Thanks, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:10 AMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: Thanks for the note. I do have a bunch of questions and remaining concerns. The draft revised conditions don't seem adequate and others neighborhood leaders involved with this agree. Would it be possible to meet with you next week to review the plans and issues in more detail? If so, please let me know what times might be possible. And I may try to bring along another person as well. Thanks again, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:42 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Just following up to see if you had any questions and if the draft revised conditions are satisfactory. Thanks, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:31 PMTo: 'Jeff Levinsky'Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Please see my responses to your questions below in red and the attached parking/FAR calculation sheet for reference. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this. If you would like to withdraw the appeal we will issue revised conditions of approval for the project to reflect the changes below. I have included a draft of the revised conditions here for your reference, with the changes in bold to conditions #2 and #3. Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:43 PMTo: Owen, Graham; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: Thanks very much for sending us the materials and offering to answer questions. I do have a few questions: 1. Item 2 in the conditions of approval does not state that the puzzle lifts must remain in proper working condition. Furthermore, there is no provision for what happens if they are not working. Will the restaurant cease operating until the lifts are repaired? If need be there is a code enforcement process for bringing an applicant into compliance. If it is determined that the lift is not functioning we would inform the applicant of the violation of the required parking, and provide a timeframe for bringing the lift system back on line. To ensure compliance, we will clarify in Condition #2 that the lifts must be maintained in proper working condition. 2. The lifts are to be located in the publicly-accessible rear parking area. Is the intent that the customers of the restaurant will park in the puzzle lift system? Your letter says the lifts will be, "independently-accessible spaces that can be used by the building tenants or restaurant customers" The city in general has frowned on retail usage of puzzle lifts. Furthermore, the ground floor parking area is currently only for the office tenants. I’ve spoken with the applicant on this to get further clarity on the use of the proposed lift system, and it makes the most sense for it to be used by the building employees rather than customers. 3. Condition 7 on page 3 of the conditions of approval seems to limits all restaurant activities, not just alcohol service, to operating from 6 am to 10 pm. Is that the intent? Yes, these are the permitted hours of operation for the restaurant proper, although the applicant has indicated that they would open at lunch (11:30am – 2:30pm) and dinner (5:30pm – 10:00am) only. If the restaurant wishes to extend these permitted hours to allow late night operations, they would need to amend the CUP through a new planning application. 4. Has the city recently denied any conditional use permit requests for restaurant alcohol use? If so, on what grounds did the city deny the permits? I don’t believe that we have denied any alcohol-relate CUPs in the past few years, but we actually don’t get that many alcohol applications to begin with. We certainly look at the specific circumstances of each proposed site and use when evaluating the applications, and request changes to proposals to ensure that the findings can be met. 5. The plans and parking analysis state that there will be 150 square feet of restaurant out in front. Municipal Code §18.04.030(a)(65)(A)(vii) says that Gross Floor Area includes, “Permanently roofed, but either partially enclosed or unenclosed, building features used for sales, service, display, storage or similar use.” The 150 square feet appear to be under the overhang of the second floor, which extends for over 5 feet, and having customer seating there definitely seems to be sales and service activities. So that 150 square feet seems to qualify as Gross Floor Area. Doesn’t that extra 150 square feet of Gross Floor Area then put the building over its 2.0 FAR limit? I’ve looked into this and you are correct, the outdoor seating area counts towards GFA. I had incorrectly considered this area as counting towards parking but not towards GFA. This 150 SF of outdoor seating is offset by 172 SF of area in the trash/recycling room on the first floor, which was included in the GFA for the building’s original entitlement but should have been excluded. However, there are currently caged-off areas in the garage which are used for storage, and as these areas are not used for parking they also count towards GFA. The original entitlement plans for the building showed these storage areas, and it had been our interpretation at that time that such areas were considered accessory to parking and therefore excluded from GFA. We no longer interpret the code in this fashion, and as a result, most of these storage areas will need to be converted to an excluded function in order to fit under the 2.0:1 FAR. I will issue a revised approval letter with the attached draft conditions to ensure that these storage areas may only be used for bicycle parking, which the applicant has agreed to and is exempt from GFA. The applicant had previously proposed to use 430 SF of basement storage area, which had been counted towards their GFA and parking, and this area will be reduced to 232 SF through the revised conditions of approval. As a result of this smaller storage area for the restaurant, the total number of required additional spaces would drop from 4 to 2. 6. Furthermore, the 150 square foot number appears to understate the actual covered area being added in front of the restaurant in both depth and width:. o Depth: In addition to the overhang, there are permanent overhead glass plates above the area and a red outrigger on the top of the building. The latter appears to extend out for about 3 feet beyond the second floor overhang, so much of the outdoor seating area will be under it. o Width: The plans show the 150 square feet excluding an area in front of the restaurant entrance. But that area will be traversed by restaurant staff serving customers sitting outside. Hence, it is part of the service area of the restaurant and thus constitutes gross floor area as well. That widens the outdoor area to about 43 feet. Using the revised numbers, the covered outdoor area is then roughly 344 square feet of Gross Floor Area. Doesn’t that put the building even further over its 2.0 FAR limit? The 150 SF of covered service area does need to be parked. See Section AB in sheet A300 of the project plans for clarity on the extent of the outdoor seating area. The area to the left of the seating area is indeed covered but isn’t part of the service area, so there is no need to provide parking for these areas. Tables and chairs are not proposed in the area in front of the door and would not be considered service area. To ensure that there is no confusion on this, the conditions of approval will be revised to specifically allow no more than 150 SF of outdoor seating. 7. Gross Floor Area for restaurant use needs to be parked. Based on the prior point, the plans should show approximately 344 rather than 150 square feet of outdoor area in the parking calculation. Doesn’t that mean the building needs another parking space and the current proposal leaves it underparked? See above. 8. Does the city have a formal written policy as to how to treat parking requirements for new and rebuilt square footage in the California Avenue Assessment District? I could not find any such policy. Please see section 18.52.060 of the Municipal Code for more information on parking requirements in the Cal Ave Assessment District. 9. Because the Director’s decision entails both a Conditional Use Permit and an Architectural Review, should I request a hearing for each of them if I wish to protest the above issues? Any guidance would be appreciated. For example, do all the parking and FAR issues fall under the Architectural Review? 10. Does the city have any official forms I should use to request the hearing(s)? Thank you again, Jeff Levinsky 1682 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650 328-1954 ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky ; Neilson Buchanan ; Paul Machado ; Rebecca Sanders Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 6:00 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Mr. Levinsky, I wanted to update you on the application for the Protégé Restaurant at 260 California Avenue. The applicant has proposed to add the four parking spaces required to covert the existing retail space to a restaurant in their garage through the use of “puzzle”-style mechanical parking lifts. The lift system specifications are included in the revised plan set (page 9), and allow for independently-accessible spaces that can be used by the building tenants or restaurant customers. Given this change to the plans we have tentatively approved the CUP/ARB application, and I have attached the approval letter, conditions, and revised project plans in this email for your reference. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Owen, Graham Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 4:40 PMTo: 'Jeff Levinsky'; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Mr. Levinsky, I have received your messages and will respond to your query once I have finished reviewing the project. Thank you, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 3:03 PMTo: Hernandez, Victoria; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca Sanders; Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Everyone: It's been two days and we haven't heard back from Graham, so I left a voice message for him as well just now. Jeff 650 328-1954 ----- Original Message ----- From: Hernandez, Victoria To: Jeff Levinsky Cc: Neilson Buchanan ; Paul Machado ; Rebecca Sanders ; Owen, Graham Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:37 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Dear Jeff, I am writing to let you know that the application for 260 California Avenue has been reassigned to a different Planner, Graham Owen. I have included Graham’s contact information below and have copied him in this e-mail. Please direct any questions or concerns you may have to Graham. Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Thank you, Victoria Hernandez | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2662 |E: victoria.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 5:24 PMTo: Hernandez, VictoriaCc: Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: 260 California Avenue Status Request Dear Ms. Hernandez: I'm writing to you on behalf of the PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Zoning Committee, which looks at zoning issues and violations on behalf of Palo Alto residents. We'd like to know the status and city's position on the use of the ground floor of 260 California Avenue as a restaurant. We are aware that a restaurant application has been filed with the city. However, restaurant use of the retail space on the building's ground floor in addition to the building's other office use appears to require more parking than the building has provided onsite and via payment into the assessment district. Hence, we don't understand why the restaurant application is proceeding at all. Can you explain? Furthermore, we see that an Architectural Review of outdoor seating has been requested. Can you tell us if that will be before some or all of the Architectural Review Board? And when is that review scheduled for? As you likely know, the California Avenue area already has an extreme parking shortage, leading to complaints from both existing merchants and nearby residents. Therefore, any new use on California Avenue that fails to comply with legal parking requirements is of grave concern. We look forward to your reply. Thanking you in advance, Jeff Levinsky Chair, PAN Zoning Committee Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and 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: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “260 California Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “260 Cal, updated restaurant plans, 4.5.17”. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8070) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3265 El Camino Real - Mixed Use project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a New Three Story Mixed Use Project With 275 Square Feet of Commercial Space and Three Residential Units (4,435 Square Feet). The Applicant also seeks a Variance to the Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area Ratio and Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20-feet to 16 Feet and six-Inches. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments on the proposed project and continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on December 15, 2016. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to City codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55206. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F and minutes for this hearing are included in Attachment G. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 No action can be made at this meeting as the city is preparing the environmental analysis for this project. However, given the significant design changes, the applicant is seeking comment from the ARB to determine if the new modifications, given the site constraints, are appropriate based on prior Board comments. Background On December 15, 2016, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-54/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Concerns about driveway width The driveway width has been reduced from 18-feet to 16- feet 6-inches. The reduced width will require a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to deviate from the required driveway width of 20 feet. However, the proposed width of 16-feet 6-inches would be sufficient if the project were solely a residential project. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires residential projects from 3 to 10 units to provide a driveway that is 16-feet wide. The inclusion of a commercial space, required by the PAMC, triggers the requirement for a larger driveway. Given the minimal size of the retail space, it is unlikely to generate a high demand for vehicle traffic. Further, the Transportation Division has reviewed and supports the DEE for the reduced driveway width. Concerns about trash collection The trash is located at the rear of the building whereas previously it was located at the side. The project proposes roll out service. Enhance building materials The materials have been updated to reflect a more modern style with hardie lap siding divided by strong aluminum reveals, metal railings, stucco, and stone veneer with varied banding and tight joints. Reduce building mass The project has reduced square footage from the previous submittal by 2,688 square feet, thereby eliminating some of the physical and visual building mass. The project locates the majority of the massing along El Camino Real. The front portion of the building is three stories and is separated from the rear three story portion by a breezeway. The rear portion of the building is slightly shorter and articulated along the western elevation. Trees and parking are dictating Staff was unable to identify a mechanism in the Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 design Municipal Code that would facilitate removal of the tree. Consequently, the applicant reduced the office/commercial space and was able to condense the parking area while retaining the tree and designing a building that respects the trees viability. Three-level lift system requires two-story space and increases the building mass The amount of parking is reduced. There are now two stacked parking spaces, for a total of four spaces. These spaces are reserved solely for two of the three residential units, and comprise an area of only the first floor of the building. Architecture is not authentic. Roof lines and four or five façade treatments results in a dissonant architectural style The rooflines and architecture have been made consistent throughout the project. The rooflines follow a more modern design, which is found throughout the project. The façade treatments are consistent throughout the project. Eliminate dark passageway from El Camino to site for pedestrians; unfriendly pedestrian access and pedestrian feel The project provides two defined pedestrian entrances at El Camino Real. One entrance is on the side of the building and another is from the porte-cochere. Both provide access to a lobby for the residential uses. Project Description The project description has changed since the ARB first reviewed the project. The applicant now proposes to construct three residential units, totaling 4,435 square feet (sf) and 275 sf of commercial space. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.63:1. One residential unit measures 2,099 sf and the two other residential units are 1,168 sf. The commercial space is located along El Camino Real on the ground floor. The 2,099 sf unit is located on the second and third floors above the commercial space with the other two units in the rear portion of the building. An open space area on the second floor separates the front portion of the building from the second unit at the rear while an approximately 14-foot long bridge spans between the front portion of the third floor and the rear portion of the third floor. A large patio area on the second floor leads to a semi-circular staircase that wraps down to landscaped open space at the rear of the site. The building is designed to reflect a more modern architectural theme, and is comprised of hardie lap siding, aluminum reveals, stone veneer and stucco finishes. Access to the site is from El Camino Real through a 16-foot 6-inch driveway under a porte- cochere. The project includes seven covered parking spaces; four spaces are in lift parking and two are located in a traditional garage parking. One space is provided for the commercial use, but this is an accessible parking space. The applicant has prepared a project description, which is included with this report as Attachment B. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The project requests architectural review approval, a variance from the City’s development standards and a design enhancement exemption.  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings (Attachment C). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) – The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. Similar to AR applications, DEE applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Community Environment Director for action three business days after the Board’s recommendation. DEE projects are evaluated against specific findings (Attachment C). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project, and failure to make any one finding requires redesign or denial. The project proposes a driveway width that is three-and-a-half feet smaller than the City’s requirements. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires driveways to be 20-feet in width and the project proposes a 16-foot 6-inch wide driveway. The reduced width is the result of the project’s attempt to locate the building at the front property line and the site’s narrow width.  Variance - The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.030. Variance applications are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Planning and Community Environment Director for action. The findings for acting on a variance are provided in Attachment C. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project, and failure to make any one finding requires redesign or denial. The variance request is to reduce the amount of required ground floor commercial area from 1,124 sf to 275 sf. This reduction is sought principally due to the location of the protected tree and the applicant’s inability to provide the required commercial space with associated parking. The Board expressed interest in the tree being removed, however, no mechanism exists in the code or tree technical manual to remove the tree. Accordingly, the applicant is proposing to address this constraint through the filing of a variance application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present the project as designed to the Board and receive initial comments. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Analysis1 The primary issue affecting the project at the December 15, 2016 hearing was its design. The design of the project was dictated by the presence of a protected oak tree that prohibited providing the necessary number of parking spaces either at-grade or in a subterranean garage. Instead, the applicant proposed a mechanical lift parking system that increased the massing of the project, which resulted in a design that was incompatible with the surrounding uses. The ARB directed staff to examine methods for addressing the design of the site with respect to the City’s tree preservation values. Following the December 15, 2016 meeting staff evaluated the PAMC for a mechanism to remove the tree and worked with the applicant to address the ARB’s comments concerning the design. Chapter 8.10.050 provides two instruments for removing protected trees: 1. A tree can be removed because it is dead, dangerous, or constitutes a nuisance; and 2. A tree would result in the reduction of buildable area onsite by more than 25- percent. The City’s Arborist conducted a site visit and determined that the tree is not dead, dangerous, or a nuisance. Planning staff also determined that the tree does not reduce the buildable area by 25-percent. Therefore, the project could not remove the tree or provide subterranean parking because of the tree’s root system. PAMC 18.16.060 contains specific requirements for ground floor commercial or retail space in mixed-use projects. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.060, the site is required to provide approximately 1,124 sf of ground floor office or commercial space. Providing ground floor office or commercial space at the required size was one of the primary drivers of the mechanical lift parking system. As noted, the site is too narrow and the tree prohibits at-grade and below-grade parking. The lift system to park the 1,124 sf ground floor office or commercial space resulted in the previously incompatible design. Accordingly, the applicant changed the use to a commercial space and reduced the size to 275 sf. This alleviated the parking demand for the site, and reduced the overall mass of the building creating a more compatible design for the project. However, this proposal requires a variance from the ground floor commercial requirement. As a result, the variance is necessary to achieve a compatible design for the project. Zoning Compliance2 The PAMC zones the site Service Commercial (CS). The CS commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The following section addresses deviations and other items relevant to the entitlement requests. Driveway Width The applicant has requested a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a reduction to the width of the driveway. The PAMC requires a 20-foot wide driveway for this project; the applicant is proposing a 16-foot, 6-inch wide driveway. To grant the DEE, the Director must find that:  There are exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to the property in the same zone district.  The DEE will enhance the appearance of the site and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style.  The DEE is related to minor architectural feature. The DEE is requested to comply with the PAMC and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include a build-to-line that requires 50-percent of the buildings street frontage to be constructed at the front property line. The project is not able to comply with this requirement and still provide a 20-foot wide driveway and pedestrian access given the narrow width of the lot. Therefore, the DEE ensures that the building enhances the appearance of the site by placing as much massing as is possible along the street frontage while maintaining safe and adequate ingress and egress with the 16-foot, 6-inch wide driveway. The ARB is encouraged to explore balancing the policy objectives of providing convenient automobile access to the site with urban design objectives to have buildings reinforce the streetscape. The land uses and floor area proposed is not anticipated to generate a lot of traffic. However, the adjacent boulevard is heavily trafficked. Parking Two of the three residential uses would use the stacked parking system. The stacked parking system places two spaces at ground level and two spaces would be below the ground level. The third unit would access a more traditional style garage with two parking spaces located adjacent to each other. Residential uses would be allocated one row of parking in the lifts, which would be accessible through a control panel. The commercial space generates a demand for one parking space. The applicant has technically satisfied this requirement, but the project dedicates the one space as an accessible space. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Project plans note the height, length and width of the stackers (model number 2062-215) accommodates sedans, station wagons, and mid-sized sport utility vehicles (SUVs). The stackers are consistent with the recently updated PAMC 18.54.020b. The stacked parking is located in an enclosed parking facility, with equipment screened from public views. The lifts are not used for accessible parking and accommodate mid-sized sport utility vehicles (SUVs) as demonstrated in the table on plan sheet number A4.3. Architectural Review Findings, Standards and Criteria The project is subject to Architectural Review findings and Context-Based Design Criteria found in Attachment C and Performance Standards contained in Attachment E. This information is provided to help inform the ARB’s evaluation of the project relative to compatibility with the immediate environment of the site. Environmental Review The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report, a Phase I environmental site assessment and a sound study. Staff is continuing to prepare the environmental documentation for this project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly Friday, May 19, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on Thursday, May 18, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on required findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB, DEE and Variance Findings Required for Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: December 15, 2016 Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment G: December 15, 2016 ARB Transcript (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 132-39-071 132-38-046 132-38-013 142-20-046 132-38-040 132-38-041 132-38-011 137-08-100 132-39-080 132-39-071 132-39-018 132-39-017 132-39-088 132-39-090 132-38-058 132-39-075 132-39-089 132-39-084 132-39 132-39-030 705.1' 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 32.5' 1.9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 49.9' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 71.4' 179.8' 75.8' 114.9' 105.3' 199.4' 98.2' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 182.6' 705.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29 .5' 54.7' 26.3' 49.9' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 15.7' 5 87.2' 112.2' 44.1' 15.5' 96.1' 0 120.6' 151.0' 231.7' 158.7' 39.0' 88.7' 105.0' 76.4' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 199.7' 199.7'100.0' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 50.0' 20.0' 72.1' 5.8' 105.0' 87.2' 212.7' 53.4' 27.4' 366.1' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' EL CAMINO REAL LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL ASH STRE ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE EAL CS(H CS S CS RP This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'150' 3265 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jgerhar, 2017-05-25 10:39:27Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Site ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3265 El Camino Real 15PLN-00312 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 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. 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. 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 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a 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 Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. 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 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 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. 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.). 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. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. DEE FINDINGS In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. VARIANCE FINDINGS In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.030 of the PAMC. Finding #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. Finding #2: The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and Finding #3: The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and Finding #4: The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3265 El Camino Real, 15PLN-00312 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 49.9 ft x 150 ft Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 4 ft 2 in with a 12 ft wide sidewalk along El Camino Real Rear Yard 10 ft for residential; no requirement for commercial portion 50 ft 6 inches Right Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft Left Interior Side Yard No requirement 4 ft 8 in Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 0 ft Build to Lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of side street built to setback 91% Max. Site Coverage 50% or 3,744.75 sf 50% or 3,744 sf Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 40 ft 6 in Max. Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 or 4,493.7 sf 0.59:1 or 4,435.0 sf Max. Nonresidential FAR 0.4:1 or 2,995.8 sf 0.04:1 or 275 sf Total Mixed Use FAR 1.0:1 or 7,489.5 sf 0.63:1 or 4,710 sf Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial/Office FAR 0.15:1 or 1,132.44 sf 0.04:1 or 275 sf: Non-Conforming Variance requested Residential Density 30 dwelling units per acre 17.4 dwelling units per acre Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30% or 2,246.9 sf 48% or 3,643 sf Usable Open Space 20 sf per unit for 5 or fewer units 1,213 sf per unit for 3,639 sf total Page 2 of 2 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line N/A (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in the Findings attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for CS Zone Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Residential Use 2 per unit = 6 spaces 7 spaces Retail Use 1 per 200 sf = 1 spaces Bicycle Parking Residential Use 1 per unit 100% Long-Term 3 Long Term spaces 2 Short Term spaces Retail Use 1 per 2,000 sf 20% long term = 0.02 80% short term = 0.08 Loading Area Loading Space Zero Spaces for buildings 0 - 9,999 sf Project is 1,843 sf 0 spaces Attachment E Performance Criteria 18.23 3265 El Camino Real 15PLN-00312 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 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. 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 provides adequate interior areas enclosed in the building for storage of trash and recyclable materials. The project is not adjacent to residential uses or zones. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The site is not located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with a residential use. Further, the project has demonstrated through the photometric plan that lighting will not spill off the site onto adjacent properties. 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 would not involve late night uses and activities because it is an office and residential project. Further, the site is not located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with a residential use. 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 provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is not located adjacent to residential properties or residentially zoned properties. Further, the project screens mechanical equipment and services areas by incorporating these into enclosed cabinets in the building and locating them behind fencing. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 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 project site is not located adjacent to residentially zoned properties nor would it involve uses that produce noise and vibration because it is an office and residential use. Parking, refuse storage areas and HVAC equipment are located towards the front of the site, near El Camino Real, and would blend with the existing noise environment. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Parking on the project site is screened in garages. Further, the site is not located adjacent to residential uses that could view the parking. 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 project provides separate vehicle, cyclists, and pedestrian oriented entrances to the site. This minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, and promotes public safety. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The project is not a source of odor and/or toxic air contaminants because it would be used for office and residential purposes. 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 15 of this code. The project would not have regular use, storage or handling of hazardous materials or waste. Any construction related use of these materials would be subject to strict use and discharge requirements. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7430) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/15/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3265 El Camino Real - Mixed Use project Title: 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a new Four Story Mixed Use Project With 1,843 Square Feet of Office and Three Residential Units (4,492 Square Feet). The Applicant Also Seeks a Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20 Feet to 18 Feet and may be Required for Modifications to Standards that Require 50% of the Building Frontage to be Constructed at the Front Property Line. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments on the proposed project and continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Report Summary The applicant proposes a mixed-use project on an undeveloped parcel located at 3265 El Camino Real. The project proposes to construct three residential units, totaling 4,492 square feet (sf) and 1,842 sf of office space. A two-story office space would front El Camino Real with the three residential units located behind it above lift style parking, and a second office space is located at the rear of the site. The project proposes 14 parking spaces, 12 of which are in lifts with two surface level spaces. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.99:1 for the project. The project requests one deviation from the City’s development standards and one Director’s exemption.  The project proposes a driveway width that is two-feet smaller than the City’s requirements. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires driveways to be 20-feet in width and the project proposes an 18-foot wide driveway. The reduced width is the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 result of the project’s attempt to locate the building at the front property line and the site’s narrow width.  The project does not provide a 4-foot by 6-foot clear sight triangle at the driveway, as currently designed. The applicant proposes to place a stop sign at the exit, which is an exemption only permitted by the director. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present the project as designed to the Board and receive initial comments. Background Project Information Owner: Dana DeNardi Architect: Bob Iwersen – Hunt Hale Jones Representative: Kevin DeNardi – DeNardi Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3265 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 49.9 ft. wide by 150 ft. long Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: The project is located in the COA Plume area Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): No existing buildings onsite Existing Land Use(s): Undeveloped Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Hotel) West: CS (Hotel) East: CS (Restaurant) South: CS (shopping center) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Context-Based Design Criteria: Subject to Context-Based Design Criteria in Chapter 18.16.090 Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): The project is located in the Cal-Ventura area of the South El Camino Real Urban Design Guidelines. Proximity to Residential Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Uses or Districts (150'): Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes a mixed-use building. The building will contain two commercial office spaces and three residential units. The project proposes a total of 1,843 sf of office space, which is exempt from the City’s Annual Office Limit (PAMC 18.85.230). One office space is two stories and fronts El Camino Real with a prominent street entrance. The second office space is located at the rear portion of the development. The applicant is designing this office space as an optional live-work space with an optional loft. The three proposed residential units range in size of 1,480 sf to 1,506 sf, for a total of 4,492 sf. The project includes 14 covered parking spaces; 12 spaces are in lift parking and two are surface parking. The lift parking is comprised of six spaces in two garages and is further discussed below. The applicant has prepared a project description, which is included with this report as Attachment B. Site Information The site is an undeveloped parcel on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Page Mill Road. The project site is relatively level, with a heritage oak tree near the rear portion of the site. The project proposes to retain the heritage tree. The project will also retain the deciduous street tree. Access is provided from a curb cut at the south end of the site along El Camino Real. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings (Attachment C). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) – The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. Similar to AR applications, DEE applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Community Environment Director for action three business days after the Board’s recommendation. DEE projects are evaluated against specific findings (Attachment G). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project, and failure to make any one finding requires redesign or denial. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is in a substantially urbanized area of the City. It is bounded by the Indo Restaurant and Lounge to the south, a parking lot to the east and a hotel to the north. Other restaurants and retail service stores line El Camino Real around the project site. Residential uses are located to the southeast of the project site. The project has received a review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was transmitted to the applicant. Staff believes further refinement is necessary for the project to comply with code and the required policy documents. However, staff also anticipates the ARB may have comments that also affect the building design and is therefore, recommending the ARB review project and offer comments so all items can be addressed at the same time. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Deviations from the Zoning Code, as described below, including lift parking  Access to the site, including the DEE request for driveway width reduction  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 projects. Further, ARB finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial. As stated in the Plan, the purpose of this land use designation is for citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. Zoning Compliance2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code zones the site Service Commercial (CS). The CS commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, however there are other aspects of the design that are not compliant with code. The following section addresses deviations and inconsistencies. Project Uses The project includes a potential use that is not permitted in the City’s Zoning Code. As noted in the project description, the project includes an office space at the back of the building with optional stairs that could connect to the residence above, forming a live-work unit. The PAMC does not define live-work uses nor does it permit or conditionally permit these types of uses. Staff is still evaluating the proposed use request. Driveway Width The applicant has requested a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for a reduction to the width of the driveway. The PAMC requires a 20-foot wide driveway for this project; the applicant is proposing an 18-foot wide driveway. To grant the DEE, the Director must find that:  There are exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to the property in the same zone district. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  The DEE will enhance the appearance of the site and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style.  The DEE is related to minor architectural feature. The DEE is requested to comply with the PAMC and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include a build-to-line that requires 50-percent of the buildings street frontage to be constructed at the front property line. The project is not able to comply with this requirement and still provide a 20-foot wide driveway and pedestrian access given the narrow width of the lot. Therefore, the DEE ensures that the building enhances the appearance of the site by placing as much massing as is possible along the street frontage while maintaining safe and adequate ingress and egress with the 18-foot wide driveway. The ARB is encouraged to explore balancing the policy objectives of providing convenient automobile access to the site with urban design objects to have buildings reinforce the streetscape. The land uses and floor area proposed is not anticipated to generate a lot of traffic, however, the adjacent boulevard is heavily trafficked. This request should be evaluated with the applicant’s other request for modification to the clear vision triangle. Clear Vision Triangle As proposed, the project does not comply with the requirements related to a clear vision triangle for vehicles exiting the site. A portion of the entry and exit portico extends into this site triangle. The applicant has proposed a stop sign in the portico as an alternative to complying with the requirement. However, this proposal requires an exemption approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. At this point, staff is unable to support this request when other design solutions are available. An alternative solution is to cantilever the upper floor of the office that forms the portico and setback the column four feet from the back of the sidewalk. Parking The residential and office uses would both use the stacked parking system with two spaces (one accessible space) located at the ground level. Residential uses would be allocated one row of parking in the lifts, which would be accessible through a control panel. The office uses would use the remainder of the spaces. Historically, the City has viewed stacked parking as a tandem parking. Tandem parking is permitted in residential zones, but not permitted in the CS zone or for office uses. Office uses generate the demand for six parking spaces, and these spaces would have to be allocated elsewhere onsite if stacked parking were not permitted for the office use. Project plans note the height of the stackers accommodates sedans and station wagons. Four of the 12 spaces accommodate a larger sized vehicle, such as an SUV. Along with the ground space (not including accessible spot), five of the 13 spaces are available for taller sized vehicles. The Planning and Transportation Commission is currently reviewing a text amendment to address lift parking, including requirements that each space be able to accommodate full-sized SUVs. Additionally, the draft ordinance anticipates requiring two onsite spaces, at grade (not in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 lifts), and not including required disable access spaces. That effort could impact the ultimate design of the proposed lift system and other building design elements. Other provisions being explored are operational considerations, maintenance and identification of the types of uses that may be eligible for lift parking. Open Space/Landscaping The project does not comply with the PAMC requirement for open space/landscaping. PAMC requires that 30-percent, or 2,246.9 sf, of the site contain open space and/or landscaping. The project designates the auto court as an area to satisfy the open space/landscaping requirements. However, the PAMC would not allow the auto court to count towards the open space and landscaping requirements because it is a paved area used for circulation. The project has provided approximately 1,394 sf of landscaping and open space (currently shown on the plans as usable open space) on the site, but would have to reallocate the areas. Providing areas to meet the landscape/open space requirement and the usable open space requirement may reduce the footprint of the building. Drainage The Public Works and Engineering Department noted that the project has not complied with the city’s drainage standards at this time. Staff discussed potential impacts on site design with the PWE Department, but they are unknown at this time. The applicant has been advised to address these issues. Architectural Review Findings, Standards and Criteria The project is subject to Architectural Review findings as well as Performance Standards and Context-Based Design Criteria, contained in Attachments C, E and F respectively. This information is provided to help inform the ARB’s evaluation of the project relative to compatibility with the immediate environment of the site. Environmental Review The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report, a Phase I environmental site assessment and a sound study. Staff is continuing to prepare the environmental documentation for this project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly Monday, December 5, 2016, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on Monday, December 5, 2016, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on required findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Context Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment G - Draft DEE Findings (DOCX)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 27 5.3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a new Four-Story Mixed Use Project With 1,843 Square Feet of Office and Three Residential Units (4,492Square Feet). The Applicant Also Seeks a Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce theRequired Driveway Width From 20 Feet to 18 Feet and may be Required for Modifications toStandards that Require 50% of the Building Frontage to be Constructed at the Front Property Line. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS. For more information please contact Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us Chair Gooyer: I will bring the Board back in session. We will start with the next item. That being 3265 El Camino Real. Request for Architectural Review for a new four-story, mixed-use project with 1,843 square feet of office and three residential units that total 4,492 square feet. The applicant also seeks a Design Enhancement Exception to reduce the required driveway width from 20 feet to 18 feet and may be required for modifications to standards that require 50 percent of the building frontage to be constructed at the front property line. Environmental assessment pending further review. Zoning district: CS. Staff. Adam Petersen: Good morning, Chair Gooyer and members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. As Chair Gooyer noted, I'm here today to present a project that proposes a mixed-use building comprised of approximately 1,800 square feet of office uses, three residential units and a mechanical lift parking system. The entitlement request for the projects include a major Architectural Review, a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a reduced width to the driveway standard and a Director's level exemption to permit a stop sign to serve as an encroachment into the clear vision triangle when exiting the site. However, I do want to emphasize that this meeting is merely to solicit the Board's comments about the architectural design and about the entitlement requests. There's no formal action being taken by the Board, no formal recommendation to the Director at this time. This project has previously been reviewed by the Board. This is the project site. It's located on El Camino Real next to the existing hotel. The site is currently undeveloped and does contain some street trees and a large mature tree towards the rear of the site. This lower picture demonstrates that it's predominantly surrounded by office and commercial buildings. There is one residential unit located in the back. Again, the entire zoning of the area is in the CS zone. This is the proposed site plan. On the left-hand side of the site plan, we have an entrance to the site from El Camino Real. You enter this site through a portico. Again, this driveway is 18 feet; the requirement is 20 feet. There is a first-floor office in the front with a second-story office above the portico here. You enter the site; this is an auto court followed by landscaping and open space with a deck area. This is the tree in the back that's being retained. There's the ground-floor office located at Excerpt Minutes from December 15, 2016 ARB Hearing City of Palo Alto Page 28 the rear of the site. The applicant notes that there is the option of providing an internal staircase to connect the first-floor office to one of the residential units on the second floor. The lift parking is located here. It uses lift parking for the office use and for the residential use. There's six spaces in the garage for a total of 12 spaces, and then two service or pad-level spaces located basically just to the side of it. These are individual garage doors too, that the applicant's proposed. This is the rendering of the project and also the elevation along El Camino Real. As you can see, you enter here off of El Camino Real through the portico. This is the auto court area or the drive area. The applicant proposes using permeable paving in this area, again followed by landscaping with a deck area. The building materials consist of a stucco building with a wood paneling finish, a Spanish tile roof and recessed windows. As mentioned, staff is requesting the Architectural Review Board's comments related to a number of issues with the project. Number one, we're requesting the Architectural Review Board's comments related to the design of the building. It is subject to numerous design guidelines and standards, namely the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and then also the Architectural Review findings and the Context Based Design Criteria. As noted, there is the Design Enhancement Exception requested to reduce the driveway width from a 20-foot requirement down to 18 feet. There is the Director-level exemption to permit a stop sign instead of meeting the clear vision triangle requirements. Historically in terms of parking, the City's treated the use of mechanical systems as being tandem parking. This has been permitted for residential uses, but historically hasn't been permitted for an office use. I will say last night the Planning and Transportation Commission is evaluating that standard and is hearing that standard. Also, the project description notes the use of a live/work unit on the back office building. This use isn't defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, but the staircase is noted as optional. I do want to say the staff report also called out that the project wasn't meeting its landscape and open space requirements. The applicant came back, and in their presentation they have a revised site plan that shows the project is consistent with that. However, staff hasn't had an opportunity to review that thoroughly at this time. The applicant does have a revised site plan in their presentation. Based on this information, again staff's recommendation or request is that the ARB review the proposed project, provide comments to the applicant and continue the project to a date uncertain. Thanks. I'm available for any questions that the Board may have. Chair Gooyer: Are there any questions of staff? Board Member Baltay: A quick one, yes. I'm confused. Is this project a preliminary review or is it a formal hearing requesting a motion and action? Mr. Petersen: It's not a preliminary review. There had been a preliminary review on this, but there is no formal action. I guess the only action is to continue it to a date uncertain. Mr. Lait: If I can add a little more clarity to that. The reason it's before you this morning is because this is a project that has been on file for some time. We're interested in seeing it advance through the process to a conclusion. As I understand it, there's been some back-and-forth between staff and the applicant about some design changes. It was my perspective that rather than send the applicant back to make some other revisions to the plans, it'd be helpful to get the Board's feedback. Spending 4 more months with staff and then coming to the Board to get some additional design direction that might be counter to what the staff is suggesting seems like it's prolonging the application process. The intent here is to see if the staff concerns are aligned with the Board's and to get Board feedback so that the applicant could be working on both of those edits at the same time. Board Member Baltay: That makes sense, but I'm concerned. We're told we have three chances to hear a project. Is this one of those chances? Mr. Lait: You're correct. The Code does talk about three chances to review a project. I would say in a situation like this there has been an opportunity to consider a fourth hearing, and that would be a collaboration of the applicant's interest and the Director's support. I wouldn't see in a situation like this a problem with having an additional hearing if that was necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Gooyer: We have had projects where there have been more than the three. Mainly that's been something that's not ironclad. It's something that's in the best interest of the project to go ahead and have a fourth one. Based on staff, I suspect they've been going back and forth, and they want our input to get a little bit better direction as to what to tell the applicant. Board Member Baltay: I'm sure we'll be happy to provide that. Chair Gooyer: With that, is the applicant here? You have 10 minutes. Bob Iwersen: Board Members, thank you for having us here and listening to our project. My name is Bob Iwersen; I'm with Hunt Hale Jones Architects. I'm here on behalf of the DeNardi Group who is the ownership group on this project. As staff has mentioned, it's been in for a while, and we've been going back and forth. That's why it is nice to see if we can align your views and their views on a final approach to this project. As was mentioned, the site itself is in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. It's in a corridor area, the Cal-Ventura corridor area. Directly in front is El Camino. It's not one of the pedestrian nodes, but it does have—the requirements are still to create some pedestrian feel for the project. Where we've kind of run into some of the issues is street frontage. It's only required to be 50 percent, but we've been pushed towards trying to get it closer to 100 percent. Yet we still have, as you'll see, some of the issues. It's a long, narrow site with very limited access. We have to retain the curb cut. We have to retain the street tree, and we have to retain the heritage oak. There are some constraints, but within these constraints we're hoping there's lots of opportunity as well. One of the things that—we've done quite a bit of effort and engineering at this point to try to figure out how to maintain the heritage tree during construction and how the project would fit around the tree. We don't want to go down too many of those paths with a lot of heavy engineering to solve some of these issues if the project itself needs any major renovation. That said, with these constraints, that heritage oak also offers what— I just recently heard a term called wabi-sabi which is beauty in imperfection. I think we have an opportunity here in this tree's slightly towards the edge of the property line. Within the project itself, it can enhance the project as a mature element as well as something that we can see as we walk down, for those pedestrians, and have a view through the porte-cochere to the tree beyond. As you can see on there, some of the major issues we have are the 12-foot sidewalk, which gives us a 4-foot setback from our property line. We're going to require two exits for our project as well as a drive aisle. Here's the heritage oak in the back with its tree protection zone. The residential setback of 10 feet. The Travel Lodge at this point is fairly low density, but it's anticipated that everybody contextually would like to see the whole area change. INDO Restaurant which is a small, single-story restaurant next door, right along the property line. One of the items that you'll see is the planning requirements are fairly limited to us. This is the maximums we're going to be able to get as we go along. The ground-floor commercial space uses up 30 percent of our lot coverage. As we move forward, the parking becomes a major issue as far as how to make that happen. If we were to maximize every element of this project, theoretically we'd need 19 parking spaces. On a 150-foot by 50-foot lot, that would extend well beyond the property line. How are we going to handle and how can we get to what we need to create both a commercial and residential aspect? This KLAUS parking system, which is in use in the Bay Area—what we selected was— they have a few different options. This stacked parking system is manually operated. It is something that the owners can do themselves; they do not need a valet. It takes probably about 2 minutes to go the longest travel distance. It is no different than just shuffling the floor, the ground up and down. You just pull in and park like you were parking in a regular, residential, two-car garage. The issues with this is it does not—they do have another type called a puzzle lift, which can handle every type of car. This one can handle on the upper level the taller, more trucks or SUVs. We cannot handle oversized Escalades, that kind of thing, from a weight standpoint only. From width and height and length, we can handle everything except for the larger SUVs and the larger pickup trucks on this site. With that said, what we're able to do is come through the site at the required curb cut and come down and create an auto court for our parking area, over which we will put the two residential, getting that off the street and leaving the commercial leg fronting the street and stepping over the drive aisle. It's just a simple game, which is not going to be surprising from the requirements of the site. What we can do—I know one of the major issues is the visual aspects of this at the time, if nothing happens for quite a while on the Travel Lodge site, of a fairly extensively long building. What we're able to do is maybe create some City of Palo Alto Page 30 knuckles along here, a circulation knuckle, a service knuckle, that would allow us to break up the massing as well as the programmatic elements will also vary the height of the project as you see. With the two- story commercial, the 25-foot minimum along El Camino, the 50-foot maximum along this side, we don't hit that. We're quite a bit under. With a pitched roof we're still under. Our circulation aspect. Down at the other end, we're able to step down to this commercial area and a townhome above. We would like to propose possibly turning this into a live/work because it could be internal at that point. In which case, right now, one of the issues that's driving the height here is if we're trying to get to this floor and align the next flight of stairs up, we have to push this parking up higher than it actually needs to be to access this townhome from our common stair. That said, we're able to get 14 parking spaces in this as opposed to the 19, which would maximize the lot, and three residential spaces and our required commercial space. As far as precedent studies and how we would go about—one of the main issues that came up, how do you deal with a long wall and that kind of thing. Santa Barbara's City Hall seems to be a good example of a fairly long project with some massing breaks and some bundled windows in a Carthusian way. We'd like to take advantage of these kind of concepts at the residential portion especially, along that long edge. At the commercial side, this image is quite nice as far as the simplicity of the street front. Going to that whole idea of wabi-sabi, when you walk by and you see this porte-cochere and you look back, what do you see? You see a fairly usable space with the paving and such, the mews themselves and the auto court and the oak tree in the back with the deck protecting it as an amenity for the residents and the office users of the space. It's going to be an urban situation, this kind of urban condition that I'm familiar with. It can be a very elegant solution along the mews or the auto court. Chair Gooyer: If you could speed it up, it's … Mr. Iwersen: How we ended up with—basically we kind of stuck with a more traditional aspect and tried to deal with some of the solar issues and such with large overhangs and deep, recessed windows to give a little texture to the street façade. At this point, just trying to get some—one thing we will take advantage of is a fire access along here and get some lighting throughout so we can have light from both sides and air and circulation on both sides of all the units throughout the project and create some nice actual views into the interior courtyard and access to the tree. This would be limited access for the windows, but we can bundle them and get some larger openings in that space. With that, I guess I can answer questions and we can go forward on this. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Board Member Kim: I have a couple of questions. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Board Member Kim: I'm just asking for some clarification on the loft condition at the office space in the very back. If it were to become a live/work space, that stair would essentially lead to the residential unit that's directly above? Mr. Iwersen: Yes, it would. Board Member Kim: I noticed on the floor plans when you're describing with different colors the square footages and associated with what they go to, it seems to me that on the third-level plan for Unit 2 there's a powder room and some additional area there that perhaps should be yellow, that's shown in brown right now as circulation space. Mr. Iwersen: That can easily be a mistake on—the calculations are correct. The graphics might be a little bit off on that one. Board Member Kim: Do the calculations then … Chair Gooyer: The foyer and the bathroom should be part of the … City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Kim: Do the calculations take into account the foyer as circulation space or as residential space? Mr. Iwersen: The foyer is circulation space. Board Member Kim: Those … Mr. Iwersen: That's not part of the unit. Board Member Kim: Those are my questions. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Alex, go ahead. Vice Chair Lew: Could you explain the rationale for not including an elevator in the project? Mr. Iwersen: At this point, we think it's maybe only serving two units. Therefore, it would be a budget issue. If we want to put one in, we could go back and do that. At this point in time, servicing just two units, we didn't know if it was necessary. Vice Chair Lew: If you're not familiar, Palo Alto does have a very large elevator requirement. (crosstalk) Mr. Iwersen: The gurney. I am familiar with that. I know that we'd have to use a gurney elevator in this particular case. There is a spatial aspect to that one too. We are tight throughout the whole site. Adding a fairly large elevator might—we could probably squeeze it in, but we'll see. Vice Chair Lew: One last question. You did talk a little bit about the stacked KLAUS lifts versus the puzzle lifts. I did see in the packet some of the rationale for that. I was wondering if there was a reason not to use the puzzle lifts. Mr. Iwersen: There's a couple of reasons. One is these stacked parking systems are more reliable. From a user standpoint, if the puzzle lift breaks down, you have 11 people who don't have access. Apparently, they break down a little bit more often. The other aspect of it is we'd lose one space with the puzzle lift. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Board Member Baltay: Robert. Chair Gooyer: Yeah. Board Member Baltay: One more question just occurred to me. Have you explored putting an underground parking garage of some kind in here? Have you sketched it out to see what's possible? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah. It's the same issue. We did look at that. How would we have the oak tree, for one, at the other end? Trying to get down anywhere in that distance without the oak tree is not feasible or possible. Board Member Baltay: Can I ask a question of staff, of Dave Dockter? Dave, the oak tree in the back, as I can tell, is about a 30-inch diameter valley oak tree. That's considered to be a heritage tree by the City ordinance. Is it possible for the applicant to petition to remove that tree and what would the process be? Mr. Dockter: There's an existing process to remove a healthy valley oak. It needs to meet the criteria. Generally it would need to be dead, dying or hazardous, ready to fall apart or wreck something. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Gooyer: Can I interject one question I had while you're talking about that anyway? The thing looks pretty butchered up on one side at the property line. Has that affected the longevity of the tree? Mr. Dockter: I'm not sure of any current changes to the tree. I've heard that it has been recently pruned. We need to look into that. As of this meeting, we should be looking at the tree with how they've designed and engineered their whole site plan to accommodate the tree. If the tree were to remain, they've come up with an engineering solution to protect it. That's their first obligation. Garages, site planning, all of that would come outside of that first obligation, which is to preserve, keep the tree, with their designs. Back to Mr. Baltay's question. To remove the tree, we would have to evaluate if pruning ruined and killed the tree. That's a whole separate issue from the development project. We'll deal with that separately from this project. I think we should strategize for that. For the tree protection—let me have you rephrase it, Mr. Baltay. Where are you going with this? Board Member Baltay: If the applicant wanted to remove the tree or if we felt removing the tree was in the better overall interest of the project, it allowed other parameters that we're concerned about to happen, is that possible? Is there room in the Code for that tree to be removed with certain conditions being met? Mr. Dockter: Yes, it is possible. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Dockter: They can apply for that, and it would be evaluated on its own merits with the state of the tree, the way it is now. We would have to follow up with Code enforcement and other issues. If the tree were condemned and somehow went missing, that's a violation to the City Municipal Code that affects the entire community, not just this property owner. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this Board on this project? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back. Basically you're saying that even with the tree being sort of drastically cut on one side, it seemed like the part that hangs over the property line is in healthy condition at the moment? Mr. Lait: If I could just … We haven't observed the tree in the condition that you've described. We learned about that yesterday. I think today Dave was going to go out there and do an inspection. Our analysis up to this point has been based on what the applicant has submitted, which is a … Chair Gooyer: At this point, you're assuming it's a good healthy tree? Mr. Lait: That's correct. Chair Gooyer: That would change if you make some other determination. Thank you. Let's see. Why don't we start with—who's next? Wynne. Board Member Furth: I was hoping you would start with somebody who has more experience with mechanical lifts for parking. I had one question for staff. When we're figuring out how many jobs office space generates, how many jobs would this office space generate? It's 1,800 square feet. I forget what it is, 1 per 250? Mr. Lait: In terms of parking requirements, it's based … Board Member Furth: No, it's not parking. I'm talking about people. Mr. Lait: I don't have the jobs number. I don't know that off the top of my head. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Furth: Parking is 250 is the assumption, right? Mr. Lait: Yes, but that's employees of all sorts. Board Member Furth: You understand what I was trying to figure out, what this does to the famous jobs/housing balance. I'd like that information at some point. It's a very difficult site. Was this owned under the same ownership as the Travel Lodge? Mr. Iwersen: I believe it was. Board Member Furth: It's left us with a fragment here. I feel that it's hard for you and it's hard for the City to get a good project on a major street with such a narrow frontage, with your other constraints. I'm concerned about the narrow driveway. One of my questions is how would, which seems to be a big issue today, trash collection work? Would this involve the trash trucks coming in off the street and backing out? Can they turn around? How would that work? Mr. Iwersen: They would be pulled out for service. We could set up a staging area for them. Board Member Furth: This would be on El Camino? I'm trying to figure out how that actually works. We keep coming up against this on projects which are on heavily traveled streets and sidewalks. Mr. Iwersen: Currently there are two locations. There's the residential. They would be only carts. This obviously is not a large project. We wouldn't have bins. Let's see if I can find the site plan. The residential garbage are carts right here. Board Member Furth: Just like any residential user. Mr. Iwersen: We would assume we could pull them over and stage them possibly right here. They'd come in and pick them up and pull them in. The other garbage for the commercial is right here or one of these spots. They could also just come in, grab them and go on out. Board Member Furth: You're not talking about the bigger bins that we see in … Mr. Iwersen: No, no. We're talking carts, carts only for this project. Board Member Furth: It's just small. I'm also concerned about the clear vision triangle. I think it's a big issue here. Mr. Iwersen: We've solved that one actually since … Board Member Furth: Good. Tell me about it. Mr. Iwersen: I think that's going to go to the front façade a little bit. It's not resolved yet. From a planning standpoint, the 18-foot exception they're talking about is just right here. That's to give a little bit of wall to the project on this side where the curb cut comes in. We're really kind of taking from the 20 feet right along this edge. If we pull back our pedestrian corner here, we can actually get the vision triangle to here. It's still within our property line. We originally had it out here on our property line and some planters over here. Apparently we were told that, even though planters are allowed in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, Public Works does not allow them. We were going to use the vision triangle outside; now we've moved it back into here. That would affect the front façade to a point. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I find myself concerned about what I think of as toward San Francisco frontage, that it's not softened as far as I can tell by landscaping at all. I'm interested in my colleagues' City of Palo Alto Page 34 comments on the practicality of the parking approach. If I were driving in as a customer to the office, where would I go? I would use one of these lifts? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, you'd use one of these lifts. Those lifts are really no different. It's really just changing the ground level. You turn a key, and they go up and they come back down. You just pull in as if you're in a residential garage. Board Member Furth: There's a number to call if something goes wrong? Mr. Iwersen: There is. They service them twice a year. Like I said, these apparently are—my understanding is they are very reliable as opposed to the puzzle lift, which can be a little less reliable. Board Member Furth: I also was struck by the long distance between the bedroom and the fire egress, the staircases. Explain to me the sprinklering in the project, the fire safety. Mr. Iwersen: (crosstalk) 13, but we meet the exit access requirements. Board Member Furth: I know you do. I just want to understand—is the building fully sprinklered? Mr. Iwersen: It would be. Board Member Furth: I'm the non-architect member of the Board. Mr. Iwersen: It'll be required. It's an NFPA-13 system, which is the higher-end system. It'd be required. Yes, it would be in this building. Board Member Furth: The windows that face on El Camino Real, are they fixed, are they casement, how do they work? Mr. Iwersen: This would be operable and casement in this particular case. Board Member Furth: I'm interested in hearing from my colleagues—I'm sorry I went first—about how you think this actually would work. It's terribly parking driven. I am always happy … Chair Gooyer: Let me do this for you. Would you prefer that … Board Member Furth: Send it to you? Yes, you guys go first, and I'll chime in later. Chair Gooyer: That's what I figured. Sounds good. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) information. Chair Gooyer: No problem. Peter, why don't you … Board Member Baltay: Thanks. I have a number of problems with this project, I'm sorry to say. I don't see the pieces fitting together. I think it's not entirely the applicant's issue. I think some of the regulations the City has are just making it next to impossible to develop this project in any reasonable way, not to mention what he wants to do. I also think there's some issues with the architecture itself. The palette of materials is just not working and the overall massing, which is probably driven by the parking and the tree, isn't working either. Let me start with the issue of the tree and the parking. I think the lifts don't work. I don't think it's realistic that somebody is going to wait 2 minutes for their car to go up and down and hope the machine doesn't break and figure out how to get a key, do all these things. I find that's right now not in the Code, certainly not for office work, even for residential stuff in this environment. I don't buy it, and I find it very difficult to support that. In addition, the three-stack lift requires a two-story space for the parking. That fights against all desires to have pedestrian-friendly, City of Palo Alto Page 35 residential access. The houses are then three stories up before you start, because of a parking garage. There's no way you can make the building look nice towards the Travel Lodge, as you showed in the pictures of Santa Barbara, because you're not going to have windows where the parking is. It's just the parking is driving too much. I think the answer is to put the parking underground. It's been done many times in Palo Alto. Consistently when we get a project back where you put it underground, it lets you develop the site in a humanly friendly way. I think unfortunately with the oak tree that we have right now, it's not possible. The tree removes the possibility of putting the parking underground. Therefore, your hands are tied as an applicant because the City has these fairly strict requirements. In this case, when I was out looking at the property—we'll have that confirmed by Dave Dockter I think—the tree has been badly pruned on one side. It may not be that healthy right now. I would think as an applicant it's the kind of thing where it's incumbent upon you to put forward a stronger statement to the City. In order for us to develop this properly, we need to get the parking below ground. In order to do that, the tree has to go. We're letting an old oak tree in the back corner of this property, which has been badly pruned—it's not visible from hardly anyone except the people on this property—drive what is a very large development on El Camino. I think the City needs to think about whether that's a real balance that we want to have. If we can reconsider that, I think the project can be better developed. The same thing perhaps applies to the number of parking places required. As Wynne mentioned, this is a difficult lot to develop. Any one of us would say it's really tough to scratch your head and see how it comes together. For us to request that he have so many parking places here in order to get these housing units that we so desperately want, maybe it's also room for the applicant to petition for some relief from some of the parking. There are mechanisms within the Code that you can do that. I'm pushing for at a high level—you're asking us how do we feel about this. At least from my point of view, the City needs to grant him some relief on the tree and the parking. The applicant needs to consider putting the parking underground for me to see this project coming together. Otherwise, I just don't see the pieces working for us to make those findings. I'm trying to be forceful about it because I know that you just want to hear what we really think, rather than wait for four hearings and a year of time and architect's fees going by, to find out the same thing. I really feel strongly that the tree is a condition where it should not be allowed to drive the entire project. Mr. Iwersen: We have been told numerous times throughout here that there will be no variances allowed on any conditions. We've tried to work with what the Zoning Code has put forth. Board Member Baltay: I'm a practicing architect in Palo Alto. I know exactly what you've been hearing. My comments are as much directed to the staff. Without some flexibility, we're letting an old oak tree drive a new building on El Camino in a way that's detrimental. If you think about that façade next to the Travel Lodge, it's next to 40 feet tall right next to a parking lot. That will be seen from a quarter mile away. It's not a matter of architectural trickery to make it good. We need to allow him a chance to step the building back from the property line, to modulate it, to do all these other things that our Codes and design guidelines want. It is impossible without changing the way the parking is done, which is driven by the tree. The staff needs to consider a larger, holistic approach as we evaluate what can be done. The applicant doesn't even know that he can try to push for that. You want our opinion; that's what we're here for. All that said, I think that it's very important for residential stuff to have a pedestrian-friendly sense about it. I just can't imagine my wife bringing our kids home through this arcade, looking up at two stories of blank wall where there's a garage past another door to get into this lobby and go up two sets of stairs to the residences. It just doesn't work. It's not residential feeling. It's not designed to be pedestrian-friendly. So much of that comes from modulating the architecture and modulating the site plan, the way you do the parking. It's just not working here. There's no sense for people walking along El Camino, where you could sit down for a second, where you could take a breather, understand where you are. All these pedestrian-friendly things we keep talking about, we have in our design guidelines now and need to be considered. I'm afraid I don't see them happening here. When I look at the architecture itself, I understand that you've picked some sort of a vaguely Mediterranean architectural style. Yet, I see a hipped roof, a gable roof. I see four or five different types of façade treatment. Up above is a band with some wood battens and a flat piece of stucco. Another middle piece of the entrance with more articulation. It's just all over the map. You've got so many architectural styles going on. I find it really dissonant. The way you're treating the windows is not in the least bit Mediterranean. City of Palo Alto Page 36 These are large, single-pane pieces of glass as best I can tell, fairly flush out to the surface. It's really just not working from a basic architectural vocabulary. You've got too much going on without enough understanding of where it's going. Lastly on the landscaping side of it, I just don't see how you could even propose to us a project without some buffering along the property line where the Travel Lodge is. That poor facility here will have a 40-foot blank wall right next to it. If you've been following at all what we're doing, we pretty much gave a hotel a tough time where they were proposing—this is over on San Antonio. They were too tall next to the rest of the community. This is a much larger violation of that. I don't even see any evidence of landscaping or any efforts to modulate that impact. Mr. Iwersen: From a practical—excuse me. Chair Gooyer: I tell you what (crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: I think that the landscaping just has to consider that. Chair Gooyer: We don't need responses. He's just giving you … Board Member Baltay: The landscaping just really needs to consider the impact on adjacent properties. In this case, there's just nothing here. I'll leave it at that. I'm eager to hear what everybody else thinks. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Board Member Kim: I also really question the parking in addition to everything Board Member Baltay has just mentioned about the parking. I just don't see how—let's say a neighbor and you get home at the same time, and they're on a different floor of the lift. I'm not even convinced that the garage door is going to work with the lift system. I think too much of this has been based upon the parking design. I also agree that there just has to be something done to make it more feasible. With regards to the overall design of the architecture, I agree. There needs to be a total look at the project as a whole. Throughout the drawings I found several inconsistencies, through the roof plan and the elevations. I also think that the building really has to be designed in 3-D as opposed to just doing two-dimensional drawings. I say that because there are several missing views that we need to see and be convinced that this building is going to work. Such views as a pedestrian perspective through the porte-cochere, through this mew that you're telling us that you're creating. I don't think the elevation of that façade straight-on is enough for me to be convinced that that's an elegant and pedestrian-friendly façade that people will see as they're entering the building. Overall from the street, from El Camino, I just don't see how this building is much different than, let's say, something like the Stanford Motor Inn across Lambert. It's got the car entry and an office to the left. Palo Alto deserves something a little bit nicer than what the standard examples have been. Again, that's not necessarily your fault, but it's the parking that's driving that. In addition to that, with the elevations, with these bays that are sticking out, there doesn't seem to be a real rhythm to them. I think they're a little bit arbitrary, and they're just based upon the width of the room. Perhaps there could be a little bit more attention paid to making those bays the same width to set a standard rhythm. I'm also looking at the elevation from the auto court. My eye doesn't necessarily draw me to the entry. Something that was said by another Board Member on the previous project was that we need to have these visual cues for wayfinding. I'm just not convinced that that's happening right now. I'm also concerned about the pedestrian walk from El Camino. It sounds like you're perhaps redesigning that to make it work with the view triangle. If you have a guest or if you're walking home, that just seems like an awfully dark, little tunnel or passageway that's not even open to the drive aisle right next to it. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. I know that the process can be grueling, but perhaps there can be an overall review of the project in-house by your design team. I'm sure there can be things that can be re-thought. This is another one of those sites in Palo Alto that's way underutilized. I really look forward to a nice building on this site. This is part of the passage in getting there, but I encourage another overall look at the design and the layout of the project. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. City of Palo Alto Page 37 Vice Chair Lew: I also have problems with this project. The 50-foot wide lot is a huge issue. You show in your photos a picture of a Dan Solomon project. I used to work for him. Mr. Iwersen: Of who? Vice Chair Lew: Dan Solomon. I think you're showing the Fulton Grove project. He did some really amazing projects on 50-foot lots, but in San Francisco there's no parking requirement. They have a parking maximum, not a minimum. You have a challenging … Our South El Camino Design Guidelines suggest that some of these lots are not usable unless they're merged together to form a larger lot. That's probably the case. I would say there are projects that are recently built, mixed-use projects on El Camino that are narrower, that have worked and have gotten approval. There's a Ken Hayes project in the 1800 block of El Camino. I would encourage you to take a look at that one. That one did not have to deal with an oak tree. I think it had driveway issues with the width. We also have some projects Downtown. In Downtown we have a shared parking assessment district. We have some projects here that use turntables. We have projects that use car elevators so that they can get rid of the ramp. There are other things that I would hope you would consider. I don't know if they're viable options or not. I would want to see them just to see what other possibilities might be possible. I've seen the parking lifts used in Berkeley. I do understand there's some issues with some of the puzzle lifts. I think I have a preference for the puzzle lifts if you're going to use the lift system, mostly because you can bring the overall height of the building down. All that extra space that you've got—it's almost like a residential floor. You would be able to bring the building from a perceived mass of four floors down to three. I think that would help. I think I'd want to at least see a study of that. I think that could help a lot. Again, the next time we meet with staff, I want to see an opinion about that valley oak tree. I share the other Board Members' comments about the architectural style of the building. I've seen some of your other work, and I don't have an issue with traditional styles at all. I think you've done nice, very fine projects. I think the awkwardness of the parking lift is driving some odd things. The actual height is causing you to do some unusual things there. The interior of the units isn't really so much the ARB's purview. I would just say that we have other units in Downtown, tall, three-story townhouses. They all have private elevators. That's sort of the market. The prices here are staggering, and people do expect amenities. Having a four-floor walkup unit, to me, is not desirable. You've got a challenging project, for sure. I don't think it'd be able to meet the findings as it is currently proposed. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Now that I've had the benefits of your commentary. It strikes me that every time we've seen a mixed-use project, which solves a parking shortage as defined by the City's Codes with above-ground parking, we end up saying no because you get a building that's too large for the site, if they're going to accommodate the desired use. I trust that we haven't zoned these properties so they're completely unusable. That would be inverse condemnation. I agree that it's not possible to get even close to the theoretical maximum as long as we're requiring this kind of parking and you don't go underground. Is the legal analysis that this would be a form of tandem parking that can be approved if it works well? Mr. Lait: The City doesn't have any standards for parking lifts. They have … Board Member Furth: Which means that we essentially don't allow them, right? Mr. Lait: They have been allowed. They've been approved by this Board and also City Council on appeal and also through a site and design. Last night, the Planning and Transportation Commission considered an amendment to the Code so that we can have some clarity on that issue. That's going to go forward to the City Council in January or February next year, so that we can get some standards in place. Board Member Furth: Right now, we must be sort of bootstrapping with the tandem definition, which is fairly vague. It does require a finding that it will work conveniently. I find the idea of unattended mechanical parking systems in a project of this size not convenient or reliable or feasible at this point. I City of Palo Alto Page 38 also think by pushing the residential units up high, you do two things. One is you get that great big wall. The other one is you don't get the kind of residential, close-to-the-ground uses we're looking for. I'm also concerned about effective, usable outdoor space and landscaping. We've looked at some other projects—I think of the one on Forest—which have residential uses and the need for a lot of car access. Where is the safe place for a child, if I have to leave a child outside for 5 minutes while I run back to get something up the stairs? Where is the area that is gated, fenced, at least minimally set apart so that that residential use is supported? I wouldn't be able to approve it as it's presented. I tend to agree that it's to be hoped that the City's thinking through of its zoning standards might get us some better results. The sad thing is that this property has been split off for another and is leaving a very difficult remnant. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I guess I'm pretty much in agreement with pretty much all the other members here. When I first saw this, without even looking at any of the literature, to me it looked like an addition to the Travel Lodge. There are just sometimes sites that—I understand the criteria you have are very difficult. There are sometimes just sites that are not able to be developed. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this, at least the development you have here, just isn't going to work. You show us things; you say the Santa Barbara City Hall gave you sort of the design criteria. I'm looking at the front sheet of this, C-1, that has no reminiscence of the Santa Barbara City Hall at all. It was mentioned before. There are four or five different architectural styles, all kinds of roof framing—I should say variations. I think the parking is what's killing you, the whole use of the ramps. I have seen elevators for cars work. Even those get to be difficult. This is just a very complex site. Having said that, I pretty much have to agree with my fellow Board Members here. There need to be some major changes made on this. Maybe that even means that the whole concept of the project gets changed, where it isn't mixed use, it's just housing or something or just commercial or something. The development that I see here, there's no way I could support that. Do you have some questions? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, I do have some questions. I'm just wondering as far as contextually what's going to happen down the road. I know we're concerned about the height, and we're concerned about it not being a more suburban residential feel. Is it acceptable to go down the road of it being a more urban situation? In the future there will be another building next to that, that is going to rival the height of it. Therefore, the height is not going to be an issue, and the blank of that wall is not going to be an issue on the lower part. If that's the goal—if the design guidelines are allowing us to go to 50 feet and we are allowed to go property line to property line, is this going to be something along those lines, an urban feel down the line? What is the goal of … Chair Gooyer: To answer that, it's usually—I've used that here before. I agree completely there may be at some time in the future three or four buildings in a row that are all 40-plus feet high or 50 feet high. That may be the case. The problem is this one is the first one on the block. The reality of it is if this goes up, for instance, just the way it is, the person next to you wouldn't be able to do 40 or 50 feet, because it would basically block off every window that you've got. It would be a difficulty right there. This is not really attuned to being the first one of a large urban portion with the assumption—if that's the case, you'd make that a whole blank wall. Let's face it, nobody would let you build that even with the concept of saying theoretically 20 years from now there may be a building right next to it that would eliminate that blank wall. That just isn't going to happen. If it's an infill, that's different. This isn't; this is the first one of its kind. Like I said, I think all of us are sympathetic to the fact you've got so many things working against you at this point. We're not saying it isn't a decent attempt at it. You could improve the architecture to make it much more residential in feel. Let's face it, there are plenty of projects, even what you've showed us, that are in an urban environment but yet have a residential feel to them. Unfortunately, this isn't really in a "urban" setting at the moment, because it's the tallest thing in the area. Yet, it still doesn't have a residential feel to it. I'm not saying that we wouldn't look at anything that you do on this project—I should say we're not telling you this is not developable. All I'm saying is you've got so many things that you need to work at that it's very difficult. Unfortunately, we're not going to accept something that isn't up to what we feel are certain standards just because it has a lot of problems developing it. I understand that makes it difficult for you, but that's not our purview. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Mr. Iwersen: Is it possible that simply through a more coherent skin and design elements that a project of this scope and size could work? Chair Gooyer: I'm not saying that a project of this scope and size couldn't work. It's just not in this format. I'm not saying that you couldn't put three residential units and two office spaces on a property like this, but not if it looks like this. Vice Chair Lew: Can I make a suggestion? We do have a huge number of projects in the works in this vicinity. We have a new hotel coming up right at the Parmani Hotel site. We have the big mixed-use project at the Foot Locker site as well as a big mixed-use project on the Mike's Bikes site. They're not adjacent to this particular project. Maybe we should see these altogether in a streetscape elevation or something, so that we can accurately gauge how it looks with the neighborhood. Chair Gooyer: Then the average person in the City would be able to understand what it would look like when they're all finished, and it doesn't all of a sudden—also maybe it'll give you some idea 5 years from now of the context of what's been approved or will be built. Unfortunately the only thing to relate to it at the moment is the Travel Lodge. Let's face it, that's not the ideal thing we're looking for as something to relate to. It does unfortunately just because it's the only thing there. That's at least better than the restaurant next door, which is just a box. It's difficult on your part, but I'm sure the City would be able to let you look—it's online—to be able to see what those buildings look like. Seeing as it's in the process, it's public record at this point. You can get a relationship to see what would be there 5 years from now. Yes? Board Member Furth: If we're talking about design, we have some fairly successful both commercial and residential buildings further north on El Camino and on Alma, which do use vaguely Mediterranean elements in the sense that they have heavy stucco, dark metal windows, recessed windows that give a lot of interest to the surface of the building. They have red tile roofs. I think it can be done. They seem to have more significant landscaping, and they have a lot of curve, I guess you'd have to say. They tend to be a bit simpler. Maybe pastiche is an unfair word, but I have a sense of too many elements that don't, at least in these drawings, convince me that there's … Chair Gooyer: They fight each other. Board Member Furth: … a coherence here. Some of them are simpler. This is a high-speed road, so people read this building fast. I guess it's a moderate-speed road. I think the El Camino elevation does unfortunately look way too much like a motel as it presently exists. I suspect it could be a lot more successful. Chair Gooyer: I think all of us will probably tell you the same thing. If you came up with something that looked very Mediterranean but was done nicely and all the four sides relate to that, I would have no problem approving something like that. It's not the issue. It's not that it has to be modern or it has to look just like the hotel that's going up a block down the street. That's not it at all. I'm just saying maybe that will give you some concept. If this did end up looking, as you said, like the Santa Barbara City Hall on all four sides, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it doesn't. That's the difficulty that you're having. There's just way too much. Sometimes simple is the best solution. Mr. Iwersen: I agree with that. My question is then if we come back with something that is more architecturally appealing and coherent, are we still fighting a battle of scale and the lack of the residential units being in a more ground-floor, yard aspect kind of thing? Chair Gooyer: Maybe you're a bit gun shy at this point, which I can understand. Having lived in a lot of urban, densely populated areas, there's some very residential-looking high-rise buildings that I've lived in, that I would have no qualms. This is actually very small in scale. I have no problem with a 50-foot building if it's done well. If it's done well, then it becomes an impetus for the neighbors to go, "Look at that. They built something a little bit bigger, and it's a nice looking building. It was approved to do City of Palo Alto Page 40 that." I don't think that's the issue. It's just only one of the items. The first thing that people are going to respond to is what it looks like. Obviously the problem you have is there are a lot of other issues that are affecting what it looks like. If you conquer what it looks like, that's a big step in the right direction. Mr. Iwersen: One of the comments that came up was the feel as you walk towards the residential entrance, as you go by the garage doors and go by the parking areas, that that didn't feel quite right. That possibly could never go away. Chair Gooyer: Think of it this way. I've been warned of that before. We're not here to design it for you. We're just telling you basically that we don't like what's here. If you come back with something totally different, not just changing the color or the roof slope a little bit, I'm talking about a major redesign, I'm not saying that we wouldn't approve it. Like I said, I'm also not going to sit here and design it for you and say, "If you do this, I'll accept it." With that … Vice Chair Lew: I just wanted to … Chair Gooyer: Sure. Vice Chair Lew: … rebut a couple of things that Board Members have said. One is you were suggesting maybe an all residential project. Our zoning doesn't allow that. Chair Gooyer: I understand that. I'm saying that would make it look more residential. I'm not saying, again that that's the right thing for this. Vice Chair Lew: We don't need to beat a dead horse, but that was what I heard. I just want to make sure—they have to have a commercial component as required by our zoning. Wynne, I think you had mentioned how would an office visitor use a parking lift. Our design guidelines suggest that visitors park on the street. I actually don't have an issue with office—if it's a small office and really one office, I think they can figure out how to use a lift. If you have a multi-tenant building and what not and there isn't an organization about how people use the lifts, then I could have issues with it on a larger scale. I think it's viable on a small project, especially if it's just one tenant. I did want to mention on the live/work, it's sort of my experience here in Palo Alto that whenever we have the live/work, the live disappears and it's just all office. That's sort of the general sentiment in this town. I would just say be careful on that going forward. I know other cities do it, Emeryville. I've seen it in Oakland and whatnot. We've tried it on some projects here. In the end, all the live—there's one on El Camino, in the 1800 block. All the living got converted to work. Chair Gooyer: We've still got one more item. Thank you very much. Mr. Iwersen: Thank you. Appreciate it. Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans 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 Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3265 El Camino Real” and open the record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachments and click page 3, then click the document named “3265 El Camino Real - June 2017 ARB Plans”