Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-15 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 15, 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. 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. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. 3200 El Camino Real [17PLN-00155]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing two-Story Hotel and Construction of a new Four- Story 97 room 53,745 Square Foot Hotel. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Consideration of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a New Four-Story Multi-Family _______________________ 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. Residential Building with 60 Units and one Level of Below-Grade Parking. This project will also require legislative actions that are not subject to ARB review. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@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.1,3 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and Construction of 16 two-Story Single-Family Residences With Basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. May 18, 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. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8229) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 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 Project Description: ARB review to allow tenant improvements. Applicant: Kevin Mattos Address: 100 Addison Avenue 17PLN-00003 Approval Date: June 8, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: June 23, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to allow new and replacement campus way finding and building signs. Applicant: Donnelly Design/ Victor Vitale Address: 1441 North Main Street 16PLN-00427 Approval Date: June 9, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: June 22, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to allow repainting of the exterior of a mixed-use structure. Applicant: Brian Teal Address: 753 Alma Street 16PLN-00461 Approval Date: June 5, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: June 19, 2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7945) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: Preliminary Review for a Mixed Use Title: 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. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project 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: 4115 ECR LLC Architect: SDG Architects, Inc. Representative: Jeffrey Potts Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 4115 El Camino Real (APN: 132-46-100) Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 136.54’ to 178.04’ by 99.99’; 15,696 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes, realistic capacity of 13 units Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, three (3) protected street trees; one (1) sycamore and (1) maidenhair along El Camino Real and one (1) Chinese elm along El Camino Way Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 4,741 sf; one-story; 1965 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (eating & drinking establishment) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CN (Goodwill); PC-5116 (Palo Alto Commons) West: RM-30 (Emek Beracha religious institution) East: RM-15 (Barclay Apartments); RM-30 (Camino Court Apartments) South: PC-4511 (residential multi-family; PC-3023 (residential multi- family) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Comp. Plan Designation: CN Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, see discussion below 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): Yes, see discussion below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, PC-4511 (Driscoll Place); RM-30 Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would demolish an existing 4,741 sf building currently occupied by Pizz’a Chicago restaurant and construct a three-story, mixed-use development with underground parking on a 15,696 square feet (sf) lot in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. The floor area ratio (FAR) is proposed at 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential), totaling 16,747 sf of floor area that includes 4,862 sf of first floor retail space; a second floor comprised of 2,000 sf of office space and 3,315 sf of residential space; and third floor consisting of 4,425 sf of dedicated residential space. The mixed-use building is proposed at a height of 38 feet as measured to the top of the parapet along the building’s roof perimeter. A rooftop “tower” feature housing the top of stairs and elevator shaft measures to 41 feet 6 inches. The site provides 43 total parking spaces, including 34 spaces in the subterranean parking facility and nine at-grade surface parking spaces (including four covered single-car garages). The project proposes the maximum residential density prescribed for the CN zoning district of seven (7) total residential units including one Below Market Rate (BMR) unit; four (4) units on the second floor and three (3) units on the third floor. The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines), South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines), context-based design criteria and performance criteria. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with the applicable design guidelines, as well as feedback regarding the overall design. The proposed architectural style is contemporary, incorporating wood siding that accents the light, three-coat stucco exterior finish. Transparent glass rail barriers are utilized along the second and third-floor balconies and vertical slated wood panels are featured on all floors to provide screening for outdoor areas. The overall structure is located on the lot closest to El Camino Real. The predominance of the building frontage is placed on (or near) the build-to front setback line between 0-10 feet and rear of the building (facing El Camino Way) is setback 54 feet 10 inches to the rear property line. The building extends nearly the width of the lot, with structure built between 0-5 feet along the west side property line and approximately five feet to the east property line. The building floor plan organizes the residential units to be placed toward the north side of the structure, with five of the seven residences facing-out toward El Camino Way, overlooking an open space area. A breezeway is provided at the ground-level between the retail space and island housing the main stair and elevator, connecting the pedestrian pathway to both streets. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). 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 & City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. 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 is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. 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  Access to the site  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 During a meeting of the City’s internal Development Review Committee, commenting departments provided feedback on the project proposal. The following department comment summaries describe a few of the primary issues with the project proposal that are deemed significant and may alter the project’s design. Transportation Division Analysis The Transportation Division provided comments concerning the location of the proposed driveway intersecting El Camino Way, as well as issues related to surface parking, drive aisles design and garages that were deemed not approvable as proposed by the department. The applicant was forwarded the comments and is aware that substantial modifications to the initial proposed design may be required. Those changes, as well as any required by the ARB stemming from the preliminary hearing should be reflected in the plan set submitted for the formal Architectural Review. Urban Forestry Department Analysis The Urban Forestry Department is not supportive of the current project design that provides access off El Camino Way. Any proposed subterranean parking access off this street or City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 alternative driveway cut would likely negatively impact the prominently established Chinese elm street tree, which is part of the right-of-way streetscape theme of this area. The project arborist would have to demonstrate any necessary excavation and grading for a proposed subterranean parking facility or new driveway cut would provide adequate clearance from the elm’s root structure. Any such proposal would require design review and approval from the Urban Forestry Department. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require any form of notice for a Preliminary Architectural Review application. Nonetheless, as a practice, the City publishes notice of the review in a local paper and mails 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 5, 2017, which is thirteen (13) days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 8, 2017, which is ten (10) days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Performance Criteria 18.23 400 Channing Avenue 16PLN-00380 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. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 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. 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. 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 requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. 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. 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 # 8124) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3200 El Camino Real: Hotel Use (Preliminary Review) Title: 3200 El Camino Real [17PLN-00155]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing two-Story Hotel and Construction of a new Four-Story 97 room 53,745 Square Foot Hotel. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, 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 comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project 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. It is important to note that the project completed the “Pre-screening” process for a zoning amendment, where several City Council members expressed support for elimination of the current 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. The zoning amendment request would be processed concurrently with the formal Major Architectural Review application. Background Project Information Owner: Prabhu Corporation c/o Yatin Patel Architect: Architectural Dimensions Representative: Randy Popp Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 3200 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 258’-3” (28,878 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No (To be evaluated with environmental document) Existing Improvement(s): [16,603 sf; Two stories; 25 feet; built in 1947] Existing Land Use(s): Motel Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Commercial/Electronics Repair) West: RP (Research & Development) East: CS (Commercial/Fish Market Restaurant) South: RP (Offices) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Digital Globe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Comp. Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes 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): Yes Proximity to Residential Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Uses or Districts (150'): Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: April 4, 2016 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51665 May 1, 2017 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57247 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: October 1, 2015 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49220 On October 1, 2015, the ARB conducted a preliminary review of the project (Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkk9TeWWBI). There was public and Board comment that the project was too bulky and its design would benefit from looking at the context of the surroundings. On April 4, 2016, the City Council conducted a Pre-Screening for the project with the same design that was presented to the ARB on October 1, 2015. The Council did not support a variance for the project, had some concerns about the project design, and requested that it come back to the Council for further consideration and discussion. On May 1, 2017, the City Council held its continued Pre-Screening review of the project where several Council members indicated that the proposed zoning map change was appropriate and provided some feedback regarding the design proposal. The applicant subsequently applied for a new Preliminary Architectural Review to reflect the new design concept. Project Description The subject property contains an existing two-story 16,603 square foot hotel built in 1947 with 36-guestrooms and surface parking accessed from El Camino Real. To implement the proposed project, the applicant seeks the removal of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way through an ordinance (zoning amendment) to eliminate the special setback requirement (falling back on the underlying development standards). The project proposes to demolish the existing motel and construct a four-story, 48 foot tall hotel totaling 53,745 square feet (1.99:1 FAR). The project would include three surface level parking spaces and two levels of underground parking that accommodate 90 parking spaces. Based on the current design, the project is deficient four parking spaces. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The revised project includes lobby, lounge, dining, meeting, fitness and back-of-house (offices, laundry, and kitchen) spaces on the first floor. The corner of the building is pulled back to allow for outdoor seating and a public art display. The rear of the property includes the vehicular access to the area adjacent to the lobby and provides access to the ramp down to the garage. The second floor includes guestrooms, ancillary storage spaces and a large balcony that fronts El Camino Real and wraps around the corner along Hansen Way. The balcony contains plantings at the edge. The third and fourth floors contain guestrooms and ancillary storage spaces to support the hotel. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). ARB will make a recommendation to the City Council for their final action.  Zoning Amendment. The elimination of the special setback requires a legislative action. The Planning & Transportation Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council for their final decision. Discussion In addition to the findings for Architectural Review, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s Context-Based Design Criteria, Performance Standards, as well as the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Site Plan The project plans include reference to a 50-foot setback, which should be ignored because the project will be designed to the proposed setback that conforms to the underlying setback of zero feet. The project includes the elimination of an existing curb-cut along El Camino Real, which would consolidate the vehicular entry for the project along Hansen Way. Consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, the project will have a 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real. The City Council did provide some direction that the corner was an important feature and focal point to design a plaza around. To implement this, a staff recommendation is that the wide sidewalk continues around the corner tapering to six feet along Hansen Way. The project maintains the green space between the back of the sidewalk along Hansen Way to the property line, however, a recommendation is that the walkway along the building be reduced so not to encroach into the right-of-way. Project Design In a departure from the previous design, the current design pulls the building back from the corner and provides a terrace on the second-floor fronting Hansen Way and El Camino Real. This terrace includes potted vegetation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 October 2015 Proposal Current Proposal 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 is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (noted above)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any  Parking Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. It is anticipated that an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be necessary to access the environmental impacts of this project. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: October 1 2015 ARB Hearing Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 50 50 RM- 637 CS CS CS RP 611 52 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 592 572582 3150 3170 3200 3300 607 60 550 447 3 429 451 441 431 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3201 450 430 400 3263251 0 3802862450 456 470 71 299929512905 461 3000 30173001 3128 3127 850 700 600 3398 3111 473 3225 440 620 630 429 660 3215 3275 3327 3399 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 3260 2 3265 LA M BERT AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY W AY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE APE EL CA MINO REAL L CA MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL EL CA MINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 3200 El Camino Real (Project Site) 0' 200' 3200 El Camino Real Area Mapwith Zoning Districts 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, 2015-08-10 12:07:543200ECR zone (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Thursday, October 1, 2015, Meeting 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 5. 3200 El Camino Real [15PLN-00305]: A request by Joanne Park, of Architectural Dimensions, on behalf of the Prabhu Corporation for a Preliminary Architectural Review for the demolition of an existing hotel and the construction of a new four-story, 50’-0” tall hotel with 93 guestrooms and two-level underground garage. Zoning District: Commercial Service (CS) zoning district. Sheldon Ah Sing provided the site plan and key issues. Requested exceptions concerned the 50-foot setback and the 50-foot height limit. Board Members inquired about the 50-foot setback and whether the parcel was substandard within the zone. Jeff Mac Adam, Architectural Dimensions, reviewed details of the proposed project. Bob Moss felt the 65-foot tower was unjustified. The overhang at the corner of Hanson and El Camino violated design guidelines. He found no justification for violating the 50-foot setback. Landscaping was inadequate. Board Members commented regarding the tower; signage on El Camino Real; the Public Art requirement; bicycle parking and traffic; stone on the corner suites; the entrance on Hanson Way; the garage ramp; the cornice; recessed windows; proposed coplanar stone and stucco; HVAC units underneath windows; stepping back the upper floor; the 50-foot setback; outdoor space; hardscape versus landscape; and mass of the building. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES Attachment D 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 “3200 El Camino Real” 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 “3200 El Camino Real Prelim ARB – Initial Plans – 5 4 17.pdf” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8018) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Housing on Former VTA Site (Study Session) Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Consideration of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a New Four-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 60 Units and one Level of Below-Grade Parking. This project will also require legislative actions that are not subject to ARB review. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Conduct a study session on the proposed project. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. Report Summary The applicant seeks early feedback from the ARB concerning a proposal to develop a four-story multi-family residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of partially below-grade parking as a “pilot project” on a site zoned Public Facilities (PF). The proposal is currently being reviewed pursuant to CEQA and is expected to request the following actions: 1. Amendment of the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi-family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation; 2. Amendment to the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; 3. Amendment to the Zoning Code to apply the new combining district to the subject site 4. A Site and Design review to allow for construction of the proposed project. Staff is seeking early feedback from the ARB regarding the design of the proposed development. Staff is still analyzing and gathering information with respect to the required legislative actions and some information is not yet available. Some of the outstanding analysis includes completing the environmental review, evaluating and making recommendations on the regulatory framework for the new combining district, consideration of the broader policy implications of the request, how it might apply to other properties in the city, and consideration of enforcement and penalty related interests to ensure desired housing populations with low vehicle ownership reside in the housing development, if approved. Thus, no recommendation is requested at this time and the project will require a hearing before the ARB at a future date. For its part, the ARB may want to comment on the following topics, or other items individual board members find appropriate:  Overall design of the project (massing, materials, articulation)  Architectural relationship to other improvements in the area  Consistency with the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The site is a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and is designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. A location map is included as Attachment A. The project plans are included as Attachment G. Background Project Information Owner: Pollock FRB, LLC Architect: BDE Architecture Representative: Windy Hill Property Ventures Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 2755 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 19,563 square feet (0.449 acre) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Existing Improvement(s): No existing buildings Existing Land Use(s): Vacant parking lot (previous VTA Park and Ride lot) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Planned Community (PC-4463) Zoning (land use: multi-family residential [Silverwood Condominium Complex]) West: Planned Community (PC-4831) Zoning (land use: residential care facilities [Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Center]) East: CN and CS Zoning (land uses: Veterinarian Office, Retail [AT&T], and recently approved mixed-use development project) South: Public Facilities (PF) AS-3 and Planned Community (PC-4637) (land uses: Mayfield Soccer Complex and research office [Palo Alto Square] respectively). Aerial View of Property: Source: Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems Technology (GIST), 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicability determined by combining district requirements Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes (note that nearby residential uses are zoned PC). Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action Prior to the proposed project, multiple developments have been considered at this site, but ultimately not pursued. More recently the applicant presented a similar conceptual project to the City Council. City Council: On September 12, 2016. City Council conducted a prescreening, as is required for these types of legislative changes prior to application submittal in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A). The staff report for the Council hearing is located here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53711 No action was taken at the prescreening hearing. Preliminary feedback provided by Councilmembers is discussed below. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None A transcript of the Council prescreening for this project is included in Attachment C. During the prescreening hearing, Councilmembers raised several key considerations regarding the potential rezoning of the site as well as how the rezoning and/or change in land use would fit in to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Although several councilmembers supported the idea of housing at this particular site, others expressed concern or urged caution regarding the rezoning request, proposed density, and limited parking. Some Councilmembers expressed an interest in rezoning the site to a CN Zone. Multiple Councilmembers supported the idea of reducing or eliminating restrictions on unit density in order to allow for more, smaller units while still restricting height, setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in order to manage building mass. However, one or more councilmembers expressed concerns about using this project site to dictate appropriate development standards without looking comprehensively at how this might be applied to other sites in the future. In addition, several councilmembers supported reduced parking requirements for sites near local transit provided that a TDM plan be required. Council encouraged staff to research other projects where this was done in the past and their performance with respect to traffic and parking. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The initial prescreening concept plan was brought forth as a workforce housing project and the applicant highlighted the benefits of the project’s location not only to alternative transit but also to office uses, including Stanford Research Park and Palo Alto Square. Several questions were raised during the hearing about potential deed restrictions and/or preferences for local workers (particularly teachers, government employees, etc.) as well as senior citizens; the applicant had indicated that it was still looking into the details of how that would work. In addition, councilmembers expressed an interest in making those units more moderately priced for these types of workers. The formal application has not provided a proposal with respect to plans for preferences or deed restrictions that reflect a workforce housing component to the project. In addition, no affordable housing has been proposed and the applicant has not proposed any plan for making some units more moderately priced for these types of workers. However, these ideas are still being explored. The applicant had also discussed the possibility of a bike kitchen that would be open to the public in order to address some councilmember’s interests in seeing retail uses on the ground floor. However, the applicant is currently proposing a bike kitchen combined with bike parking on the ground level, which, per the PAMC standards would not be allowed to be open to the public. It should be noted that councilmembers expressed mixed opinions about whether retail should be provided at this location. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is zoned as Public Facility (PF). It was formerly used as a VTA park and ride lot; however, the VTA Board formally deemed this site as “surplus” and subsequently sold the site. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northeast and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northwest, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). Across El Camino Real is the Mayfield Soccer Complex, which is zoned PF; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS). The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. Project Description As shown in the plan set and discussed in the applicant’s project description in Attachments G and F respectively, the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot high, four-story, multi- family apartment building that would include 31 studio units and 29 one-bedroom units. The building also includes a partially below-grade parking garage with 65 parking spaces; 60 of these spaces would be provided via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 is proposed for the project. The proposed project, as described, does not neatly conform to any nearby zoning district. It would not meet the requirements of the CS, CN, or CC zone districts because the project does not include mixed-use development; neither would it meet the RM-40 zone district requirements for Floor Area Ratio, height, or density. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The applicant is proposing a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that could be applied to sites within the PF Zone and within 0.5 mile of fixed use transit. The new combining district would outline the requisite development standards for any site that applies the combining district through a Zoning Map Amendment, which would be subject to the PTC and Council’s review. Under the current Comprehensive Plan the proposed project would also require a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element to allow for a high-density multi-family residential use in the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: Staff anticipates that the following discretionary applications will be subject to ARB review:  Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and Design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The requisite findings for the ARB to approve the project are provided in Attachment B. Because the purpose of this session is to provide early input and no recommendation is requested, the specific findings for this project are not included and no action is requested. In addition, the following legislative actions required to process the project are not subject to ARB review:  Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 19.04.080.  Zoning Code Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. This type of legislative change requires a prescreening before Council, which has been completed. A request for a zoning text amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC and the PTC shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action.  Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.060 and 18.80.070 and is similar to the process described above. Because all of these applications and legislative actions require hearings before the PTC and Council, some of these processes may move forward simultaneously. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis1 Staff has identified the following issues for ARB’s consideration and comment, and summarizes each below: A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan B. Zoning Code and Map Compliance C. Conformance to the El Camino Real Guidelines D. Multi-Modal Access/Parking Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations.” Multi-family housing would not be consistent with this land use designation as currently defined. In addition, the density proposed, although supported by goals outlined in the Housing Element, is not consistent with the densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Thus, the proposed project would require an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to permit high density housing in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes Policy H2.1 to “identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.” The proposed project does not propose a mixed-use development; however, it does include smaller units that may, therefore, be more moderately priced than other units and that would further contribute to the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. Under this policy the Housing Element includes multiple programs for implementing this policy, including the following programs with which the proposed project would be consistent:  Housing Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one – quarter mile of fixed rail stations.  Housing Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. 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. No recommendation is requested at this time. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available.  Housing Program H2.1.5: Use Sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity.  Housing Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. perals on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines with greater densities in those nodes than in other area Zoning Compliance3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. The project site is located in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District. During the prescreening, some councilmembers expressed concerns regarding rezoning of the site from a PF Zone to another zone. In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed to maintain the underlying zoning of the site but has requested a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would permit residential uses in the PF Zone. The ordinance creating a new combining district will outline the requisite development standards for the new building, including unit density, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, parking and related standards. Staff has not developed draft ordinance language yet. In general, staff is considering language that would only allow for this combining district to be applied to sites proposing housing projects within the PF Zone and within 0.5 miles of a fixed rail station. Development standards would not restrict the maximum number of dwelling units but would still require a restriction on height and floor area ratio. This is intended to encourage the development of smaller units while still restricting overall massing. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 and a height of 50 feet for its proposed development at 2755 El Camino Real. A key component of the proposed combining district would also include an allowance for reduced parking requirements in conjunction with an approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. This is discussed in further detail below. The text for the new combining district would require Site and Design review for projects proposed within the overlay. It is anticipated that any site applying the combining district would still be subject to consistency with other applicable guidelines to that area (e.g. the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines). Staff’s recommendations for other typical development standards such as setback, daylight plane, lot coverage, and open space requirements are also still being considered. 3 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 9 To apply a new combing district to a site, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an ordinance that would first create the new combining district and then apply the new combining district to the subject property. The proposed ordinance and any future request for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the combining district to a particular parcel would require a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is therefore subject to the requirements of the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real design guidelines. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node and is specifically identified as a strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road. The guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The project design includes an at grade entrance facing the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real with partially subsurface parking. The bench for the transit stop will be replaced and planters are provided along both Page Mill and El Camino Real; however, there are few other pedestrian amenities along the frontage. The project includes an entirely residential building. Because of the proposed use, other than the main entrance, the building has been raised to provide privacy from the public right-of-way, consistent with the guidelines for this type of use. For exclusively residential projects, the South ECR Guidelines identify different setback requirements. Specifically, the project is required to be set back between 20 and 24 feet from the curb along the El Camino Real frontage and this serves as the build-to-line for the project. A portion of the project is set back 22’6” from El Camino Real but the majority of the building frontage is set back beyond 24 feet; therefore, the project does not meet the required build-to- line requirements of 75 percent built up to the build-to-line. Further setbacks are only allowed if they provide a public amenity. Landscaping is not a public amenity but is encouraged. The addition of benches or similar pedestrian oriented features within this area would serve as a public amenity. Although the new garage entrance and exit is located on El Camino Real, which is typically discouraged, the location of this garage on El Camino Real rather than Page Mill Road is supported by the Transportation Division. Further refinements may be required in coordination with VTA with respect to the existing bus stop in this area. The side street setback line along Page Mill within the boulevard zone, identified as the first 50 feet from the El Camino Real frontage should be between 8 and 12 feet from the curb while the remaining portion, referred to as the transition zone, should be 16 feet from the curb. All dimensions on the plans are provided to the 2’6” planter wall rather than to the building setback; however, it appears the project is set back approximately 14 feet from the curb, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 transitions to approximately 12’6” and then transitions further to an approximate 20 foot setback. Staff recognizes the complexity of designing to the lot shape but believes that improvements can be made to better comply with the setbacks identified in the guidelines. Staff also notes that the dimensions from the curb are measures from the location of the new curb that would be designed as part of the proposed project. The corner in particular should be built up to the build-to-line to better define the corner. Awnings may project further into the right-of-way. The use of dark tinted glass for the entrance area is also discouraged in accordance with the guidelines because it prohibits transparency and lacks visual interest. Dark tinted glass appears to be proposed at the front entrance. With respect to the building design, more articulation between the base, body, and parapet would be appropriate and improvements could be made to better correspond with the adjacent developments. Specifically, staff notes that one way both of these could be better resolved is to consider a partial roof form that creates an expressed roof line (but still provides screening and open area for the equipment on the interior) rather than a parapet wall. This would provide articulation for the roof and would provide a better transition between the proposed development and adjacent buildings. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Parking The proposed project includes 31 studio units and 29 one bedroom units. Under the current zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 102 parking spaces (82 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 20 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]). However, the current code does allow up to a 20 percent parking adjustment for housing near transit and/or for transportation and parking alternatives. Therefore, the applicant would be required to provide anywhere from about 82 (with a 20 percent reduction) to 102 parking spaces under the current code requirements. The applicant is proposing that the standards in the new combining district overlay require 0.75 spaces per unit, which would be equivalent to 45 parking spaces, but is providing 65 parking spaces, equivalent to 1.08 parking units per stall. Of the 65 proposed spaces, two spaces are ADA compliant, two spaces are EV charging stations, and 61 spaces are provided via puzzle parking lift systems. Guest parking is not addressed. Staff is seeking the PTC’s input with respect to parking ratio standards as well as components that commissioners would want to see included in the TDM plan for such a development. The applicant has provided a list of key elements that will be included in their proposed TDM plan; this is included in Attachment D. Per Council direction, staff is working with the selected traffic consultant and the City’s transportation Division to identify projects that may have implemented similar projects (i.e. transit oriented residential development with reduced parking requirements). Staff has also programmed a larger study/survey of housing types in various locations as part of this year’s work program. (This study was included in the Housing Element as Implementation Program H3.3.7.) A total of 60 long-term and six short-term bike parking spaces are required under the PAMC City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant is providing 66 long-term and eight short-term spaces, which exceeds the code requirements. The proposed puzzle parking lift systems are consistent with 18.54.020(b), which allows for off- street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. In addition, the project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. The applicant is proposing three separate lift systems in order to allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. Questions were raised by both members of the public and one or more Councilmembers during the prescreening hearing about overflow parking from the proposed development affecting parking availability on streets in adjacent neighborhoods. On January 23, 2017 the City adopted the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). 2755 El Camino Real was excluded from the RPP program boundaries so residents would not be eligible to purchase a permit to park in the adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that parking from the proposed development would affect adjacent neighborhoods. However, the combining district overlay would need to take into account how reduced parking on other sites that may apply for application of this overlay may affect surrounding areas for those sites. Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access to the partially below grade parking via El Camino Real. The proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real. The curb cut along Page Mill Road would be removed. Primary pedestrian access to the site is provided at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino. Following the prescreening process with Council and initial input from staff, the applicant has lowered the main entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real to grade level in order to provide a more pedestrian and bike friendly entrance. Although the proposed project does not require a public benefit, the applicant has proposed to convey a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and upgrade the curb in order to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County to add a new right-turn lane. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby allowing for more sidewalk space and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. A Draft Traffic Impact Analysis is currently being prepared but is not yet available for public distribution. The report will analyze the project with the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Valley Transit Authority standards and will be included in the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 This study session is a preliminary review process in which commissioners may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. An initial study and associated technical studies are currently being prepared in order to determine the level of environmental analysis required. Next Steps In order to make a recommendation with respect to the proposed project the PTC must consider the environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15025(c). Therefore, the type of environmental analysis required for the proposed project will dictate the timeline for subsequent hearings with the PTC and other recommending and elected bodies. 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 June 2, 2017 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 5, 2017 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Twelve oral comments were received during the prescreening with Council on September 12, 2016. The minutes from the prescreening hearing are provided in Attachment C and include a transcript of these oral comments. Some comments expressed support for the project primarily due to its contribution to new housing stock within the City. Comments that expressed concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, parking (both parking loss and concerns with reduced parking for the units), rezoning from a public facilities zoning, and the project’s inconsistency with the adjacent condominiums. An additional 117 written comments were received regarding the proposed project. One comment noted concerns related primarily to re- zoning of the property and parking/traffic. Two of the comments expressed general support for some of the ideas but offered advice as to other considerations that should be required as part of the proposal. The other 114 comments expressed support for the project and urged the Council to support the addition of more housing units. These written comments are included in Attachment E. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Council Prescreening Transcript (PDF)  Attachment D: Transporation Demand Management Plan Elements (PDF)  Attachment E: Written Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 3 9.9' 160.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 1 134.7' 50.0' 142.5' 300.0' 142.5' 300.0' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 142.5' 100.0'142.5' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'1 2.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 3.8' 3 9.9' 114.3' 120.0' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 142.5' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 471 451 2805 2865 2755 2780 450 2701 435 481 601 2790 2798 2705 2825 SHE PAGE M ILL R OAD EL CAMI NO REAL AMINO REAL PF CN PC-2293 PC-4463 PC-4831 C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Highlighted Features Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Zone District Labels 0' 74' 2775 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 chodgki, 2016-08-16 09:43:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 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 PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. 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. TRANSCRIPT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Council Meeting 9 Excerpt Minutes of September 12, 2016 10 11 12 13 Council Members: Staff: 14 Patrick Burt- Mayor Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director 15 Gregory Scharff– V-Mayor Cara Silver, Senior Deputy City Attorney 16 Marc Berman Jonathan Lait, Assistant Planning Director 17 Tom Dubois Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning 18 Eric Filseth Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 19 Karen Holman Yolanda Cervantes, Administrative Assistant 20 Liz Kniss Molly Stump, City Attorney 21 Cory Wolbach 22 Greg Schmid 23 24 25 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council 26 Chambers at 5:04 P.M. 27 28 Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 5:20 P.M., Filseth, 29 Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid arrived at 5:10 P.M., Wolbach 30 31 Absent: 32 33 Study Session 34 35 1. 2755 El Camino Real (16PLN-00234): Request by Windy Hills Property 36 Ventures for a Prescreening of Their Proposal to Re-zone the Subject 37 Property at the Corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road From 38 Public Facility (PF) to Another Zoning District That Would Allow 39 Development of a Building With Approximately 60 Small Dwelling Units 40 and 45 Parking Spaces. 41 42 Mayor Burt: Our next item is a Study Session on 2755 El Camino Real. It's 43 a request by Windy Hill Properties Ventures for a prescreening of their 44 proposal to rezone the subject property at the corner of El Camino and Page 45 Mill from Public Facility to another zoning district that would allow 46 development of a building with approximately 60 small dwelling units and 45 47 TRANSCRIPT parking spaces. Welcome, Jonathan. How are you? 1 2 Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: 3 Thank you, Mayor. I'm joined with Jodie Gerhardt at the end of the table 4 and Claire Hodgkins, one of our newer Associate Planners with the City. 5 She'll be making the presentation this evening. Just as a reminder, this is a 6 Study Session. We're not looking for any formal action or votes, but we are 7 interested in Council Member feedback on the conceptual project and the 8 process that is laid out for you in the report and in Claire's presentation. 9 Claire. 10 11 Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner: Good evening, Mayor Burt, Council 12 Members. I'm Claire Hodgkins, and I'm the Project Planner for this project. 13 This evening you are being requested to consider the applicant's proposal for 14 development of multifamily housing on a property zoned Public Facilities. 15 The prescreening process is a requirement prior to legislative changes. The 16 Study Session is intended to facilitate a conceptual review of the applicant's 17 request, focusing on big-picture policy. Staff is here to gather policy 18 direction to guide formation of a formal project, if desired. The existing site 19 is a former Valley Transit Authority or Santa Clara Valley Transportation 20 Authority (VTA) park-and-ride lot, zoned Public Facilities and designated 21 Major Institution/Special Facilities. The site was formally deemed to be 22 surplus and sold by VTA to a private developer. Just a little bit about the 23 surrounding context. Nearby zoning includes Planned Community, 24 Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial. Nearby retail, office 25 and residential uses range from two to ten stories. Immediately adjacent to 26 TRANSCRIPT 1 the subject property are residential uses of similar mass and scale, three- 2 story and four-story. This photo shown from El Camino shows the two 3 adjacent three and four-story residential uses. Just a brief overview of the 4 proposed project. The applicant is proposing a new four-story, multifamily 5 apartment building with up to 60 dwelling units. The proposed FAR is 6 approximately 2.0 to 1.0. The development would include one story of 7 partially below-grade parking. The applicant is proposing 45 parking spaces, 8 which is fewer than what the Code currently requires. Twenty-six of those 9 spaces are also provided via a lift system. This project would require a very 10 robust TDM program. The project does not conform with the requirements 11 of any zoning districts. However, in previous hearings, some Council 12 Members have requested that Staff consider a pilot micro housing project 13 that would include smaller units and less parking. The existing zoning and 14 designated use do not currently allow for multifamily housing. Therefore, to 15 allow for development of the project as proposed, two or more of the 16 following would be required: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 17 amendment, amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and 18 Community Design Element; Zoning Map amendment; and/or Zoning Code 19 text amendment. Staff has identified three potential options in the Staff 20 Report that could achieve the applicant's basic project objectives as we 21 understand them. All three of these options could be applied to other future 22 sites, but some options would be more restrictive than others in that the 23 option could not be as easily applied to other sites. Staff is seeking Council's 24 input on these potential options, both for this project and in terms of future 25 applicability. Council Members may also present other options. Council 26 considerations include whether the proposed use is appropriate for the site. 27 If the proposed use is appropriate, Council consideration of the preferred 28 approach to processing the application. Any design considerations, 29 especially those related to housing type, traffic and parking, and/or 30 consideration of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Staff also wanted to 31 note that we are currently working on ordinances that would improve 32 enforceability of transit demand management plans, and penalties and fees 33 will be coming back in October. With that, I will turn it over to the Mayor. 34 Staff would recommend that Council hear next from the applicant before we 35 go into further discussion. 36 37 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Since this is a Study Session, we have latitude in 38 our process. We can ask any technical questions of Staff at this time or hear 39 from the applicant, and then ask questions and determine what time we'll 40 hear from the public as well. Would you like to hear from the applicant, and 41 then we can combine questions for Staff and the applicant? The applicant 42 has up to 10 minutes to speak. Welcome. 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Tod Spieker, Windy Hill: Hi. My name is Tod Spieker with Windy Hill 2 Property Ventures. Thank you, Claire, and thank you, Council Members, for 3 giving your thoughtful consideration to our project. Windy Hill Property 4 Ventures is a Palo Alto-based real estate development company. I'm here 5 tonight with one of my two business partners, Jamie D'Alessandro. We 6 primarily work in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties with a strong focus on 7 transit-oriented sites. Within the last year, we have entitled transit-oriented 8 projects in San Mateo and San Carlos. As mentioned in the Staff Report, 9 this was the former VTA site purchased by Pollack Financial, and they 10 proposed a primarily office but mixed-use project. As part of the feedback 11 during the prescreening a year ago, seven of the nine Council Members 12 mentioned either the jobs/housing imbalance and the need for more housing 13 or the site being an appropriate location for more housing in Palo Alto. 14 Based on that feedback from Council, Windy Hill and Pollack Financial formed 15 a partnership where Windy Hill would propose to entitle a small-unit housing 16 project. What is this project? This is a four-story, residential project above 17 one level of parking. The building is comprised of 60 studio and one- 18 bedroom units with an average square footage of 562 square feet. These 19 units are intended for single and in some cases double occupancy. These 20 are meant for people looking for a place to live close to where they work. 21 While we think it's important of families to have an opportunity for housing 22 in Palo Alto, this is not that project. This project will not have an impact on 23 the schools. These units are meant for people working close by. As 24 mentioned in the Staff Report, given these are smaller units, by their nature 25 they will be more attainable than the typical-sized one-bedroom or studio 26 unit in Palo Alto. Also because of the size of the units, we can fit more units 27 within the building envelope that do not put the unneeded strain on schools 28 and services, and they specifically address the City's housing goals. In the 29 prior screening and in some of the recent feedback we've received, RM-40 is 30 referenced as a more appropriate zoning for dense housing projects in Palo 31 Alto. If we were to apply for the RM-40 on this site, we would get 17 units 32 with an average square footage of 1,000 square feet, but these are two and 33 three-bedroom units. RM-40 is currently Palo Alto's most dense zoning. In 34 the garage, we have 45 stalls, 19 of which are standard stalls and 26 of 35 which are accessed through parking lifts. We have our parking lift expert, 36 David LoCoco, from Watry Design here and his team has been involved in 37 numerous parking lift systems up and down the Peninsula. Per feedback 38 from Staff, we are now showing two standard parking stalls as car share 39 stalls. We are showing bike storage on both the garage level and the first 40 floor with a total capacity for 84 bikes. On the ground floor, we have a bike 41 kitchen. This bike kitchen will act as a bike storage location as well as other 42 bike amenities. In addressing the feedback for ground-floor retail, we are 43 open to having this bike kitchen available to the public and possibly leased 44 or given to a Palo Alto-based bike shop where they can sell supplies, 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 advertise and provide their services to the residents as well as the general 2 public. Now my business partner, Jamie D'Alessandro, will talk about our 3 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) approach and our 4 environmental approach. 5 6 Jamie D'Alessandro, Windy Hill: Thank you, Tod. Thank you, Council 7 Members, for the opportunity to present today. This evening I'm going to 8 talk a little bit about the TDM plan as well as our environmental approach. 9 Given that we are proposing less than one parking stall per unit, a robust 10 and comprehensive TDM plan is imperative to our project's success. We 11 intend to offer this by, one, providing a multitude of alternative 12 transportation options; two, offering information on these options and 13 programs; and, three, by incentivizing our residents to seek these alternate 14 modes of transit. The goal being our TDM plan will hopefully substantially 15 mitigate the project's traffic and parking impacts. Our TDM plan will 16 ultimately have trip targets. In our eyes for it to be successful, it is critical 17 that we have three things: one, ongoing monitoring metrics; two, 18 meaningful enforcement requirements; and, three, consequences should our 19 targets not be met. Although a traffic impact analysis has yet to be started 20 by the City, we do have a lot of ideas for numerous TDM strategies to 21 accomplish our goals. Tod previously discussed the dedicated car share 22 stalls for a company like Zipcar as well as our taking Staff guidance to 23 increase our bike parking, which is now at a ratio of 1.5 bike stalls per unit. 24 Additionally, our bike shop and kitchen will offer what we think will be a 25 small gathering place for riders to congregate as well as a place for them to 26 buy essential bike supplies and repair equipment. The bike shop is 27 envisioned as being complete with electric bike, scooter and skateboard 28 charging stations, all potentially open not only to our community but to the 29 general public as a community benefit. Additionally, we hope to be able to 30 design in-unit wall or ceiling-mounted bike racks for supplemental. Now, 31 TDM is not just limited to the aforementioned physical amenities that we'll 32 have onsite. Given our proximity to Caltrain and the VTA bus routes, we'll 33 be offering monetary allowances to residents both for Caltrain Go and VTA 34 Eco passes, which we hope will incentivize alternate modes of transport. 35 Additionally, as you know, the free Marguerite shuttle bus runs right by the 36 property. Our monetary allowances for residents will also be for use with 37 various transportation network companies like Uber, Lyft and Waze. 38 Additionally, we will have onsite a Transportation Coordinator who will live 39 onsite. Their responsibilities will be not only to oversee the allowance 40 program and the physical amenities we've mentioned, but they'll also be 41 responsible for posting relevant transportation schedules, bike safety and 42 repair information and even coordinating annual safety and repair 43 workshops. More importantly, as part of our TDM program there are a 44 number of restrictions we are willing to put in place on our development that 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 we think will further incent non-auto transit. Number 1, we are prepared to 2 give leasing preference to workers currently employed within the City of Palo 3 Alto or within an agreed upon radius of the project. Number 2, we are also 4 prepared to give leasing preferences to residents who do not own a car. We 5 are willing to deed restrict both of these preferences. We're comfortable 6 with these deed restrictions given our proximity to the Stanford Research 7 Park and 25,000-plus jobs as well as our proximity to Caltrain and the job 8 base it connects its riders to. Additionally, we would intend to participate in 9 the Palo Alto TMA and, lastly, we would be very supportive of an Resdential 10 Preferential Parking Program (RPP) program in surrounding residential 11 neighborhoods. Obviously, our project and its residents would not be 12 eligible for any new permits created by this RPP. In the next slide, I'm going 13 to discuss briefly a community benefit we are willing to offer as part of the 14 development, which would be a dedication of a portion of the parcel along 15 Page Mill in order to accommodate a right-hand turn lane as shown on this 16 slide. We feel this will greatly improve the efficiency of the intersection. 17 Finally, I'm going to touch briefly on our environmental approach. We do 18 endeavor to design to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 19 (LEED) silver equivalent. We hope to build an all-electric building with the 20 exception of gas water heaters. We also envision drought-tolerant water-lite 21 landscaping, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations in our garage, a robust 22 TDM package as mentioned, as well as remediation of the contamination 23 onsite. We've done extensive studies on the environmental conditions, and 24 we do have a plan. We have our environmental consultant here to address 25 any specific questions. With that, I'm going to turn it back over to Tod. 26 27 Mr. Spieker: Why? Why do we want to build this project in this location at 28 this time? We've all heard it a thousand times, the jobs/housing imbalance. 29 That voice is getting louder. Per the City's most recent data, there are 3.05 30 jobs in the City of Palo Alto per one employed resident. That means on any 31 given day we have over two people coming from outside of Palo Alto into 32 Palo Alto and out again, causing traffic and parking congestion. Obviously 33 this project will not fix the problem, but it can help bring 60-plus people 34 working in Palo Alto, looking for an attainable place to live close to where 35 they work. We are very aware for the need of affordable housing, and we 36 know the City is currently working on an increased in-lieu fee for residential 37 projects. While we feel the project we are proposing will provide more 38 attainable housing units given their size, we are open to putting a mutually 39 agreed upon number of affordable units onsite versus paying the 100 40 percent in the form of the in-lieu fee. We are also open to giving preference 41 to teachers, firefighters and police officers as well as other City employees 42 that have felt the pressure of increased housing costs. From 2008 to 2015, 43 there has been over two million square feet of nonresidential square footage 44 approved in Palo Alto. Taking industry standard numbers of 250 square feet 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 of office space per employee, that added over 8,000 jobs to Palo Alto's job 2 base. In that same period of time, 2008 to 2015, only 550 apartment units 3 were entitled. These number include the large Stanford housing project 4 which added 180 of those units. As you know, these numbers are heavily 5 weighted to the nonresidential square footage. To conclude, there's clearly 6 the demand and need for housing in Palo Alto. The project we are proposing 7 will provide an attainable product relative to what Palo Alto currently offers. 8 Thank you for your time. 9 10 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Let's return to the Council for questions of either 11 Staff, or I will entertain questions to the applicant through the Chair. Who 12 would like to go first? Council Member DuBois. Thank you. 13 14 Council Member DuBois: Some technical questions. If this lot were zoned 15 CN, what would the FAR be and what would the allowable height be? 16 17 Ms. Hodgkins: Great question. We actually have a pocket slide on that, that 18 shows a comparison. We'll bring that up right now. The height for CN 19 requirement is 40 feet. Did you have any other specific ... 20 21 Council Member DuBois: The Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 22 23 Ms. Hodgkins: The FAR is 1.0 to one—because CN is required to be mixed 24 use, it's 0.5:1.0 for nonresidential and 0.51 to residential. 25 26 Council Member DuBois: Thank you. What are the allowed uses under the 27 PF zone? 28 29 Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager: We have accessory facility uses, eating 30 and drinking in conjunction with a permitted use, retail, things of that 31 nature, but there isn't residential. There's churches, education, etc. 32 33 Council Member DuBois: Is there also medical, outpatient medical or 34 something? 35 36 Ms. Gerhardt: There's hospitals, and outpatient would be a Conditional Use 37 Permit. 38 39 Council Member DuBois: I don't know if you can answer, if the applicant 40 needs to answer. I'm curious. What is the relationship between Windy Hill 41 and Pollack Financial Group? 42 43 Mayor Burt: Go right ahead. 44 45 Mr. Spieker: Windy Hill currently has an option on the property where 46 Pollack Financial would participate financially should this get approved. 47 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member DuBois: Pollack currently owns the property? 2 3 Mr. Spieker: They currently own the property, and we currently have a 4 contract on it. 5 6 Council Member DuBois: Got it. Thank you. You might as well stay there; 7 I've got a couple more, if that's okay. You mentioned the bike repair shop. 8 You said that would be open to the public. Would it be like a public retail on 9 the first floor? 10 11 Mr. Spieker: As you know, we are under-parked per current zoning. Retail 12 would only add to that. Some of the feedback we've gotten from a few of 13 the Council Members and the public as well as watching the prescreening a 14 year ago for this site, we wanted to address that. We are open to having 15 the ground-floor bike kitchen available to the public in kind of getting the 16 community involved in using a local bike shop, a Palo Alto-based bike shop 17 in terms of letting them advertise, signage, and things to help alleviate 18 concerns about trying to dissuade ground-floor retail. 19 20 Council Member DuBois: You mentioned possible deed restrictions. How 21 would that work for local employment or non-car ownership? If you lost 22 your job or you bought a car, what would happen? 23 24 Mr. Spieker: You wouldn't be able to live there, I guess. This is something 25 we've explored with our attorney. Where people live is not a protected 26 class. We strongly feel that our residents are going to come from Stanford 27 Research Park and within Palo Alto, within a small radius. Tenants would 28 sign a 1-year lease as per the norm in Palo Alto. If they lose their job, I 29 guess we can work together and figure that out. 30 31 Council Member DuBois: You kind of mentioned preferences for public 32 agency employees. Is that what I heard? 33 34 Mr. Spieker: Yes. 35 36 Council Member DuBois: You had a slide that said Santa Clara County 37 stated that the lane dedication was necessary. What did that mean? Did 38 that mean it was required? 39 40 Mr. Spieker: It means it was necessary to improve the efficiency of that 41 intersection, is what I believe the letter stated. 42 43 Council Member DuBois: Does Staff know about that? 44 45 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, absolutely. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager. 46 Our Transportation Division has reviewed this project preliminarily and 47 TRANSCRIPT 1 reviewed the past projects. We are requesting that right-turn enhancement 2 to enhance that intersection. 3 4 Council Member DuBois: When the County says it's required—it was being 5 mentioned as a public benefit, but is it basically required to build on that lot? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Thank you, Council Member. I don't believe that it's a 8 requirement. I think in some earlier conversations there has been about this 9 site and other developments an interest in that as a public benefit, so that 10 we can improve the intersection at that location. As I'm understanding this 11 applicant—this isn't a Planned Community (PC), so we're not really talking 12 about public benefits in that context. As I understand it, the applicant is still 13 interested in offering that to the City. 14 15 Council Member DuBois: Thank you, and thank you. 16 Mayor Burt: Council Member Scharff. 17 Vice Mayor Scharff: Thanks. A couple of things. The first would be the 18 parking. Ninety to 102 parking spaces is what you said would normally be. 19 What's the different between the 90 and the 102? Is it just number of units? 20 What would be the reason for the variation? 21 22 Ms. Hodgkins: It would depend on the exact number of each type of unit. 23 There's different requirements for a studio unit versus a one-bedroom. Also, 24 the guest parking. There's a requirement in the Code related to whether 25 they're dedicated spaces or not. That would make a difference. 26 27 Vice Mayor Scharff: I guess I didn't follow if they were dedicated spaces. 28 Why would they be dedicated or not dedicated? 29 30 Ms. Gerhardt: If there was reserved parking. 31 32 Vice Mayor Scharff: You have more spaces if it's reserved parking, less if it's 33 not. 34 35 Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. 36 37 Vice Mayor Scharff: Got it. I had some questions for the applicant. 38 (inaudible) be all right? 39 40 Mayor Burt: Go ahead. 41 42 Vice Mayor Scharff: This is a rental project, right? You're not putting a map 43 on it? 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mr. Spieker: Yes, it's a for-rent project. We would not be putting a map on 2 it. 3 4 Vice Mayor Scharff: No map. I'm trying to understand when you offer 5 leasing preferences, how that actually works. You build the project; you 6 start leasing. You have a lot of units. You don't lease them all if there's a 7 lease sub-period. If someone comes to you who's not in a favored class, 8 let's say, a teacher, a firefighter or any of the things you mentioned, don't 9 you just lease to them anyway? I'm trying to understand what it means to 10 be—once the project is fully leased, a unit comes vacant. It's rare to have a 11 waiting list. You probably clear the market by raising the rents. What does 12 it mean to have a preference? In for-sale, I completely get it. In rental, I'm 13 not tracking how this works. 14 15 Mr. Spieker: I would anticipate—we still have to work through this—that 16 when we built it, we offer these units to the teachers, the firefighters and 17 the police officers and the City officials. We give them a certain period of 18 time to respond, in which they can lease the unit. Once it's leased and we 19 get a vacant unit like you mentioned, then we would send this out to that 20 email list, mailing list. We'd go through the proper channels, and they would 21 get a certain amount of time in order to lease the unit. If they don't, then 22 we can go to the general public. I'm not sure about this, but maybe Staff 23 knows. I believe Stanford may have done this. 24 25 Mayor Burt: Yeah. I don't know whether our current Staff here is familiar 26 with it. Maybe Cara is. The large Sand Hill development contains similar 27 preferences. They were actually, as I recall, two tiers of preferences. One 28 for perhaps it was Stanford direct employees. There was a second I can't 29 remember. They tiered it. Cara, do you have any input? 30 31 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: There are several different 32 projects in town that do have preferences built in. Most of them are Palo 33 Alto Housing Corporation operated projects. There are some other projects—34 the Terman Apartments has a Section 8 preference. There are several 35 different preferences in town. It is possible to come up with some type of 36 covenant language to implement that preference. 37 38 Vice Mayor Scharff: Cara, what would that mean? Is it just a preference 39 then? A unit comes vacant, and they know the lease is expiring. They do a 40 six month lease, a year lease, and a nine month lease in their project. Are 41 we thinking a couple of months before they have to do outreach? Is it more 42 than a preference that if you don't meet that criteria, you can't lease there? 43 I'm just trying to figure out how a preference in a market rate project, which 44 is open to the public, works on a regular basis. 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Ms. Silver: I think all of that would have to be negotiated and set forth in 2 some documents that we would put in front of the City Council to satisfy and 3 ensure that there really is a preference that is being implemented. 4 5 Vice Mayor Scharff: Forty-five parking spaces as opposed to 90 or 102, and 6 you have electric charging stations, so you expect some cars. Otherwise, 7 why have electric charging stations. What's your realistic belief of how 8 you're going to get—what is it? Half the cars, half the people roughly don't 9 have cars. Is that (crosstalk). 10 11 Mr. Spieker: Twenty-five percent. 12 Vice Mayor Scharff: How much? 13 Mr. Spieker: Twenty-five percent. 14 15 Vice Mayor Scharff: All right, 25 percent. Twenty-five percent wouldn't 16 have cars, and then it would be fully parked. Is that fair? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: Yes. 19 20 Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm not doing the math in my head as we talk. 21 22 Mr. Spieker: Yes. There's 60 units, and there's 45 parking stalls. Fifteen of 23 those units would not have a parking spot. 24 25 Vice Mayor Scharff: Right. The Code requires more than a 1:1 ratio. The 26 reason for that, I assume, is some people traditionally have two cars living 27 in a one-bedroom or even living in a studio if they live together. What I'm 28 trying to figure out is—can you just walk me through best case scenario or 29 whatever how you think you're going to get there on a conceptual basis? 30 31 Mr. Spieker: I fundamentally believe and we fundamentally believe that 32 people that are going to rent these units—call them millennials, call them 33 people that don't want stuff. They want a place to live. They want a place 34 to live close to where they work, and they don't own a car or they ride their 35 bike. 36 37 Vice Mayor Scharff: I actually am totally with you and think it's a great plan. 38 Would you be open to fines if it doesn't happen that way? 39 40 Mr. Spieker: As Jamie mentioned, in our TDM we are open to consequences, 41 yes. 42 43 Vice Mayor Scharff: That's stepping up. Thanks. 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mayor Burt: Let me just ask a follow-up there. I thought that you also said 2 that you were open to deed restrictions on car ownership. 3 4 Mr. Spieker: Yes, that has been brought up as an option, I believe. A 5 Council Member brought that up at the last prescreening. We looked into it 6 a little bit; we have a lot more work to do on that. Where you work is not a 7 protected class, so I think legally we can do that, and we're open to it. 8 There are going to be some unintended consequences when doing that. 9 10 Mayor Burt: That's a deed restriction on location of work. The other one I 11 was just asking about is on car ownership, whether you could—is that 12 something that you've looked at and whether you can require at your 13 discretion? If it was part of the development agreement, that only say 14 hypothetically 75 percent of the residences could have a resident that owned 15 a car, that's something you would be open to as a deed restriction and that 16 you would impose and be part of the development agreement? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: Yes. We would work with Council and Staff to figure out an 19 implementation method that works. 20 21 Mayor Burt: It sounds like you're confident that you could lease these units 22 under those conditions. 23 24 Mr. Spieker: Yeah, we are. 25 26 Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. 27 28 Council Member Holman: Questions, some for the applicant and some for 29 Staff. Is there any—these are in no particular order. The permit parking 30 program in the neighborhood that the applicant brought up—thank you for 31 bringing that up—there's no proposal for one in this neighborhood. How 32 long would it be in comparison to, say, a construction schedule before a 33 permit program could be put in place? Is there other interest in having a 34 permit program in this area? 35 36 Mr. Lait: I don't know of any that have been articulated to us. I think we've 37 seen, with the recent requests for permit parking in other neighborhoods, it 38 takes a little bit of time to initiate that. 39 40 Council Member Holman: One thing that would be important to know, if 41 there hasn't been other interest expressed in this, is what would the cost be 42 for implementing a residential permit parking program for the purposes of 43 satisfying the intention stated by the applicant. I don't expect you to have 44 that answer right now. One of the questions about—let's just say that some 45 of the units were given first option to, let's say, Stanford employees, PAUSD 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 employees, maybe City employees. What's going to determine whether 2 somebody says yes or no is oftentimes going to be the rental rate. What do 3 you foresee these being rented at? Would you give preferential rental rates 4 to these three nonprofits I've mentioned or would they be the same rental 5 rate as the open market? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: The answer to the first question is we don't know what these 8 are going to rent for. This is a prescreening. We have a long way to go 9 (crosstalk). 10 11 Mayor Burt: Can you move that mic just a closer to you? Sorry. 12 13 Council Member Holman: You've looked at the economics of it, though. I'm 14 surprised you would say you don't know what the rental rates would be. 15 16 Mr. Spieker: I can't speak to the individual studio and one-bedroom rental 17 rates for these units right now. I'm not prepared to do so. I don't have that 18 information with me. We did our underwriting a while ago. Would we give a 19 rental discount to these City employees, Stanford employees? The answer is 20 I don't know yet. It's something we can talk about. It depends on where 21 we kind of shake out on everything else. There's a lot of issues we have to 22 work through on this. 23 24 Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. Ground-floor retail, I'm one 25 of the people who talks about ground-floor retail—yes, at this location—and 26 wider sidewalks because if it's all housing—I told you this. I was very direct 27 with you. By the way, do we need to do disclosures? This is just a 28 prescreening, but do we need to do disclosures? 29 30 Ms. Silver: This is a legislative action. It's a request for information on 31 possible zone changes. Technically you don't need to do disclosures for 32 legislative items. 33 34 Council Member Holman: Let me just volunteer that I did meet with the 35 applicant. I've forgotten your name; I'm sorry. I'll be forthcoming on that. 36 I do think ground-floor retail is important here. You talk about a bike repair 37 kitchen or a bike kitchen. What kind of size are you thinking about? I didn't 38 quite catch that. What kind of size are you thinking about that or square 39 footage or location? 40 41 Mr. Spieker: About 500 square feet. 42 43 Council Member Holman: Did Staff look at, when this came forward—there 44 was a proposal that came forward some time ago for this site—I don't 45 remember what iteration it was. We've seen a few that looked at the 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 undercrossing under El Camino Real. Did Staff give any—I'm seeing blank 2 looks down there. I guess Staff didn't give any consideration of seeing 3 about that being restored or rehabilitated or in a public-private partnership 4 to get it rehabilitated, to get it usable, to get pedestrians and bicyclists 5 underneath El Camino. 6 7 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. I don't have information for you on that. 8 9 Council Member Holman: That's something important, I think, going 10 forward with this or any project that comes across here. The open space— 11 CN that's up here requires 9,000 square feet of open space. You've 12 proposed 4,500, I think it is, at the ground level and then 1,300 square feet 13 of balconies, which is only 5,800 square feet. What was used to determine 14 what those calculations were? It's hard to tell from this just because it is. 15 Do all units have balconies and what size would the balconies be of those 16 units that had balconies? 17 18 Mr. Spieker: We tried to get most units to have a patio or a balcony. Given 19 the units that are up against Page Mill, it makes it difficult especially with 20 dedicating the land for the right-hand turn lane. A couple of those units, we 21 were unable to do it. It's something that our architect can work on, if that's 22 important. 23 24 Council Member Holman: What did you use to decide what the size of the 25 patios were and what the size of the open space was? The open space that's 26 at the ground level. 27 28 Mr. Spieker: I think my architect's better to answer those questions. 29 30 John Kosi, BDE Architects: Good evening. John Kosi with BDE Architects. 31 We went with really what's industry standard with the depth. We've got a 32 number of things that we want to do. We wanted to obviously give as much 33 open space as we could. They kind of fit into an alcove typically off of a 34 bedroom. They're anywhere from 50 to 60 square feet. 35 36 Council Member Holman: You said 30 to 60 square feet? 37 Mr. Kosi: Fifty to 60 square feet. 38 Council Member Holman: Fifty to 60 square feet. I think I had one other 39 question. Pardon me just for a second. I don't have other questions 40 actually. I'll have comments later. Thank you. 41 42 Mayor Burt: I have a couple other questions, one for the applicant and two 43 for Staff. Is there any part of the design looking at rooftop gardens? 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mr. Spieker: We haven't gotten there yet. I can't put the picture up now. 2 There is room. 3 4 Mayor Burt: You don't have a sense of what percentage of the roof is 5 occupied by mechanical? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: No, but my guess would be it's less than 50 percent. There is 8 room to do that. Again, it's a function of cost. 9 10 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Questions for Staff. Has Staff looked at aggressive 11 TDM programs with small units that are in transit and walkable Downtown 12 areas, whether they be in Palo Alto or elsewhere? The only one that I can 13 think of that is a good example in Palo Alto is Alma Place, which is even 14 smaller units than this, that we built around 2000 for small, single-occupant 15 residences. They're designated single occupant. They are probably a couple 16 hundred square feet each. My recollection is it was permitted to be under- 17 parked simply on the basis of its proximity to transit in Downtown as 18 opposed to an actual TDM program. Do we know anything about the 19 performance of that? First, what the ratio was and, second, the 20 performance. 21 22 Mr. Lait: No and no. I can tell you that we are working on developing those 23 parameters of what a TDM would look like as we're working on this other 24 work about the penalties and fees and the enforcement. We're also looking 25 to require, as a part of our review of projects, TDM programs for most of the 26 discretionary applications that come forward. We'll be identifying sort of 27 those expectations about what the program would include and performance 28 targets (crosstalk). 29 30 Mayor Burt: I've brought up Alma Place several times over the last year. 31 I'm kind of disappointed that we don't have any data yet on that. When I 32 surveyed—I don't know what the parking ratio was, so I can't really put it in 33 that context. When I surveyed their underground parking, partially 34 underground and fully underground, within the last six months or so, there 35 were parking spaces available. That includes that Palo Alto Housing Corp. 36 has their offices there. It's not just the residents who are using them. 37 Interestingly, they have a bike cage, and it was overflowed and inadequate 38 bike parking. That was a suggestion to me that without even an active TDM 39 program we get that kind of response. There are other developments in 40 other communities that have occurred in this region with similarities of being 41 transit located, Downtown located and small unit with active TDM programs, 42 I think. Do we have any information on the performance of those projects? 43 44 Mr. Lait: Mayor, I just personally don't—the three of us up here don't have 45 information about that. We could get some more information from our Chief 46 TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Transportation Official on that. That information may very well be available; 2 I just don't have it right now. 3 4 Mayor Burt: I think that's important. When we look at that and if this goes 5 forward and if it's an application, when it goes to the Planning and 6 Transportation Commission I'd really hope that we've got meaningful data. 7 It also looks at not only TDM programs that have existed representative but 8 what are emerging TDM measures, including things like just the whole 9 consideration of electric bikes and having shared electric bikes perhaps. We 10 talk about Zipcars, but Zip bikes may become at least as valuable and a 11 fraction of the space, fraction of the cost. For Stanford Research Park, it 12 makes the whole Research Park readily bike-able even for people who aren't 13 real serious bike riders. Finally, we don't have a zoning currently that allows 14 this number of units per acre. We have historic development in Palo Alto at 15 this kind of density. The President Hotel is a good example. We don't have 16 the zoning it does. We do have, with all of our zonings, limits on the Floor 17 Area Ratio. I've never been able to understand what was the historic 18 rationale for imposing units per acre limits on top of the Floor Area Ratio 19 limits. All it does is drive developers to having to build larger units than 20 they otherwise might be willing to do. The argument that I've—kind of the 21 pushback historically was we don't get the high units per acre because 22 developers historically get a better rate of return on larger units than they 23 do smaller units, so they don't build them. They haven't historically built 24 them. This is what has been the response for the 18 years that I've been on 25 the Planning Commission or the Council. It really didn't matter. It was a 26 moot point because we didn't get those projects proposed. If we create 27 certain mandates or zoning overlays that would discourage or say we don't 28 want large units like we've been talking about for the last several years and 29 as part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan discussion, I'm trying to 30 understand in that context why do we have a cap on units per acre in high- 31 density, multiunit dwellings. Do we know that? 32 33 Mr. Lait: I think the short answer would be to limit density and perceived 34 impacts associated with higher densities. It's the character of the 35 neighborhood that you're trying to establish. You're absolutely correct. You 36 could use various zoning tools to modify what approach we might take. You 37 know from the RT—I think it's 50. Is it the RT-50? That's an example 38 where we don't have a density limit. We try to address the form and the 39 size of the ... 40 41 Mayor Burt: The RT-50? 42 43 Mr. Lait: Does not have a density restriction. 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Mayor Burt: Doesn't have a number of units per acre? 2 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Dwelling units per acre, but it has ... 3 Mayor Burt: What's the 50? 4 Mr. Lait: Let's take a look at our standards here. 5 6 Mayor Burt: I think that's what the 50 refers to. No. Really? 7 8 Mr. Lait: While that's being checked out, I believe that the RT-50 doesn't 9 have a limit on dwelling units, but we achieve it through FAR and setbacks to 10 get at the form of the building as opposed to the density. 11 12 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Now, I have two more lights from colleagues, 13 Council Member Berman and then Council Member Kniss. 14 15 Council Member Berman: Just a quick question for the applicant on timing. 16 This is all kind of a guess. If you were to receive positive feedback tonight 17 and decide to move forward with the project and get your entitlements in a 18 fairly quick manner, when do you think this project would be built? 19 20 Mr. Spieker: The construction timeline? 21 22 Council Member Berman: Sure. As we're talking about different 23 transportation technology and all these types of things, which are changing 24 monthly, I'm wondering when will you actually have people moving in here. 25 I'm kind of mentally trying to think of where we'll be on a transportation 26 front by three years from now when the project's actually built. 27 28 Mr. Spieker: I would say if there was a vote and it was approved, we'd be 29 ready for occupancy within 18 months. That would ... 30 31 Council Member Berman: Once you get approval. 32 33 Mr. Spieker: Once we get approval, it'd be 18 months from that. That 34 would include ... 35 36 Council Member Berman: It'll be a total of seven years. No, just kidding. 37 Mr. Spieker: I almost had a heart attack. 38 Council Member Berman: That's helpful. Two and half, three years-ish, 39 something like that, maybe less, hopefully less. 40 41 Mr. Spieker: Yeah. 42 Page 18 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member Berman: Thanks. 2 3 Mayor Burt: I do see that this slide answers my question, which is the RT- 4 50 in South of Forest Area (SOFA) is not dwellings per acre but rather the 5 50-foot height. Council Member Kniss. 6 7 Council Member Kniss: Again for the applicant or for one of the applicants. 8 This isn't the first time that something has been proposed for this particular 9 site. The site's been a challenge in many ways. You obviously have been 10 listening to us as a body, and you've many times heard the need for 11 housing, smaller units, a whole variety, whatever we've talked about. We've 12 talked about micro units. Before you did this, did you look at other sites and 13 other cities that might be similar and in some way copy that or did you talk 14 with them about their parking issues or whatever else? The only other place 15 that I've heard where micro units literally were brought in, I think, by trailer 16 was one either done in DC or in New York City, which is certainly in the heart 17 of where micro units are needed. The question is are you basing this on 18 anything else? Have you seen anything like it? 19 20 Mr. Spieker: We have worked on two multifamily projects, one in Downtown 21 Burlingame and one in Downtown San Mateo or one. They were existing 22 buildings that were under-parked. The one in Burlingame, I want to say had 23 90 percent, a 37-unit building. I think it had 32 or 33 parking stalls. In 24 Downtown San Mateo, we had 17 units on South B Street where there was 25 zero parking. It was a block and a half from the train station. We do 26 believe that this concept works. I will say about micro housing units, when 27 you hear about micro housing in San Francisco, in Brooklyn, in New York, it's 28 typically around 200 to 350 square feet. These are micro units compared to 29 the RM-40. These are not micro housing units when you talk about micro 30 housing in San Francisco. These are an average—our one-bedrooms are 31 over 600 square feet. If you look at the average square footage of a one- 32 bedroom built in the '60s and '70s in San Mateo and Santa Clara County, 33 you're looking at about 700 to 750 square feet. While they're micro 34 compared to the current Zoning Code, they're not micro when you compare 35 them to New York and San Francisco or LA and Chicago. 36 37 Council Member Kniss: That's helpful. I'm glad you gave the examples 38 locally. Did each one of those—before you do them, was there direction 39 from their governing body to control the parking in some way, and was there 40 any mechanism that was used that they imposed? 41 42 Mr. Spieker: I'm sorry. I should have mentioned. These were existing 43 projects that we purchased and that, whatever reason back in the '50s and 44 Page 19 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 TRANSCRIPT 1 '60s, weren't built with the adequate amount of parking per current 2 standards. 3 4 Council Member Kniss: There wasn't any negotiation or agreement you had 5 to make with the city? 6 7 Mr. Spieker: No. These were all grandfathered in. 8 9 Council Member Kniss: I would agree. I remember the first place we rented 10 here. It was very small. Thank you for that. 11 12 Mr. Spieker: Sure. Thanks. 13 14 Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. 15 16 Council Member Wolbach: I just wanted to check on the process with the 17 Mayor. Questions and comments at this time or just questions right now? 18 19 Mayor Burt: Questions. We're going to hear from the public, and then we'll 20 give our input. 21 22 Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for clarifying that. Actually maybe a 23 couple of questions for the applicant and also a question or two for Staff, I 24 think. In looking at your parking spaces—I might have missed it—did you 25 include any designated parking for motorcycles or scooters or design it in 26 such a way that one parking space rented, say, by one tenant could easily 27 park a car and a scooter has enough space for that? I ask because 28 obviously motorcycles and scooters tend to take up much less space. You 29 can either squeeze them in a lot of parking space with a car or fit three or 30 four bikes or scooters into one space. 31 32 Mr. Spieker: It's a great idea, and it's something we've talked about. We 33 wanted to get as many parking stalls as we could. We're open to discussing 34 how we can work with that. Obviously there could be someone that doesn't 35 own a car that has a scooter just to go from Point A to Point B. 36 37 Council Member Wolbach: I'm also thinking about if have, say, a couple 38 living in a unit that might decide they do want to pay for a parking space 39 and have a car, and then one of them also rides a scooter or a motorcycle. 40 They don't need a full two spaces for that. I'm thinking about how that 41 might work. 42 43 Mr. Spieker: I think that would work practically, but from a Code standpoint 44 I think we'd have to work with Staff on that. 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 Council Member Wolbach: I'm just thinking about how that would work. In 2 talking about preferred groups who would have a first crack at renting one of 3 these units, I'm not sure if I missed it. Did you mention seniors or retirees? 4 5 Mr. Spieker: We didn't mention them, and that wasn't for any particular 6 reason. We were focusing on teachers, firefighters, policemen and City 7 employees. 8 9 Council Member Wolbach: I'll save my comments on that until later, except 10 just to say I think that's another group that might be less inclined to drive 11 on a regular basis at rush hour. If I heard you correctly, some of the "micro 12 units" that you see in other cities, whether it's in San Francisco or in 13 Berkeley as far as local examples, can be as small as 200 to 300-square-foot 14 range per unit. 15 16 Mr. Spieker: I think I was trying to say 250. I don't know if I (crosstalk). 17 Council Member Wolbach: Two hundred fifty? 18 Mr. Spieker: Yeah, 250. I haven't seen them as low as 200, but 250 to 19 350, 400 square feet. Certainly less than what we're proposing. 20 21 Council Member Wolbach: I guess at 250, that means—if I saw it correctly, 22 the smallest units you're talking about here are about 500 or 502 square 23 feet per unit for the smallest ones? 24 25 Mr. Spieker: Depending on what happens in the common area, in the bike 26 kitchen, but yes, generally you're correct. 27 28 Council Member Wolbach: Basically double what some of the true micro 29 units are, but still substantially smaller than a typical Palo Alto unit. 30 31 Mr. Spieker: Exactly. 32 33 Council Member Wolbach: Just want to make sure I really was clear on how 34 this fits in with our reality versus other communities' reality, how this just 35 kind of compares. Thank you for that. A question for Staff, thinking about 36 for the public comment and also when it comes back to us. You've given us 37 a few possibilities for how a project like this might be possible with tweaks 38 or changes to our Codes, our zoning, as a pilot or changing something on a 39 perhaps larger scale basis. Because we're not taking action tonight, 40 obviously we can't fully direct which one we would prefer. What kinds of 41 comments are you going to be looking for us, when it comes back to us, 42 regarding the three options that you presented to us? 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mr. Lait: Thank you, Council Member. What we're looking for is the three 2 options, and there might be others. The three that we highlighted in the 3 Staff Report focused on a narrow applicability, where we just look at PF 4 zoned properties, and we make some changes to the Comp Plan or the 5 zoning to accommodate PF zoned lots. Another example was to borrow from 6 some existing provisions of the Code, where we have these combining 7 districts, so that an applicant could request a legislative change and apply 8 this micro housing combining district to their property. We'd have to set 9 some criteria for that, but that would have a broader applicability beyond the 10 PF zoning. A third option that we identified was to modify the existing 11 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning standard, which has 12 higher densities and development standards for parcels within, I think, a 13 quarter mile of a fixed rail station. 14 15 Council Member Wolbach: Just to be clear, those are in the Staff Report on 16 pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report, Options 1 and 2 and then on Page 7 17 Option 3. Those are ordered from the most narrow application to the 18 broadest application. Just want to be very explicit and clear about that as 19 we continue our conversation tonight. 20 21 Mr. Lait: That's correct. 22 23 Council Member Wolbach: Again, just so I was really clear. I guess maybe 24 for you and also for the Mayor, what kinds of—you're just looking, I guess, 25 for how we feel about those at this point without it being official direction? 26 27 Mr. Lait: We've heard the Council in varying degrees talk about this type of 28 a housing project. Here's one that's being presented to the Council for 29 consideration. Should this application go forward, would the Council be 30 interested in drafting something narrowly toward this project and some 31 other properties or would you want us to cast a wider net to make more 32 properties eligible for this type of housing opportunity? 33 34 Council Member Wolbach: Got you. 35 36 Mr. Lait: Just a gauge of how far do you want us to go with this. 37 38 Council Member Wolbach: Are we looking for a pilot or are we looking for 39 changes to the whole area? 40 41 Mr. Lait: It could still be a pilot on all three. It's just how many properties 42 do we want to make available to take advantage of a micro housing unit 43 concept. 44 45 Council Member Wolbach: Got you. 46 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 2 3 Council Member Wolbach: Thanks. That's it for my questions. 4 5 Mayor Burt: We'll now hear from members of the public. We have seven 6 cards. If anyone else wishes to speak, they need to bring their card forward 7 at this time. Being a Study Session and the limited amount of time we have, 8 each speaker will have up to two minutes to speak. Excuse me. Our first 9 speaker is Mike Green, to be followed by Neilson Buchanan. 10 11 Mike Green: My name is Mike Green. I appreciate the opportunity to 12 address the Council. I live in south Palo Alto. My son lives in Page Mill Court 13 Apartments, which immediately adjoins this site. I would say I have no 14 problem at all with the proposal to have smaller area, higher density housing 15 there. What I have an issue with is the parking. That area, which I visit 16 frequently, is completely parked out. The building is going to displace 17 existing parking. My strong recommendation is that it should not be 18 approved without double layer parking underneath, which is the norm now 19 for that area. If you look at the building that's being completed a few blocks 20 north on Ash Street, that's double layer on a smaller site. That would 21 diffuse the parking issue. I should say, by the way, that I regard things like 22 the bike kitchen as something of a Potemkin village, because on El Camino a 23 few blocks north and a few blocks south, are two perfectly good retail bike 24 shops. I had a feeling listening to the presentation that there was a little bit 25 of smoke and mirrors there. That's my recommendation, that the Council 26 should not approve this without double layer parking. 27 28 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Neilson Buchanan, to be 29 followed by Mark Mollineaux. 30 31 Neilson Buchanan: Less than six nights ago, we were talking about permit 32 parking and what's evolved over the last four years and the quest for that 33 policy. I sat back and asked someone locally who really observes planning 34 and City Councils well. We talked about here comes housing as fodder for 35 debate and discussion for the Palo Alto process. What did we learn from 36 permit parking and what are we going to learn as we go through the 37 quandary about housing? The perspective that was thrown out is that 38 solving problems applicant-by-applicant is just crazy. One permit program 39 by another permit parking for another neighborhood; housing project by one 40 applicant, another housing project doesn't make an awful lot of sense. 41 There's got to be something better. I don't know what the something better 42 is. Let me suggest that problem solving can be usually boiled down to 43 asking three good questions. We brainstormed if you had to solve and 44 approach systematically new kinds of housing for any given city, what would 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 you ask. Very briefly, you'd ask new housing policy for whom, and then 2 begin to answer that very specifically. You would then say where. I bet you 3 right now people in this room can name ten sites that could be considered. 4 Nobody would like them all, but they're the natural sites. It's not like 5 Portland. I read about last night an (inaudible). They got a swathe of land 6 for 8,000 homes, (inaudible) a whole new city. The third question is 7 something that's re-iterative, and at what cost. The cost won't be known 8 until much later in the process, but you can begin to speculate as you were 9 pushing the applicant here. There's got to be three questions that 10 somebody comes up with, that won't throw you through a constant four year 11 loop of project-by-project for the kind of housing that Palo Alto—the corners 12 that need to be cut versus the pathway that you want. Let me give you a 13 Forrest Gump quote, and that is "I don't know where I am going, but I am 14 on my way." That's the way the City of Palo Alto seems to go. Thank you. 15 16 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Mark Mollineaux to be followed by Patrick Slattery. 17 18 Mark Mollineaux: Hello there. I am Mark Mollineaux. I live in Redwood 19 City. I graduated from Stanford, and I would have like to live in Palo Alto 20 but I couldn't afford it. I'll keep my comments brief. In short, I think we 21 agree there's a problem in Palo Alto with housing. The system is broken. 22 High prices everywhere. This is a signal that everything is broken. This is a 23 result of ill-advised zoning decisions by essentially all the cities in this 24 region. Things are bad. It may not seem bad for local residents who don't 25 see the effects of this. They're locked into cheap houses with artificially low 26 property taxes. If you take the regional view, it's impossible to say things 27 aren't extremely bad. They need to be fixed. With this kind of stress, they 28 will be fixed one way or another. The Council has the possibility to fix things 29 locally, or it'll be fixed at some higher level by the State of California, which 30 holds the underlying authority of all of zoning. I hope the City is able to 31 solve it locally. It'll be better that way. Anyway it is, it'll take a long time 32 and a lot of effort to fix things with housing. Some decisions will be hard, 33 and some will be easy. I think this project is one of the easy ones. This is 34 60 great units in a really great, walkable area. I anticipate this should easily 35 pass. It really looks great. I would maybe hope I'd be able to live there 36 someday. Thank you for your time. 37 38 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Patrick Slattery to be followed by Stephanie 39 Munoz. 40 41 Patrick Slattery: My name's Patrick Slattery. When I came down this 42 evening, I was concerned about a lot of the questions that have already 43 come up. I was concerned about the traffic, especially how they were going 44 to be able to keep people from having cars. That's an American thing. How 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 can you get in there and stop that? They've got a plan. The Council was 2 wondering about—asking how are they really going to enforce that. That's 3 my question as well. The same with the RPP. If there's not an RPP in the 4 area, then the people who have cars can park there. They can park there all 5 night. The Council has taken care of that. About all that's left for me is how 6 can a four-story building be a pilot project. If it goes bad, how did it go 7 back, what happens? That's a question I still have left. Of course, the 8 answer to the other question is can all this stuff really be enforced. You're 9 asking those. Thank you. You have addressed most of my questions. 10 Thank you. 11 12 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Robert Moss. 13 14 Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council Members. I think 15 these people are going in the right direction, and they're doing what you 16 want. You should pay attention to them and talk some more with them. 17 There was a letter by a Tina Peak [phonetic] in the Post a couple of nights 18 ago. She was very concerned—I think everybody should be—about the fact 19 of the rezoning from public benefit space. There's a difference between 20 something that is actually zoned for public benefit and something in which 21 the public benefit is just a quid pro quo from some other concession that 22 you're going to give. I think you should take it very seriously. I think that 23 whoever gets this piece of property should dedicate the entire first floor to 24 public benefit, to childcare, senior nutrition and other similar things. The 25 whole first floor, not retail. The second thing is that with all the 26 conversation there's been about being close to public transit, what's the 27 point of being close to the public transit if you intend for them to have a car 28 anyway. It seems to me reasonable that there be some places in town for 29 people who don't have cars. Isn't that a fair tradeoff? The third thing is the 30 size. I talked to my son; he travels for Cisco all over the world. I said, 31 "Honey, what kind of a hotel room do you get for $300 a night?" He said, 32 "They're very nice, very small." Think about it. Thanks. 33 34 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Hamilton Hitchings. 35 36 Robert Moss: Thank you, Mayor Burt and Council Members. This ghastly 37 project is the worst example of spot zoning I've seen in a long time. It 38 ignores the fact that you're supposed to be consistent with adjacent 39 residential when you build. It totally violates that, because it is totally 40 inconsistent with the adjacent condominiums. It ignores the fact that this is 41 the most congested intersection in town. It pretends there's going to be no 42 traffic or parking problems. Saying that some of the residents won't own 43 cars doesn't mean that they won't be driving. Saying they're going to use 44 Uber means that Uber gets to drive to the site and away from the site. 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 That's two trips instead of one for the non-Uber driver. Another problem is 2 you have no way of enforcing the occupancy or the actual price of the units. 3 You have never done that in the last 40 years. When somebody says, 4 "We're going to have this for all low-income people," and when they don't do 5 it, the City sends them a nasty letter saying, "You're terrible people. You're 6 not complying with what you said. Tsk, tsk, that's awful of you." Of course, 7 the developer sobs and cries while he's putting his money in the bank. I 8 would suggest that you require they do something almost unprecedented in 9 the City of Palo Alto: comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the CN zone, the 10 Comprehensive Plan and development compatibility with adjacent buildings. 11 Wouldn't that be remarkable? 12 13 Mayor Burt: Our next speaker is Hamilton Hitchings, to be followed by 14 Winter Dellenbach. 15 16 Hamilton Hitchings: Hi. I'm Hamilton Hitchings. I'm a member of the 17 Citizen’s Advisory Commission (CAC), but I'm not speaking on behalf of 18 them. One of the things we're trying to do as the City of Palo Alto is refocus 19 the development on what the City needs most and work with developers 20 who understand what's needed and are willing to work with the community. 21 I'm a residentialist, so I'm usually on the other side from developers. I 22 actually like these guys. I think there's a lot of potential to work with them 23 to build the kind of project that this City really needs. I think to make this 24 successful we would need to make a few changes. By the way, it's a great 25 location if you work in Stanford Research Park or California Avenue (Cal. 26 Ave). There's a problem because Cal. Ave. parking is completely saturated, 27 so any spillover is going to have a significant negative consequence. There 28 is an easy solution, and you're not going to like this. You just remove the 29 top floor, then it's a 1:1 parking. You increase the unit size by 100 square 30 feet. You get your guest parking. You put in the deed restriction. You do 31 those three things, this project will work. The other thing to keep in mind is 32 if we look at other comparable units of this size, like Carmel the Village, 33 they're renting for $3,000 to $6,000. Unless you have $3,000 a month to 34 spend, you're not going to be able to rent these units probably. However, 35 because we're rezoning it, we can impose requirements on them in 36 exchange for the rezone. They've already said that they would be interested 37 in above the requirement for below market rate. As part of the public 38 benefit, rather than making the ground floor some kind of retail thing, I 39 would encourage a 25 percent below market as part of this rezoning. This 40 will help people who are working in this community, who might not be able 41 to afford it otherwise. Another thing I want to speak out against is ground- 42 floor retail. This is a really lousy spot for ground-floor retail. The other 43 thing to think about is pumping. Remember, if you go down a second floor, 44 you're going to have to pump a lot of water out on that (crosstalk). 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Winter Dellenbach to be followed by Herb Borock. 2 3 Winter Dellenbach: Hi. Winter Dellenbach. Want to remind you 10 years 4 worked at Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, dealt with housing 5 discrimination laws. I wasn't planning to come here, jumped in my car, 6 roared down here. I kept hearing the word preference. I came down here, 7 and I kept hearing it and hearing it. Protected category, class, protected 8 class. I started to get more and more jumpy. I don't think any of you 9 should get excited and be making any sorts of judgments and decisions 10 about all of this stuff. Preference is a rare thing. It shouldn't be thrown out 11 like confetti. People that have preferences, seniors, families, protection 12 against discrimination for families with children, people with disabilities have 13 certain protections. Those are exceptions. They are not the rule. I'm 14 hearing preferences just like preferences galore for firefighters, for this, for 15 that. I counsel you please back off, be very careful. You have legal counsel 16 that can actually give you firm legal advice once they get clear, do the 17 research if there's any sort of workforce protection for a private developer 18 who's going to profit mightily from this rather than a nonprofit developer 19 such as Stanford that can maybe have certain legal protection and rights to 20 do that. A two-bedroom apartment under your own law in Palo Alto— 21 9.74.030 says that you cannot require less than a minimum of two people 22 per bedroom in this town. I heard one of the presenters tonight say 23 something like there's not going to be children here and all this sort of stuff. 24 If this is any kind of a model for what's coming our way, please know that 25 there is no way to prohibit parents with children from living in this housing, 26 older people. This idea that this is millennial housing, that this is young tech 27 worker housing—I find that personally extremely offensive. Housing is 28 housing for people who need housing. If a parent wants to live in a one- 29 bedroom unit with a child, by law they get to do that. Otherwise, it's 30 discriminatory and yells lawsuit at me. Be very careful when you consider 31 this housing and who's going to live there. Everybody gets to live there. 32 33 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Herb Borock, to be followed by 34 Ken Allen. 35 36 Herb Borock: Mayor Burt and Council Members, this is not micro housing. 37 The housing at Alma Place or at the Opportunity Center is micro housing. 38 The reason they don't have very many cars is because they're poor people. 39 It's for low income and very low income people. That's the reason they 40 don't have cars, not because of where it's located. In regard to the previous 41 speaker, you can't discriminate against families with children. In this 42 isolated location for a family with children, they will need cars to get to 43 school and to take children to activities. The options that Staff has offered 44 you for changing zoning is Planned Community zoning by another name. 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 You have suspended Planned Community zoning. The appropriate time for 2 Staff to bring up these suggestions is during the Comprehensive Plan 3 discussions and the Zoning Code that comes out of the Comprehensive Plan 4 and that supports it. If the applicant wants to wait until that new Zoning 5 Code comes up to see if it has any of these ideas, that's the time to do that. 6 You can't deed restrict a rental unit and expect it to be enforced by the 7 developer. You can't even keep track of Below Market Rate (BMR) units 8 where someone goes out and borrows extra money or tries to go sell it for a 9 higher price. You just had one of those on Consent Calendar tonight. It 10 took you so many years to get to that one when the error occurred. If you 11 can't even do that and you have a contractor, the Housing Corporation, 12 that's supposed to keep track of those things for you, how can you possibly 13 do what's being suggested here? I would suggest that we have somebody 14 who bought a property that is zoned Public Facility, if that's what they 15 wanted to buy, those are the rules they should follow. 16 17 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ken Allen, to be followed by 18 Rebecca Sanders. 19 20 Ken Allen: Ken Allen, Grove Avenue. I'm President of the Adobe Meadow 21 Neighborhood Association and speaking as a private citizen. First of all, I 22 note that this location was originally designated to be property turned over 23 to an overpass between a state highway and a county highway. Whatever 24 became of that project? Second, I agree with all of the problems noted on 25 parking. I think it's irrational not to provide at least the minimum parking 26 per unit because you simply cannot limit cars by limiting parking places. 27 That was my experience living in Hamburg, Germany. We lived in a unit of 28 700 square feet. The streets were over-parked. Some people took the 29 available public transportation, but ultimately there were too many cars for 30 the number of units living in that small neighborhood. The larger issue that 31 I'd like to point out is that in the R-1 zone we have a problem with high 32 square-foot residences not having adequate parking spaces. In our 33 neighborhood, we've just encountered such a problem. There has been 34 some accommodation, but I think that you should be looking into that also, 35 to provide adequate off-street parking for such units. Our street is now 36 already overcrowded with single individuals living in single-family houses 37 and filling up the streets. Thank you. 38 39 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rebecca Sanders, to be 40 followed by our final speaker, Jeff Levinsky. 41 42 Rebecca Sanders: Good evening. I'm Rebecca Sanders aka Becky. I'm the 43 moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, and I live at 369 44 Margarita Avenue in Palo Alto. Let's see. The Ventura Neighborhood 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 Association is very concerned about housing for the community's most 2 vulnerable. We are enthusiastic about the idea of micro units and would 3 love to see a sensible pilot project to promote micro units, but this is not it. 4 Our principle objection is that when up-zoning is allowed, citizens don't know 5 what to expect. It's unfair. Also, it clearly benefits the developers who buy 6 a property zoned one way and bank on being treated to an up-zone to their 7 wealth. All the promises about preferences, who will police this? The Code 8 enforcement staff are already overrun and cannot manage the workload they 9 have. No disrespect intended. This is not a small town anymore, so it will 10 fall upon neighbors to tattle on each other. It's just gross. In Ventura, 11 we're waiting for relief for some Code enforcement issues on a bunch of 12 creepy shops that are on El Camino. We have been begging for some 13 attention to those and have had nothing, because the Code people are super 14 busy. Therefore, we urge you to say no to up-zoning the VTA parking lot. 15 We don't need more traffic, safety problems, pollution, developer giveaways, 16 monster buildings that are given Code exemptions in our neighborhood. 17 With all the developments under construction and in the pipeline in Cal. Ave. 18 and abutting neighborhoods, the collective impact has yet to be measured. 19 We do need a comprehensive solution to our housing solution, not this one- 20 by-one spot zoning, piecemeal, disaster area. Please do your duty to rein in 21 these baby Godzillas by giving them a timeout. Thank you for your attention 22 this evening. I appreciate your service to our fair City. 23 24 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Final speaker is Jeff Levinsky. 25 26 Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council. I get to play cleanup 27 here. First of all, it's about 36 cars that are parked on that site right now. 28 We'd like to know where those cars are going to go if a building is on top. I 29 don't think a second layer down below would be enough to handle those 30 cars. That's one question. Another is a question about what happens if you 31 rent one of these apartments and then you become disabled and you need a 32 car to get around. Will you be kicked out of the apartment because of that? 33 That's unthinkable. I don't understand how the provision would work there. 34 If you look at the plans there, some of the ground-floor units have balconies 35 that face right onto Oregon Expressway. The fumes and such and health 36 problems of that seem pretty awful. Caltrain is full, if you haven't heard 37 lately. Handing out passes to Caltrain doesn't mean people are actually 38 going to get to take Caltrain. For all those reasons, it feels like an 39 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or something like that would need to 40 well precede anything like this project going forward at all. I think that 41 should be part of the discussion. As to pilot projects, let me point out that 42 we have TDMs and PCs right now that are not being enforced. I live right 43 next to one where they knocked down a historic building with a slap on the 44 wrist. They have a grocery store that's not operating, and this has been 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 going on for about a year and a half now. Nothing has changed. If the City 2 is looking for a pilot project, how about enforcing all the promises that have 3 already been made to the public and not kept? Thank you. 4 5 Mayor Burt: Thank you. We'll now return to the Council. Because this is a 6 Study Session, we won't be having any votes. The Staff and the applicant 7 will be hearing general comments from members of the Council and attempt 8 to get a sense of our inclinations on that basis. Council Member Filseth. 9 10 Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. Thanks very much to the 11 applicant for the cogent presentation and for all the speakers who came 12 here. I have comments about basically four things. I want to talk about the 13 60 micro units and then the PF free zoning and also the density up-zoning. 14 Then, I want to suggest a line of thinking about how the City—I think deed 15 restriction is going to be a big part of that. On the 60 micro units, I think 16 adding 60 small units to the City's housing stock seems generally 17 reasonable. Palo Alto's long-term housing growth is 0.6, 0.7 percent over 18 the last several decades, which amounts to a couple hundred units a year. I 19 think that would fit into this reasonably well. Also, a number of people have 20 pointed out that if you look at the proportion of small units in Palo Alto, it's 21 smaller than the proportion of small households in Palo Alto. Adding some 22 more small units generally seems reasonable too. Let's see. On the 23 location, definitely mixed feelings about that. I think a positive is it's near 24 jobs in Palo Alto, specifically the Research Park, which I think is great. I 25 think that makes a lot more sense than trying to put everything next to the 26 train station, where you'll get people that commute out of town. A negative 27 is that this is one of the most traffic congested areas in town. It's clearly 28 still going to add cars; otherwise, it wouldn't need any parking at all. 29 Somewhat mixed feelings on the location, but generally not an unreasonable 30 thing to think about. The parking issue is a huge issue, and I hope other 31 people will talk about that too. On the project itself, I think there are two 32 different aspects. One is the PF rezone, and the other is the density. PF is a 33 very special and unusual case. The zone Public Facility means it's dedicated 34 to uses of benefit to the community. Everything we want takes land. How 35 much time and discussion has this Council and Staff spent since the current 36 Council on where are we going to look for space for Public Safety Buildings 37 and parks and other public amenities and so forth. We just took up the 38 animal shelter last week. Most people think we're going to need a new 39 animal shelter at some point or other. Where it would go is still a huge 40 asterisk. On a PF piece of land is a reasonable thing to look at. I think it'd 41 be a good place for it. Yet, even as we all are aware of the stringency of 42 real estate in town, I think we actually may still continue to underestimate 43 the long-term value of land here even now. I think we should be very, very 44 cautious about rezoning PF land. It's a one-way thing. You never get it 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 back. You never get more PF land, only less. If you rezone PF land, it can't 2 be used for community purposes again, and that releases a lot of value. We 3 need to be mindful of that as we scratch our head, looking for space on 4 things. Commercially zoned land is worth a lot more per square foot than 5 Public Facility land. Rezoning this PF property is instantly going to create a 6 lot of monetary value, potentially millions of dollars. I don't see why we— 7 Windy Hill seemed like good folks that want to work with us, but I don't see 8 why we should simply hand this value over to a developer. If we do rezone, 9 the City ought to get some of that value. We ought to share in that. I don't 10 think just having some more expensive housing in town is enough value in 11 itself. That's the PF. Let me talk about the density for a minute. There was 12 a question earlier about how much will the units rent for. Maybe I can help 13 with that. The going rate in this town for a 500-square-foot studio or one- 14 bedroom unit is currently about $2,000 to $2,500. If you had 60 of those at 15 an average rent of $2,000 a month, you'd have a free cash flow of about 16 $1.44 million, but of course that will grow every year because the rent 17 increases a few percent every year. If you compare that to the chart in the 18 Staff's—if you had CN zoning, in that case you'd have 20 units, probably 19 two-bedroom condos renting for $3,500 a month or so, which would add up 20 to $840,000. This project is going to collect almost twice as much money in 21 rent as a conventional zoning, even if you up-zoned it from PF. How much is 22 that actually worth? I think people should work that out on their own. You 23 figure the land costs a few million. The construction may be $25 million, 24 because that's what 441 Page Mill, which was approximately the same size, 25 was estimated. Maybe they can finance at around six percent per year. 26 Assume you raise the rent a few percent each year. I actually went back to 27 the model that Keyser and Marston used in the 441 Page Mill project. I 28 think people ought to try it for themselves. This proposal looks to me like it 29 generates a real large amount of value. The up-zoning to R-130 in this case 30 is worth many more times than just the PF conversion itself. Over 50 years, 31 I'm guessing that after costs it clears $50 million to $100 million, but again I 32 think folks ought to work it out for themselves. I know they don't want to 33 do this, but if you just cashed out right away, I believe one-bedroom condos 34 in north Palo Alto are currently selling in the low $900,000s. If you had 60 35 of those, you do the arithmetic and if you wanted to get out right away. The 36 point of all this is that rezoning this property for high-density housing would 37 create a great deal of value. I don't know that we ought to rezone the PF for 38 all the previous reasons. If we are going to countenance rezoning a Public 39 Facility like this, then I think the City ought to share in that value. I want to 40 suggest a way to do that in terms of housing, since we're talking about 41 housing. There's been a lot of talk about affordability. I think there's a 42 chance here to actually do something about affordability. In my view and 43 not everybody agrees, our biggest housing problem is not finding space for 44 professionals who can afford to pay $2,000 a month for a studio. They can 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 do this now if they look a little. I think the Vice Mayor eloquently described 2 it a month or so ago as they have to knock on a few more doors. I believe 3 our biggest problem is housing low and middle income people who can't pay 4 $2,000 a month for a one-bedroom, and that includes people like Windy Hill 5 mentioned, teachers, City Staff, first responders and so forth. These are 6 plus-one people who add extra value to our community just by being here. 7 If we had more of these community workforce people here, that would be 8 public value. That's not going to happen if these folks have to bid for their 9 housing against high-paid tech workers like the 6,500 that Facebook is going 10 to put in Menlo Park next door over the next couple of years. Tonight's just 11 a Study Session. It's Public Facility land. I think we ought to deed restrict 12 to City employees and School District employees. That would be community 13 workforce housing. Maybe that's not the exact mechanism, but it's simple. 14 We had a bunch of discussion about preferences and so forth earlier, and 15 that's all good too, but it seemed a little fluid to me. If you list it at $2,000 16 a month, you're not going to fill it up with teachers. If you can't find any 17 teachers after six months, then it's going to be engineers like I used to be a 18 lot of years ago. Maybe there's some other way, but it's got to have teeth in 19 it. You actually have to have lower rent than $2,000 a month in order for 20 this to work. Maybe it's not deed restrictions, maybe just some kind of 21 zoning mechanism. I actually do like this kind of mechanism. It's not a 22 blunt instrument, as blunt as rent control because you still have market 23 forces at work, just sort of a smaller market. This is the way that Stanford 24 housed a lot of its faculty. I think we ought to learn from that. Plus, by 25 definition, all these folks would be working in town, not commuting in or out 26 somewhere. In principle, it's an ideal group to use bikes or other forms of 27 non-automobile transit. I'm not sold we ought to be going around 28 converting Public Facility land to commercial uses. I think if we're serious 29 about community workforce housing, then eventually we're going to have to 30 pay for it. This is one way to do that. If we're entertaining rezoning Public 31 Facility land and up-zoning for density, then the public ought to get 32 compensated for it. I think we ought to give this kind of mechanism some 33 real consideration. As Neilson point out, if we can make a program like this 34 work here, then maybe we can replicate it other places. If we let this go by, 35 I think we're going to miss a real opportunity. If we don't go this direction, 36 if we just up-zone it and it goes on the market and so forth, I don't see that 37 it makes sense to change the Public Facility zoning. If we're willing to tackle 38 something like this, where there's real community benefit, then we ought to 39 consider it. Thanks. 40 41 Mayor Burt: I'd just like to pause and see if the City Attorney has any 42 guidance on the issues that Council Member Filseth raised. If we're going to 43 be having any follow-up discussion, we have that in the context of what's 44 TRANSCRIPT 1 legally permissible and what happens when we have a site like this that was 2 Public Facility zoned, owned by the VTA and then what latitude do we have. 3 4 Ms. Silver: In terms of the rezoning issue, the Council needs to evaluate the 5 property in terms of are there any viable uses existing on the site. If there 6 are no viable uses, then the applicant does have a right to a rezoning 7 request. If there are other uses for the site, then there the Council has 8 broad discretion as to whether a rezoning is appropriate in this particular 9 case. As to the workforce housing, I think that could fall under one of the 10 scenarios that the pilot program is exploring. It would probably be in—we 11 would look at increasing the affordability component, the inclusionary 12 component of one of the proposals. I think it's within the realm. We would 13 want to know what your thoughts are as to how much of the housing should 14 be deed restricted or given a preference. 15 16 Mayor Burt: This site was sold from the VTA to a private party, I think, over 17 two years ago. Does that have any bearing on our latitude in terms of being 18 able to restrict it to a Public Facility at this time? 19 20 Ms. Silver: It's currently zoned Public Facility. There are some private uses 21 that can be developed under Public Facility zoning. 22 23 Vice Mayor Scharff: Can I follow-up on that? 24 Mayor Burt: Go ahead. 25 Vice Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to make sure it's clear in my mind. I 26 believe there are educational facilities allowed under Public Facility. Is that 27 correct? Aren't those private—you can do just public schools or is it private 28 educational facilities? 29 30 Ms. Gerhardt: Private schools and trade schools would be allowed with a 31 Conditional Use Permit. 32 33 Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman. 34 35 Council Member Berman: Thank you to the applicant and the folks from the 36 community who have spoken. Also, I want to thank the folks who emailed 37 and didn't necessarily come today. We had a handful more emails that were 38 opposed to the project, and then over 70 emails—I last checked a couple of 39 hours ago—in support of the project. I know those folks aren't here in the— 40 I'm sorry? 41 42 Male: (inaudible) 43 TRANSCRIPT 1 Council Member Berman: Those aren't people who are here today, but I 2 want to make sure it's noted that there was a significant amount of public 3 support for the need for more housing. Let me ask a question of everyone 4 in the audience really quickly, five seconds. If you think we have a housing 5 shortage in Palo Alto, please raise your hand. 6 7 Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman, I don't want to do polling from 8 potential Council Members. 9 10 Council Member Berman: Got you. I wasn't counting. There's one 11 guaranteed way that we won't get more housing in Palo Alto, and that's if we 12 kind of burden any proposal with totally unrealistic expectations. I get 13 concerned when those of us on the dais, myself included, that have—I have 14 zero experience in building housing anywhere—get our napkins out and start 15 doing calculations on the fly without actually consulting with people in the 16 housing industry to figure out whether or not any of those calculations are 17 realistic and actually applicable to the project. I also want to remind all of 18 us that this is just a Study Session. I'm sure if the applicant were to put 19 forth a proposal, we'd flesh out these numbers a lot more. I hope that we 20 do that. I hope that the feedback from the Council is that there's 21 community need and support for additional housing at this site. That's what 22 the vast majority of us said a year and a half or two years ago when we 23 roundly rejected a proposal for commercial office space at this site. We 24 talked a lot about the—it's shockingly, strikingly clear that the applicant 25 listened and paid close attention to the Council's comments at that time, 26 because they've almost checked every box, I think, in the proposal of things 27 that Council Members brought up as ways that we could have additional 28 housing and create—yes, we do need to have zoning reforms that encourage 29 more units per acre, not less units per acre, and this type of thing. We don't 30 have that now, and I don't want to wait until that process is completed 31 before possibly approving this project and creating 60 units of desperately 32 needed housing. We talked about traffic concerns and the PF zone. It could 33 be parks; it could be medical; it could be schools. I don't know, but I 34 believe that all of those uses have higher traffic impacts than housing. 35 That's something that can come up as the conversation continues on this 36 site. The reason I asked my timing question—the fact that this project 37 wouldn't be built for 2 1/2 years—is the way that we get around in society is 38 changing every couple of months. The City Council is looking at additional 39 solutions, including expanding our shuttle system and others, to really 40 incentivize people to get out of their car or not even need a car and be able 41 to bike or take a motorized bike or walk or take Caltrain. Some people have 42 mentioned Caltrain is full. This project wouldn't be completed until 43 electrification would be completed soon thereafter. That's going to 44 dramatically increase the capacity on Caltrain to make it more of a viable 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 option. I didn't think we'd see this. I remember the commercial proposal 2 that we had. I talked with those folks, the Pollack group, afterwards. They 3 said, "We can't do commercial. We'll build a hotel. We've crunched the 4 numbers, and a hotel is the only viable thing that we can build there. We 5 looked at housing, but it just doesn't work." Maybe a year later, I kind of 6 got wind of this housing proposal, and it took me by surprise, because I'd 7 kind of given up on that. I think that this is a perfect place for housing. I 8 support ground-floor retail as well, but I don't know that it's necessary at 9 this location. I think that'll increase traffic. I don't know that it'll be very 10 successful. Frankly, my number one priority over retail, over office space is 11 housing. If it's something that's going to reduce the number of units on the 12 site for retail in a non-ideal location, I don't think that's necessary for me. 13 That's definitely not necessary to get my support for the project. The issue 14 of open space has come up, and open space is important. I'd argue that the 15 need for housing is greater than the need for balconies. I would encourage 16 the applicant to look at creating some sort of community garden. My 17 girlfriend lives in a studio apartment in San Francisco. I think the units are 18 500 to 600 square feet per. They don't have balconies, but there's a 19 community garden in the back. They all have their own little plants that 20 they want, and they have a grill back there. That's an area where they get 21 together on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Being more efficient with our 22 space—I think if you have a good-sized community garden area as opposed 23 to small, individual balconies—I have a balcony where I live. I actually have 24 two. I never use them. Why? Because I'm never home. I don't think we 25 can deed restrict—I think Winter brought up legitimate concerns about how 26 we move forward on deed restricting these units. A large number of people 27 who live there will be millennials that are working very hard. I love having 28 windows, but I don't need the balcony. If there were a community garden 29 area, that could be a place that I'd go hang out. I'm not a stickler ... 30 31 Mayor Burt: If you were home. 32 33 Council Member Berman: If I were home, exactly. I'm not a stickler for that 34 requirement. You guys have offered up—this is all still in the proposal at the 35 preliminary stages. You clearly have thought out the TDM issues. That 36 definitely comes across. Staff is working on ways that we can make sure 37 that we're enforcing those requirements as well. The Mayor brought up 38 examples where sites like this don't need one parking space per unit. I 39 realize that that's what we've historically done, but the way people live is 40 changing. That's just no longer needed. I think what we need is the 41 housing units more than the parking spaces. Those are just a couple of my 42 thoughts. Obviously none of this is final. None of this is fully baked. I love 43 the idea of getting 60 units on this site. I don't think that it's under-parked 44 in terms of how it will actually be used in reality for the people who live 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 there. We do need housing of all types. I'm the liaison to the Palo Alto 2 Housing this year. I've asked Staff, and I think we're scheduling, I hope, 3 soon, like early October, a Study Session with Palo Alto Housing to talk 4 about affordable housing. This isn't meant to be affordable housing. This is 5 a private owner of the land that wants to build market rate housing. We 6 need housing of all types if we're going to start to lessen the increases that 7 are happening every year and the cost of housing. I don't know that 8 housing costs will ever go down in Palo Alto, but maybe they won't go up as 9 much. This is a part of the overall solution. We shouldn't burden this 10 project with the need to solve our entire housing problem across all of Palo 11 Alto. Let's take it as a great opportunity to build 60 units of studio and one- 12 bedroom housing in a location that makes sense. 13 14 Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid. 15 16 Council Member Schmid: Thanks for the ideas, the proposals. They raise 17 for Palo Alto a critical issue, how do we deal with the housing need, in a 18 provocative way. As a number of speakers said, this is being done with one 19 project. You're asking us really to comment on Comp Plan issues, land use 20 issues, zoning issues, all of which have wider impacts based on a single 21 project. I guess that worries me. I think denser housing opportunities in 22 the City is a good thing. It makes sense. We need to identify how many, 23 where, how much, critical questions. We also need to be aware—this is what 24 the Comp Plan should bring us—of how does it change our community. I 25 guess I'm mystified why this is coming before we've talked about the land 26 use on our Comp Plan. I was looking back at our earlier schedules. It was 27 scheduled for June 6th. It would be very appropriate if we had that 28 discussion before this proposal came up, but we haven't. We have to talk 29 about our community and our land use in terms of a single project. How 30 would this project contribute to the community? What community do we 31 want? I know when I think about Palo Alto I think of it as a special place. 32 It's the heart of Silicon Valley. How did it get to be that way? If you look 33 back at the history of how it evolved over the last 50, 60 years, it evolved in 34 a community in a unique way, a community that valued mobility. Palo Alto 35 has twice the job change of experienced workers compared to other 36 communities in the U.S. Job options are important. They're important not 37 just for people in their 20s, but they are important for people in their 30s 38 and 40s and 50s and 60s. Talented, experienced people are mobile and 39 bring ideas to new places. Innovation comes from that. It doesn't come as 40 much from big cities where people are in dense communities, but in an 41 open, mobile community. One question is we want to take one example of 42 small, what are being called micro units. Great for young, dependent 43 workers. Harder when they get experienced and talented and want to have 44 families or maybe changes jobs if there are two people sharing an apartment 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 and they have two jobs. Within a few years, it'll be four jobs. How do you 2 make those contacts, keep them alive? We've targeted one project and one 3 segment of our community, but will it be dangerous for the wider 4 community? Looking at our Comp Plan materials that we have, it is striking 5 the discrepancy between the City's demographic forecast and the school's 6 demographic forecast. If you've ever looked at it, the school projects that 7 the school-age population will grow 0.2 percent per year. Palo Alto's ... 8 9 Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid, I think we need to be more focused 10 on the matter before us. I appreciate that you consider it in a very broad 11 context, but Staff has asked that the framing of this Study Session be 12 around specific things. Can you focus your comments on that? 13 14 Council Member Schmid: I appreciate your comments, and I'm saying that I 15 think you have to vote on this project with the land use and zoning in mind. 16 17 Mayor Burt: We're not voting on this project tonight, Council Member 18 Schmid. 19 20 Council Member Schmid: We are giving advice. When you plan the project, 21 think about the project. You have to think about the community it's in, the 22 parking, the lack of cars. You're taking mobility away from the community. 23 If this is used as a significant example of other projects in town, how far do 24 we want to go? How many projects like this before we change the 25 community? Palo Alto has a ratio, 24 percent of households have children. 26 In San Francisco and many other central cities around the country, that ratio 27 is 11 or 12 percent. This project would lower our ratio, bring it down from 28 what it has been traditionally. The question is in this project would it be 29 more beneficial if you used denser housing to have a greater variety and 30 opportunities within that area. When we think about this project or the Cal. 31 Ave. area, don't we want a greater diversity of opportunities for housing in 32 that area? Thank you. 33 34 Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. 35 36 Council Member Holman: Thank you. I appreciate what the applicant is 37 trying to accomplish. I appreciate some of the thoughts behind what you 38 put into this. Also appreciate the commitments to some very creative TDM 39 measures that, I think, would apply to a project like this or a number of 40 other projects. It's not all bad news. My concerns actually are—they're 41 around several things. One is that we do have a housing problem here. It's 42 not our only problem, though, and our only concern, though. When we have 43 a project here or there or anywhere that is so drastically and dramatically 44 different from what the zoning allows, it hasn't had any vetting in the 45 community, no analysis. For me, a project like—let's just pretend that this 46 TRANSCRIPT 1 project gets enough indication from Council saying go forth. It's a PC, and I 2 can't imagine that it's anything but a PC. Here's why. It's a one-off. No 3 way in the world should, in my opinion, the Council support without 4 adequate vetting in the Comp Plan and with any kind of zoning 5 considerations the micro housing combining district overlay be established 6 on the basis of one project. That would mean it would apply anywhere that 7 we applied that, without any kind of study or vetting. No way do I think we 8 should apply consideration for a one-off project to modify the PTOD 9 combining district, because then it would apply to the whole PTOD district 10 without any kind of vetting or study of what the impacts would be and what 11 the viability is of this kind of project. A pilot project in the PF zone, it's so 12 disparate from what the PF zone uses are that I don't see how that could 13 happen. It is that there is not a density requirement in the RT-50 of SOFA. 14 That was done very thoughtfully and carefully. It is also a 1.5 FAR 15 maximum, so that's also a difference. It also has a higher parking 16 requirement. That's also very close to transit, so that was considered at the 17 time. If we were going to look at SOFA right now, I might update the 18 parking requirements somewhat, but that is what it is. The lowest parking 19 requirement there is one parking space for a studio. There's not a BMR 20 housing requirement that's being required of this project or being offered in 21 this project. The permit parking in the neighborhood, which I appreciate the 22 applicant is willing to participate in, who pays for that RPP? It's not an 23 inexpensive gesture. Someone has to pay for it. I do think that this site 24 should have retail on the ground floor on the El Camino side. Otherwise, it's 25 a dead corner; it's just an absolute dead corner. We have retail across the 26 way from it on the south side of Page Mill, and it works very well. The 27 project also, because of its size and scale, violates many aspects of the 28 South El Camino Design Guidelines and the El Camino Grand Boulevard 29 Design Guidelines as well in terms of setbacks and step-backs. I actually 30 would be—the smaller units are something we need. To help satisfy some of 31 the density issues with something like this, a mix of at least some of the unit 32 sizes would be a better outcome. The comment was made earlier about 33 open space. I agree that having balconies on Page Mill is not ideal. That 34 means also this is the best place for housing. It's a very congested 35 intersection, which means there's a lot of air issues here at least to this point 36 in time. They're not going to change in the next, I'd say, 20 years probably 37 before we become more fuel-free cars, if you will. It doesn't mean that 38 people shouldn't have open space on the back side of the project or 39 someplace where it's more protected. I don't think it's—I won't go into the 40 soccer fields location at this point in time. I've said many times we need to 41 be housing people, but not warehousing people. My viewpoint has been for 42 many years if people don't have adequate open space, we're warehousing 43 people. Everybody at whatever income level, whatever age, whatever rent 44 they're paying deserve a reasonable quality of life. Open space for me is 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 one of the major quality of life determinants. Just having to do with the 2 mass, scale and design, like I said, housing is one of our needs, but it's not 3 our only need. This needs to be designed with the care that it's compatible 4 and satisfies our other design requirements. We had a requirement for a 5 water reservoir, but we took the care and spent the money to make sure 6 that it was designed well. It was a great project, and it is a great project. A 7 project on such a prominent corner as this needs to be a great project. At 8 this point in time—I know this is early. I know this is just a prescreening 9 just to give comments about what direction and directions, from my 10 perspective, this should go. Those kind of encapsulate my comments. 11 Thank you. 12 13 Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff. 14 15 Vice Mayor Scharff: Thank you. A whole bunch of different things. First of 16 all, I guess I wanted to say on the current zoning. Whereas, I don't share 17 Council Member Filseth's beliefs on that; I do believe, though, that we have 18 a right to keep it as Public Facility because of the educational use. We just— 19 was it last Council meeting or two Council meetings ago—changed the 20 zoning or said we would consider changing the zoning to educational use for 21 two retail parcels because there's a shortage of places for schools. It's clear 22 to me, at least in my mind—obviously we want to get legal counsel's opinion 23 on it. I believe we could keep the zoning exactly the way it is, if we wanted 24 to. I don't believe we have any duty to change it or any reason to. With 25 that said, I was really skeptical of this project, I would say. It violates all 26 the principles that I typically support, which would be ground-floor retail, 27 projects that are fully parked, projects that don't add to traffic and 28 congestion, all of that. The developer here has been really forthright and 29 really willing to think outside the box to make this work. For me, I'm really 30 interested in seeing if we could have a project, which doesn't have traffic 31 and congestion. For me, this project works with 45 parking spaces instead 32 of 109 or something like that if we have deed restrictions that say you can't 33 own cars or something similar to that. I'm not interested in this if it's not 34 going to really work. If we really do have, frankly, straight-out deed 35 restriction, a deed restriction on the entire project that says no more than X 36 number of units may have a car and we have ways to enforce that, if that 37 happens, then I would support this. I think it's out of the box. I think it 38 could be a great pilot project. For me, the devil's in the details about how 39 we actually enforce no cars or 50 percent of the people would basically have 40 cars under this, in my view. Given that it's 45 parking spaces, it's about 50 41 percent of the parking. That's the direction I would give to the developer. 42 Come back with a proposal that's robust and says there won't be any cars 43 more than the parking spaces, so it won't include parking. If you had that 44 less parking, then I would assume this would create not very much traffic 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 because there wouldn't be a lot of cars. Without traffic issues and without 2 parking issues, I think this is a great project. The other thing I think it does 3 is it could improve traffic congestion because it's doing the right-hand turn 4 right there on Page Mill. I think that's a real net positive. I'm really only 5 also interested in this project if we do an Option 1, which is the pilot project 6 in the PF zone. I don't want to go out and rezone a bunch of areas of Palo 7 Alto. I'd be interested in doing this project as a pilot, seeing how we could 8 control this. I was also really heartened when the developer said he was 9 interested in having real teeth in a TDM program. That also meant 10 something to me, if he's willing to accept fines and that kind of stuff. That 11 means he really believes in it. If he really believes in it, then I'm willing to 12 take a flyer on it. I also thought the concept of a rooftop park could be 13 really nice, if you want to have gardens or parks or whatever. I understand 14 it's a cost issue, but I think it goes to some of the open space issue. The 15 other thing I wanted to bring up is I also did appreciate the developer 16 focusing on the ground-floor retail issue and having a bike shop there. I 17 thought that also goes with the TDM project nicely, focusing on bikes. I 18 actually thought that was really thoughtful, and I appreciated that. I did 19 have some concerns about the El Camino Real Guidelines. Staff highlighted 20 that the project doesn't meet it. We have a big garage up there on El 21 Camino. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but that obviously is an 22 issue, having a big garage that faces it without—on a prominent corner like 23 that, what we were thinking about the El Camino Real Guidelines. I did 24 think a little bit that tonight we're talking about other guidelines and how 25 seriously do we take these guidelines and how important are they. That's 26 just something, I think, I'd put out there that we should think about. 27 Overall, I would like to see this project move forward. I would be very 28 interested to see how the developer goes ahead and solves the parking and 29 traffic issues we've discussed. 30 31 Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss. 32 33 Council Member Kniss: Again, thanks to the developer. You listened clearly, 34 came back. I know that the CAC has discussed this extensively as well. Just 35 a couple of reflections. We've had some long conversations about this 36 tonight. I'm going to make this a little shorter. One of the things we did in 37 the spring—looking at the Mayor, he wanted to find out whether or not a 38 transportation tax would fly in this community. In April, we did a pretty 39 extensive survey of the community about a variety of things. Their first 40 concern literally was the cost of housing. Three out of four people who 41 answered that poll said the cost of housing was an issue in this community, 42 including cost and of course availability. It's the lack of availability that's an 43 issue. Two or three other things. Tom DuBois and I were talking about cars 44 the other day. Tom convinced me that cars are on their way out, that we 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 are going to have self-driving cars, we will have a different system probably 2 within 5 to 10 years. We're also hearing this project wouldn't be done for 3 another probably three to four years, if ever. Cars changing the way they 4 operate. We may not all have a self-driving car, but we will easily have 5 access to Scoop and Lyft and a whole variety of other ways that are new to 6 us. Most of us didn't take Uber four years ago; there was no way. A couple 7 of other thoughts. I actually was on VTA when we sold this property. It was 8 initially five years ago, and then four years ago. I remember it very well. I 9 don't think it's ever been anything other than a parking lot, but I wanted to 10 ask if anyone else could remember that far back. Usually the only one that 11 can remember is Bob Moss. 12 13 Council Member Holman: There used to be a little eating place there. 14 Council Member Kniss: Pardon me? 15 Council Member Holman: There used to be a little eating place there long 16 ago, probably in the '80s. 17 18 Council Member Kniss: That I don't remember. Clearly this has been a 19 parking lot for a long period of time. I would have to say, to the person who 20 was interested in the parking there, I don't think that the owner, whomever 21 that might be, must keep a parking lot there. It's currently used pretty 22 casually and very often by the soccer players who are across the street. A 23 couple of thoughts. This is one of those "don't throw out the baby with the 24 bath water" yet, because I think this has some real promise but needs to be 25 far more affordable. We are really talking about affordable in our 26 community. The Vice Mayor's comments regarding can you actually enforce 27 some kind of limitation on those who live in the building is really a good 28 question. That's one that I would want answered. As far as retail, there is 29 some retail across the street, but the retail across the street has parking. 30 I've often gone to that retail. On the far side of the street, there is Palo Alto 31 Square. Across the street is soccer. Next door to this on either side are 32 multi-unit dwellings, one being Sunrise, the other being, I think, some other 33 housing right next door to it. We've said several times housing should be on 34 this site. The question is what can we determine should be on the site and 35 what would come forward that would get five votes. That's really where we 36 are at this point. I'm delighted it's come forward. I'm still convinced there 37 should be housing there. I'm not sure exactly how we get to the yes point. 38 Those are my comments. 39 40 Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. 41 42 Council Member Wolbach: When we saw a prescreening for this site last 43 year, as I think a couple of other people have mentioned, I was certainly one 44 TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 of those who said I don't like the fact that it worsens our jobs/housing 2 imbalance, and what I'd love to see there is a lot of housing. I'd even be 3 open to a car-free or car-lite site. That implied that I'd be open to a project 4 where there was parking for visitors, maybe people who work for the 5 property, contractors. That's about it. This actually has a lot more parking 6 than what I would envision as a true pilot, car-lite, car-free project. I would 7 call this a compromise. The units are not micro units. They are smaller 8 units. We talked about this earlier during the question and answer and the 9 presentation. These are actually about double the size of true micro units, 10 which can be as small as 250 square feet. These are no smaller than 500 11 square feet per unit. Again, it's a compromise. It's a step in a different 12 direction for Palo Alto. As Mayor Burt pointed out earlier, this is something 13 we've done historically in the past, projects kind of like this. For example, 14 the President Hotel. It is a divergence from what we've done in recent 15 memory. It's quite a divergence. A number of times over the last year or 16 two as we've talked about our Comprehensive Plan, as we've talked about 17 the housing crisis and the housing challenges in Palo Alto and in the region, 18 a number of us on Council, not just when this site came forward for its 19 previous prescreening but a number of times, we've talked about wanting to 20 see or at least explore maybe a site where we get rid of the unit cap but 21 maintain our height limit, maintain our FAR limits that are at least 22 reasonable. Maybe have some reduced parking requirement and maybe find 23 a way to have some teeth so that we could actually restrict the ability of 24 people or strongly discourage them such that on average people would not 25 need as many cars for the project. I appreciate that this project tries to 26 move us in that direction. This actually gives us an opportunity to—if this 27 does move forward, if the applicant does move forward with an application, 28 that will provide an opportunity for us to direct City Planning Staff, City 29 Attorney Staff, etc., to start asking some really tough questions. What can 30 we do? What legally are we allowed to do? Until we have some projects to 31 start really looking at those questions around, given how much we've been 32 talking about it and haven't made progress yet, I'm not convinced we're 33 ever going to really get the answers to those questions unless we move 34 forward with something. I actually do hope that the applicant does move 35 forward with an application, so we can start picking apart these tough 36 questions. There have been a number of things raised that I do want to 37 address and a couple of things I had mentioned earlier as questions. I'll just 38 say them now as statements. If there is an effort to prioritize in some way 39 certain segments of the community, I would like to see seniors included in 40 that list potentially Seniors on average, not always. A lot of them do like to 41 drive and still work very hard and are not retired of course. A lot of seniors 42 don't drive as much or have a more flexible schedule and don't need to try 43 at rush hour and so don't contribute to peak traffic impacts. That's really 44 one of the issues right around the Page Mill/El Camino intersection, which is 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 I think the worst in Palo Alto. I do like the addition of a right-hand turn 2 lane. Certainly as car queue heading south on Page Mill across El Camino, 3 they do tend to back up. Because they slow down to make that right-hand 4 turn, sometimes people behind them who are trying to go straight don't get 5 a chance to clear out of the intersection. They have to wait there for 6 another cycle of the light, and that can be a long light. I think that would 7 probably be a real help. As I mentioned before, I'm a motorcycle rider 8 myself. Yes, I do also sometimes drive, about 50/50. I would like to see 9 some kind of options for scooters or motorcycle riders to have parking there. 10 Just brainstorming here. Maybe when people apply to look at the building, 11 ask them, "Do you want a parking space for a car or do you want a parking 12 space for a motorbike." If you get three or four people who say their 13 (inaudible) space for their motorbike, then you can maybe restripe one of 14 the parking spaces to be motorbike parking. Again, just brainstorming here. 15 I'll let you guys figure that out; just encouraging you to think about the 16 options around that. In addressing the housing crisis, the housing issues, 17 the housing challenges, however you want to phrase it, most people 18 recognize we don't have a lot of studios and one-bedrooms in Palo Alto. We 19 need them. I think the first person to point this out to me was former 20 Planning Commissioner Arthur Keller a couple of years ago at an Our Palo 21 Alto meeting. He was giving me the stats on how many studios and one- 22 bedrooms has and what our need really is. Once they get to the point of 23 recognizing there's an overall supply and demand issue and it's particularly 24 acute around studios and one-bedrooms, then the question inevitably is how 25 do you actually get them built. How do you force the developer to build 26 studios and one-bedrooms when they just seem to want to build big, luxury 27 penthouses? As far as I can see it, there are at least three big impediments. 28 Those are, as I seem them, our low unit maximums with 40 units per acre 29 as our highest maximum generally; our high parking requirements which 30 makes units very expensive, and it's per unit. If you have fewer big, luxury 31 units, you don't have to provide as much parking, and then it's cheaper for 32 the developer. If you provide a lot of units and you have to build 1 or 1.5 33 parking spaces per unit for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars apiece, 34 it's less of an incentive. Usually people don't do that; it doesn't pencil out. 35 The other third biggest impediment I see is our slow and strict and 36 sometimes subjective approval process. If we do actually want to see 37 smaller units, studios, one-bedrooms built in Palo Alto, I think we're going to 38 have to realize that those three impediments exist, and we're going to have 39 to be flexible once in a while or across the board. As far as the question 40 about how much do these cost, Council Member Filseth was estimating that 41 they would probably run 2,000 to 2,500 per unit. Even if that's not very low 42 income housing, there are 60 people out there who need that. If they can 43 move in there, that's 60 units less pressure on the rest of the market to help 44 others. One project is not going to solve the rest of the issue, but we hear a 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 lot of talk about collective impacts, cumulative impacts. We hear it talked 2 about as a negative. Every project adds potentially cumulative impact on 3 things in Palo Alto. Adding 60 units of housing, that's a cumulative positive 4 impact on our housing crisis. The questions was raise, I think, by Council 5 Member Holman about vetting in the community and making sure that we 6 have some vetting. That's exactly what we're starting tonight. We've heard 7 a lot of community input. I know we'll hear about this. As for the question 8 of whether this is a PC, if this is a one-off, I'll be honest. I think a lot of us 9 would like to see small units and micro units more broadly across Downtown 10 and in the Cal. Ave. areas, but we recognize that a lot of others on this 11 Council and in the community—I'll wrap this up shortly—a lot of others 12 aren't ready for that. We're willing to compromise and say, "You know 13 what? Let's try one." We've been asking for a pilot, and I'm glad somebody 14 heard us and brought something forward. If anyone thinks it's inappropriate 15 to do this as a one-off and they want to make a Motion that we do this very 16 broadly, I'd be happy to hear that Motion, but I don't think we're going to 17 hear it tonight. In fact, I'm going to be following Vice Mayor Scharff's idea 18 that we go for one of the more limited suggestions here. 19 20 Mayor Burt: We won't be having any Motions tonight under a Study 21 Session. 22 23 Council Member Wolbach: Right, I know. I mean when this comes back or 24 in the future. One more thing I do want to address is there's this idea that I 25 heard raised about warehousing people if it's not the kind of unit that you 26 want to live in. I do think it's important to recognize that we all make this 27 mistake every once in a while of thinking, "If I want something, that's the 28 best thing for everyone else." I think it's important for us to realize that 29 that's why you need diversity in the market. Not everybody wants the same 30 thing or they might not even want the same thing at every stage in their life. 31 It's important to have those options out there. That's what Palo Alto 32 currently lacks, that range of diversity in housing options. This would fill 33 that need, and that's why I'm largely supportive of the project. There's 34 been a great deal of discussion tonight and I agree that the devil's in the 35 details. If and when an application comes forward, we'll be looking very 36 closely at where the teeth are in the TDM measures in particular. 37 38 Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois. 39 40 Council Member DuBois: I know it's late, so I'll try to brief. I see a lot of 41 people here for the next item. I too want to thank the applicant. I think it 42 was really great to see some interesting ideas. I think the thing we're 43 struggling with is how do we do innovation and marry that with experience. 44 Again, it's kind of an unproven idea. I think there are a lot of new ideas 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 here. I think we should try some of them. To me the question is which 2 ideas, to what degree, and in what location. We need to be really prepared 3 to enforce some of these limits as you've offered. I think we need to figure 4 out how we would actually do that. I do think some of the ideas were 5 maybe a little overly aggressive. Again, I'd love to see some proof points. 6 There is a question of appropriate zoning or rezoning. I really think that's 7 where we need to start. We did put PC zoning on hold. This feels like a PC 8 zone. I don't think we want to spot zone. To me this has kind of turned into 9 rather than friends with benefits, kind of a PC without benefits. We're 10 getting the PC zone without declaring a public benefit. Again, we saw this 11 about a year ago, the last time it came here. At that time, when you look at 12 the surrounding properties, there's a of basically CN zones around it. There 13 are some PCs. If go back, those were CN zones before they became PCs. At 14 least from my perspective, I thought were clear that a CN zone would fit the 15 context of the site. The PF zone does allow some interesting uses, maybe a 16 school. I think medical outpatient could be interesting with the assisted 17 living next door. To my mind, either PF or CN zone. I think we should really 18 focus on projects that fit that kind of building envelope. If we're going to 19 talk about micro units, I think we're talking about the outer size of the 20 envelope. I'd also like to point out the PAN letter, I thought, made a good 21 point about spot zoning, which creates a lot of uncertainty. Neighbors no 22 longer know what to expect. It kind of erodes trust. I think we need to be 23 careful about how we do a one-off project. This is one of the worst 24 intersections in the City, so traffic is an issue. We have yet to have a City- 25 enforceable TDM. For me, I would like to see more parking. Our 26 Transportation Element, which came to us but we didn't have time to 27 discuss, I think it said about 95 percent of the people own at least one car. 28 That may be changing, but again it's how do we do it in a way that we don't 29 overload those streets that are already over-parked. We are at the end of 30 the day being asked to significantly upzone the property to RM-100-plus or 31 whatever it is. I don't see the benefit the City gets from doing that. With 32 regards to the Staff options, I didn't really find any of the ones listed 33 particularly attractive. I would support maybe a creative proposal under a 34 CN building envelope with restrictions of 40 feet high, a 1.0 FAR. I'm not 35 really supportive of the project as it’s currently described. 36 37 Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Okay. I'll make some final comments. 38 First, when we did have the commercial project for this site come to the 39 Council, we had strong Council support for a housing project. I think that 40 answers one of the questions on Council Member DuBois' concern. If it was 41 going to be commercial, we had said that we thought CN was more 42 appropriate. We gave two comments. This isn't a commercial alternative; 43 this is something that we actually, my recollection, said was our preference 44 among the two. This is a new kind of development model for our City. We 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 do have a precedent at Alma Place. It is different in that it's micro units for 2 low income workers, but it also has similarities. These types of projects 3 have been going in, in other cities. This is a future trend. One of my real 4 concerns is that, as a number of colleagues have alluded to, we have 5 actually a transformation that's occurring in transportation. We're at the 6 early stage of probably the biggest transformation in transportation in over 7 50 years. It's through a series of measures. Most of us haven't really 8 witnessed it yet, so we don't really trust it. We don't really believe in it, but 9 it's happening. We just had last Friday Ford Motor Company announce two 10 acquisitions, a bike share program and a shared shuttle system. Ford Motor 11 Company says they're not any longer basically purely a car company. 12 They're a mobility company. They are looking at autonomous shared 13 vehicles, shared bikes. They're going into electric bikes. This is Ford. If 14 we're skeptical about these changes because we really haven't seen all these 15 happen yet, that's understandable. We have to do a better job as a City to 16 be able to demonstrate where these things are headed and help our 17 community believe that they're real. The good thing about this project is it's 18 not being proposed on faith. These measures on the Transportation Demand 19 Management programs and the prospective deed restrictions, which are 20 about vicinity of where you may work for a certain percentage of 21 employees—I heard about a preference for City employees. These are not 22 discriminatory in the ways that we prohibit. My understanding is they're not 23 for all units. It's for a certain percentage of the units. You put all those 24 things together and the mandates on the Transportation Demand 25 Management program, and what we actually get is something that not only 26 helps incentivize the right sort of more obtainable housing but it reduces the 27 traffic impacts. When one of my colleagues says that they see a traffic 28 problem at this intersection and what they'd like to see is more parking on 29 the project, that necessarily means higher traffic from this project if we have 30 more parking and less in these TDM measures that reduce the trips. It was 31 pointed out that Caltrain is moving forward with their $2 billion 32 electrification, which is scheduled to come online in 2020, 2011. That's not 33 very far apart. That will be transformative for the Cal. Ave. station. Right 34 now, the Cal. Ave. station has bad service and infrequent service. The 35 entire Caltrain system will go up, more than double in its capacity. Cal. Ave. 36 will have about triple or more the number of train stops. The whole system 37 will operate more efficiently and be more attractive. That's a backbone 38 system for our transportation. It's not the totality; we have all of the other 39 elements that are occurring in what we're going to see in transportation in 40 the coming years. Council Member Holman talked about concern about air 41 pollution at this location. We've already addressed and we see the trends 42 that the conversion to clean, electric vehicles powered by 100 percent 43 carbon free energy in Palo Alto is not 20 years away. We're having large- 44 scale changes in that right now, that are escalating each year. These 45 TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 114 City Council Meeting Transcript: 9/12/16 1 changes are happening much faster than many of us have realized. I also 2 just want to have us step back in this context of whether we're warehousing. 3 We do have locations like our grand President Hotel in Downtown Palo Alto. 4 That's a very high-density, small-unit development that's been there for 5 what, 80-plus years, 90 years? I'm not sure what the date is of that. It 6 shows that it's not a strange new concept that we would allow smaller units 7 responding to people who want small units. These developers aren't fools. 8 They are not offering to develop units at this size without a strong belief that 9 there is demand for those units. When they say that they are willing to 10 accept the restrictions that they described, that's because they are 11 convinced, that they are willing to put their money on the table, millions of 12 dollars, that they have demand from tenants who, a certain percentage of 13 them, are not going to want to own a car. They're going to own the 14 consequences of something like that. I do think this is a challenge for 15 whether we as a Council and as a community can be forward looking and 16 actually recognize that there are changes occurring and not all of them are 17 bad. Some of them are really progressive in what's happening in 18 transportation. I don't think this is a great site for retail. I do believe that 19 design and quality of construction is very important. When we look at this in 20 the context, the surrounding buildings are comparable in scale to what this 21 is. This one has to be of a high quality design. We'll have that go through 22 our process. I think that's critical. I think that all of these considerations in 23 aggregate make us say that this project responds to not only what we asked 24 for when we had an office proposal here, but it's also what we've been 25 talking about as a new model that we wanted to look at for our Downtown 26 areas and perhaps some areas along El Camino. We can sit in this 27 unproductive pattern of saying we won't allow projects like this because we 28 don't have any examples of projects like this being successful in our 29 community. How does that pattern ever get broken? I think that it's 30 reasonable even though this is not a project that's being proposed based on 31 faith that these elements will work, but its binding agreements. I still think 32 it's going to be important for the community to see how these work 33 successfully as we look at zoning patterns to do things like this more 34 broadly. I think we have to figure out a way to go forward, whether this 35 comes back as Staff recommended as a pilot project in the PF zone or 36 whether it gets discussed. In parallel the Citizens Committee on the Comp 37 Plan begins to formulate the sorts of programs that would put this kind of 38 zoning in certain places in the City where we have walkable, services and a 39 whole series of transit offerings. Remember this is on El Camino where our 40 VTA 522 and 22 bus systems pass minutes apart. It is a widely used bus 41 system within a short distance of Caltrain, with the Marguerite system going 42 up to the Research Park. We who live in neighborhoods don't necessarily 43 realize how well served this is by transit. We project these things and we 44 say things frankly somewhat out of ignorance sometimes, because we just 45 TRANSCRIPT 1 aren't aware of how well served this particular area is even today on transit. 2 I want to see a project come with these aggressive Transportation Demand 3 Management programs, that it have strong monitoring, strong enforcement 4 and strong consequences if they aren't achieved, and then whether we have 5 the sort of success that would be designed into this. I frankly think that the 6 developers are proposing to put their money where their mouth is, that 7 they'll own the consequences of this. I look forward to seeing this refined. I 8 think there's a lot of work still to be done to flesh out details. This is not 9 just a blind blanket support; it's a prescreening that gives a sense of 10 direction. I think the applicants have heard a mixture of comments from the 11 Council. They'll have their challenges before them to address those 12 concerns. I think that concludes this item. Thank you all very much for 13 participating. This will go through—if the applicants elect to go forward with 14 an actual project, it'll go through our entire consideration process, through 15 the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review 16 Board. This is only a first step. Thank you. Why don't we take a quick 17 break at this time. 18 19 Council took a break from 9:02 P.M. to 9:07 P.M. 20 21 22 MEMORANDUM To: Claire Hodgkins - Associate Planner, City of Palo Alto From: Tod Spieker - Windy Hill Property Ventures Date: June 6, 2017 RE: 2755 El Camino Real - Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) We are currently preparing a comprehensive TDM plan for our proposed residential development at 2755 El Camino Real. As we continue to refine the plan, we are finding that we are able affect a substantial reduction in vehicle trips and parking demand with the implementation of the measures listed below. These measures will be integrated into the project and take advantage of the nearby amenities (retail and restaurant uses), employment centers and the extensive transportation network in the area, including Caltrain, VTA bus service, employment center shuttles and bicycle facilities. The project includes the following measures: • Caltrain Go Pass - Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. • VTA EcoPass - Provide unlimited VTA bus rides for all residents. • Reduced Parking Supply – A parking supply that meets the parking demand of the tenants without providing excess parking that encourages vehicle ownership and additional vehicle trips. • Unbundled Parking - Pricing separately for all parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in a transit-oriented environment. • Bicycle Parking – The project includes secure and easily accessible bicycle parking • Bicycle Kitchen – A workspace provided for tenants to repair their bicycles. • Carpool Ride-Matching Services- Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. • Information Boards/Kiosks - TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. • Promotional Programs - Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. • On-site Transportation Coordinator - On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. September 12 Agenda Item 2 Concerns Regarding the 2755 El Camino Real Proposal September 8, 2016 Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager Keene, and Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman: We are concerned by many issues surrounding the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real and hope you’ll discuss these at your study session on Monday. Specifically: Zoning Issues  The project calls for “Another Zoning District” because Palo Alto has no zoning designation that allows such density. Putting 60 housing units on the 19,563 square foot site works out to approximately 134 units per acre. Given that 40 units per acre is our maximum in general, this would more than triple that and thus create an extraordinary change in Palo Alto zoning practice.  Because this proposal requires upzoning and spot zoning, it is basically PC zoning under a different plan. At least with PC zoning, you know precisely what you are getting. With this invent- a-zone approach, you don't.  RM-40 has a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0. This project is proposing double that.  RM-40 projects require 50 square feet of private open space per unit. Yet the plans do not show such space for all units.  Will the owners be able to apply for the state density bonuses as well, creating an even denser, under-parked configuration?  What will rents be for these units? The premise is that micro-units will create lower-cost housing, but what guarantee does the city have once it approves a zone change? No pro-forma financial information accompanies the proposal. Parking/Traffic Issues  The building is massively under-parked. Assuming the higher cited requirement of 102 parking spaces, the proposal would likely put 57 (102 minus 45) cars into an already crowded neighborhood. That is unacceptable.  The staff report mentions parking reductions might be possible via a TDM, but does not explain how that makes sense. Consider that: o No independent study has ever shown a TDM in Palo Alto works. o Palo Alto has no enforcement of TDMs. o A study of residents of Palo Alto Central, which is even nearer to the train, shows that 85% still commute by car. o TDMs offer shuttles, GoPasses, bikes, and such to encourage people not to commute by car but do not try to reduce car ownership. Given that the proposed building is massively underparked, a successful TDM for its residents would mean that more of their cars would not be used to commute but instead remain in neighborhood parking spaces during workdays. Why should that merit a parking requirement reduction? It instead would be a parking disaster.  Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman has acknowledged that increasing housing creates more traffic. Why put more traffic at such a busy intersection? Public Trust  This kind of up/spot zoning means neighbors can no longer know what will be next to them. That’s unfair and not good planning.  Spot zoning harms the city as a whole. When a developer and a bare majority of councilmembers can rezone a property to be worth millions of dollars more, confidence in our city government erodes.  Many are skeptical of the practice of rezoning for one use and then substituting another, such as the Ming's Restaurant site that was rezoned for a hotel but was then changed to a Mercedes dealership. This project is NOT really about micro-units. They’re already allowed in RM-40 zoning and mixed-use projects, as well as ADUs. Ultimately, it's about under-parked residences and allowing residential buildings to exceed 1.0 FAR. We urge you to ask the owners to consider alternatives that retain the current zoning, which provides them a number of ways to create investment value. Thank you. Signed, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Steering Committee PAN Housing Committee PAN Zoning Committee whose members include: Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Norman Beamer Annette Glanckopf Jeff Levinsky Roger Petersen Doria Summa 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet   From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou; Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Daniel Garber Subject: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet Dear City Council, You will be giving feedback on 2755 Page Mill Project Monday night. In the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and on the Land Use Subcommittee on which I also serve, we have talked about this type of project extensively, however, my comments below are my own and are not on behalf of nor represent either committee. This project is site appropriate and within walking distance of Stanford Research Park and Cal Ave. It is adjacent to other apartment buildings. Thus I support the design direction the project is taking and recommend modifications to the project. Specifically, the developer will get a large financial windfall by having the site upzoned thus it is incumbent upon the council to make sure it contributes sufficiently to the community. My recommendations are basically reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Note, these units will be expensive since, for example at Carmel The Village in San Antonio Shopping Center studio and one bedroom apartments that are 674+ square feet are renting for between $3000 and $6000 https://mycarmelthevillagecalifornia.prospectportal.com/Apartments/module/property_info/ Note, the Page Mill / El Camino intersection is already at Level of Service D and parking around Cal Ave is seriously under parked. My specific recommendations are: * Require 25% below market housing. Since the demand far outstrips the price of building, there is still a healthy profit to be made. * Consider requiring some of the units to be for developmentally disabled (this will help an underserved population while reducing parking demand) * Do not require ground floor retail. El Camino already has plenty. * Limit the height to 40 feet (it's currently 50 feet). This will help reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure. * Make the units slightly bigger 600 - 700 square feet. This will also reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure, while not cutting into developer margins. * Add to the deed that apartments occupants cannot have more cars registered than spots (but be realistic that this will not be enforced by the owner) * Require significant extra guest parking as part of the exchange for upzoning and monitor whether those spots are used at night, which will indicate whether parking "light" really works * Ensure no delivery temporary parking occurs on either Page Mill or El Camino 2 * Have the developer contribute to the TDM under the existing program to help reduce spots * Don't allow an entrance from Page Mill to the garage as that intersection is already a LOS D * Ensure bike lockers and bike parking (not currently in the plan) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:letters@paweekly.com; tod@windyhillpv.com City Council members: Public Facility. The most important aspect of the former VTA property is its designation as "public facility." I think that calls for more than the usual public benefit which is understood to be only a fringe benefit, with the main purpose of development to 1)turn a good profit for the developer and 2) raise the value of Palo Alto property. I would suggest that the applicant is thinking in the right direction, but there needs, in this case, to be more benefit. I would suggest the entire first floor be dedicated to such community uses as child care, senior day care, senior nutrition program (a federally subsidized lunch for seniors costing, nominally, two or three dollars a meal but available at no charge to those who cannot pay. Locally, it's at Avenidas, Stevenson House, MV Senior Center), the Betty Wright therapeutic swim center---Senior directed programs might be particularly suitable because the location is ideal for senior micro housing, since it is on the 22/522 bus line, the longest and most frequent line in the VTA system, and seniors constitute the largest segment of non- drivers, and it seems a pity to waste the site on people who need or prefer to drive cars anyway. There need not be a preference for low income seniors, because they are already at the head of the line for low-income housing. Sherwood apartments opened its waiting list for the first time in years and people were waiting in line days ahead of the opening, but there might be others who are willing to forego automobile transportation, which is a considerable sacrifice, especially in the rain, and they need not be excluded. IS propose that unlimited storage space occupy the basement, and that the luxury of storing many possessions rent for twice as much per square foot as the rental for lodging persons. Note that it is the widowed , divorced ore single retirees who are the low low income; while the couples automatically have twice as much income. The better off could, therefore, rent two 200 square foot apartments instead of one, if they wished, or not. It's essential that everybody recognize that a 200 square foot "apartment" will be overwhelmingly tenanted by one person only and not contribute to the ill effects of density, whereas a six to eight hundred square foot apartment, two bedrooms, bathroom, full kitchen and living room, will house a whole family--three or four people. Although each dwelling would have its own refrigerator,microwave and sink, a communal kitchen would serve the needs for the residents' larger festive or family dinners. \ Balconies To preserve the FAR which is the foundation of Palo Alto's reputation of a beautiful, not too crowded city, every single unit should be an outside unit, with an entire room as an open, gardened balcony. There would be a garden maintenance person to see that the gardens were kept up. The model for this is the 50 year old building at 101 Alma, in which both the side facing the Bay and the side facing Stanford have eight foot wide balconies along their entire length., which works out to 80 square feet, an entire outdoor room. Rent Control 2 It is time to extend the protection of Prop 13 to renters, and this land, zoned "public facility" is a perfect place to begin. The City Council has it within its power to raise the height limit so that a larger number of low income units would still turn a respectable profit. I propose that someone like Councilman Schmidt cost out the number of units at, say, $00. a month, would produce a return on investment of one percent over current treasury bonds,, and that the rent be increased by one percent a year. Stephanie Munoz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patama Gur <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patamaroj@gmail.com <Patama Gur> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patama Gur 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Robert Taylor <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rob.k.taylor@gmail.com <Robert Taylor> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Robert Taylor 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Frank Dellaert <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Frank Dellaert 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarit Schube <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: saritschube@gmail.com <Sarit Schube> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarit Schube 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Scott Feeney <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: scott@oceanbase.org <Scott Feeney> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Scott Feeney 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Justine Burt <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: justineburt@alumni.tufts.edu <Justine Burt> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Justine Burt 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Michael Cutchin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mcutchin@gmail.com <Michael Cutchin> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Michael Cutchin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jen Pleasants <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jen@showthelove.com <Jen Pleasants> Message: thank you for considering helping make our community a healthier and happier place Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jen Pleasants 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Schlesser <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: k_schlesser@yahoo.com <Karen Schlesser> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Schlesser 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Greenfield <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike@mikegreenfield.com <Mike Greenfield> Message: After 50+ years with virtually no new housing, we need this and lots more like it -- please! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Greenfield 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Nguyen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: timmynguyen1@gmail.com <Tim Nguyen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tim Nguyen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tricia Herrick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tbtextra@gmail.com <Tricia Herrick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tricia Herrick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anna Tchetchetkine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anya.tche@gmail.com <Anna Tchetchetkine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anna Tchetchetkine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeff Rensch <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jrensch@gmail.com <Jeff Rensch> Message: With only 45 parking spaces, it will also be important to provide strong incentives not to own a car. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeff Rensch 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Huey Kwik <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Huey Kwik 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sam Corbett Davies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: samcorbettdavies@gmail.com <Sam Corbett Davies> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sam Corbett Davies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mila Zelkha <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mila.zelkha@gmail.com <Mila Zelkha> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mila Zelkha 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elizabeth Lasky <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laskyea@gmail.com <Elizabeth Lasky> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elizabeth Lasky 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maelig Morvan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melig@chez.com <Maelig Morvan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maelig Morvan 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Diego Aguilar Canabal [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:07 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: d.aguilarcanabal@gmail.com <Diego Aguilar Canabal> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Diego Aguilar Canabal 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Cheryl Lilienstein [mailto:clilienstein@me.com]   Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 8:01 AM  To: Council, City  Subject: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments        Dear Councilmembers,      Possibly this information will be useful to you in responding to the proposal regarding the VTA lot.    Recently my nephew disclosed he had looked at micro units in SF, and I asked him to describe his experience. Here is  what he reported. The unit he was offered cost $2600/month and had 250 square feet, and shared a kitchen with 6  other inhabitants. It was in SOMA, within two or three blocks of bus lines, CalTrain, Bart, Trader Joe and Whole Foods.  The building provided no parking. Renters with cars were told they could rent a spot in an uncovered lot several blocks  away for $620/month. The agent told my nephew that most people lived there less than one year, and the vacancy rate  was 10%.  So: $2600 + $620 = $3220 for a 250 square foot apartment in SF.     And: how is something like this going to do anything to make housing affordable? Some of you still insist “the market”  will correct itself if you provide more housing, but where is the evidence to support this? Does paying $2600 plus $620  (for 250 square feet of shared space plus remote uncovered parking) match your idea of affordable?       The proposal before you is for 60 units, with 45 parking spaces.   Unlike transit‐rich San Francisco we have no other “lots” to offer parking except neighborhood streets… You already  know that people have cars, use them, and park them in neighborhoods when no other parking is available, and that  those neighborhoods impacted no longer feel like neighborhoods. Please don’t allow this!     What is likely is that since housing is so expensive people will simply pack in together, and the people in 60 units will  have MANY more cars than anticipated.  Allowing under‐parking in a community that has inadequate transit is a gift to  the developers and adversely affects the entire community, ESPECIALLY in that intersection.    A better use might be an extension of Sunrise or another assisted living facility, in which the inhabitants don’t need  transit, the bustle in and out is minimal, and (I assume) employees have adequate parking. There’s no question that  there is a need for senior facilities in our area. Conversely, it would have a negative impact on every commuter and all  residents in our community if this developer is allowed to underpark a high density development RIGHT ON an already  terrible intersection. This is the wrong location to test that particular (and in my view wrong headed) experiment.    One more thing to consider: Whatever happened to that toxic plume beneath the lot? And who would be liable if the  city allowed the developer to unearth it and the adjacent inhabitants were affected?     Thank you for your service,  2 Cheryl Lilienstein                  1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Marcello Golfieri [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: golfieri@gmail.com <Marcello Golfieri> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marcello Golfieri 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Saffir <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: opsaffir@mymailstation.com <Patricia Saffir> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Saffir 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jclark4@gmail.com <John Clark> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anne Lumerman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anne.lumerman@gamil.com <Anne Lumerman > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anne Lumerman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Stephen Reller <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sreller@randmproperties.com <Stephen Reller> Message: The only thing wrong with this project is the height - it should be 100' tall and 120 units. Do the right thing and approve this (and do not let the very vocal few misrepresent the majority of PA citizens.) Thank you Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Stephen Reller 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Debin Ji <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: debinji1983@gmail.com <Debin Ji> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Debin Ji 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tom Arnold <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tomarnold@gmail.com <Tom Arnold> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tom Arnold 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Christopher Colohan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paloaltoforward@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Christopher Colohan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kevin Watts <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kevinwwatts@gmail.com <Kevin Watts> Message: As a Palo Alto resident, these homes would help reduce traffic by creating housing near existing jobs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kevin Watts 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Dave Ashton <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: aashton@gmail.com <Dave Ashton> Message: We need housing near employment centers!!!!! And this is so close to the California Ave Caltain Station, a resident could walk. What a great project! More housing near transit and employment PLEASE. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Dave Ashton 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Charles Salmon <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: cssalmon@gmail.com <Charles Salmon> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Charles Salmon 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Isaac Rosenberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: irosenb7@gmail.com <Isaac Rosenberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Isaac Rosenberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Sung <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Sung 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Pierce <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: pierce@zanemac.com <Steve Pierce> Message: We are in a housing hole and need to work our way out at every opportunity. Diversity of housing types is a must. Reduced parking is appropriate for the Uber generation, particularly when proximate to Caltrain and VTA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Pierce 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Skotheim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: skotheim@stanford.edu <Jan Skotheim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Skotheim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Evan Goldin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: evan.goldin@gmail.com <Evan Goldin> Message: As a Palo Alto native, I'm a strong believer that we need more housing to make Palo Alto affordable again to my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Please support this development. Even though it's too late to save the Zebra Copy across the street, it's not too late to make that parking lot into homes for future residents! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Evan Goldin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Heidi Stein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: heidih.stein@gmail.com <Heidi Stein> Message: I will need to hear more about this specific project, but in general this is the kind of housing project I support. More density, more affordable - the opposite of what happened on Maybell! Heidi Stein Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Heidi Stein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rebecca Geraldi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: winterskeeper@yahoo.com <Rebecca Geraldi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rebecca Geraldi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Francis Viggiano <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fpviggiano@gmail.com <Francis Viggiano> Message: Please help assure our children and grandchildren will have reasonable housing options in this area by approving this project. We are on the cusp of a transition to shared, self-driving cars, so there will be decreased need for parking in the near future. Let's lead the way into the future. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Francis Viggiano 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ed Wu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: yiranwu@gmail.com <Ed Wu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ed Wu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Shelley Ratay <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shelleyratay@gmail.com <Shelley Ratay> Message: Thank you for considering this important project in our community! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Shelley Ratay 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lisa Forssell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lisa.forssell@gmail.com <Lisa Forssell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lisa Forssell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Owen Byrd <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: owenbyrd@gmail.com <Owen Byrd> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Owen Byrd 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nicole Lederer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nicole@nicolelederer.com <Nicole Lederer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nicole Lederer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Rubens <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Rubens 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Cassidy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellenwcassidy@gmail.com <Ellen Cassidy> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Cassidy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sara Woodham <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sawoodham@gmail.com <Sara Woodham> Message: Are you up we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto. In fact we just need more housing in general. Please approve increasing our inventory. This is close to public transportation which makes it ideal for individuals working in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sara Woodham 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Marc Grinberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marc Grinberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Paul Feng <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paulfeng@gmail.com <Paul Feng> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Paul Feng 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Margaret Rushing <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing> Message: I'm in favor of starting with 60 new affordable housing units and hoping that more will be added. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Margaret Rushing 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bryan Culbertson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bryan.culbertson@gmail.com <Bryan Culbertson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bryan Culbertson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Windy Hill Proposal I am pleased to see that Windy Hill has responded to the council's desire for housing on the Page Mill/ECR site.    I am sure both tonight and going forward there will be lots of details to discuss.    I am encouraged that the proposal meets many of the Housing Element goals especially those in favor of adding smaller  units like the studios and one‐bedroom apartments proposed.    The site also is close to everyday services and shopping and will support these activities in the California Avenue area,  which I know is a council and resident priority.    The project will be a test of the market for smaller well‐located housing in Palo Alto. The rents will be above what low‐ income families as all non subsidized housing on the peninsula is but the rents will welcome many individuals who can in  now way afford median home prices here. So the project will expand supply and expand opportunities.    I support the kind of housing being proposed and I hope the council and Windy Hill can develop a final proposal that  does not raise costs and rents.    Stephen Levy  365 Forest Avenue   Palo Alto, CA 94301    1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hannah Illathu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: illathu.hannah@gmail.com <Hannah Illathu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Hannah Illathu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeralyn Moran <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jeralyn.moran@gmail.com <Jeralyn Moran> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeralyn Moran 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Sack <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sack@stanford.edu <John Sack> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Sack 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Manu Sridharan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: msridhar@gmail.com <Manu Sridharan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Manu Sridharan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ilana Cohen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ieydus@gmail.com <Ilana Cohen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ilana Cohen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Mc Brayer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patricia@pmarchitect.net <Patricia Mc Brayer> Message: We must address the housing crisis in Palo Alto and the Peninsula at large immediately if we are to remain sustainable as a community for the long term. The proposed project provides a much needed diversity of housing type on a transit and work friendly site. Please move forward with the approvals process, allowing a zoning change and micro-housing overlay. As part of the approvals process, I urge you to require the developer to address affordability in a meaningful way by limiting rental rates and/or purchase price on a specified number of units to 50% of market rate, with priority given to people with residency in the Bay Area of 3 years or more making 50% or less than median income. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Mc Brayer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elaine Uang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elaine.uang@gmail.com <Elaine Uang> Message: 60 homes alone can't solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a good start to think about new ways to provide housing in the right places. While I hope some preference is given to city employees, teachers, nurses, or local workers, even market rate studios and 1-bdrms fill a need in our community and help relieve (somewhat) the competition for smaller affordable units. I hope you can work together with the applicant, community and staff to rezone this parcel and implement the right regulatory frameworks that will encourage more smaller unit projects like this proposal in service and transit rich areas such as Cal Ave and Downtown. Thank you for your attention to this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elaine Uang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elliot Margolies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elliotspark@yahoo.com <Elliot Margolies> Message: We have so much work to do to catch up with 3 decades of a lopsided jobs-housing ratio and the resulting unaffordability of our community. I appreciate your leadership in this arena. Elliot Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elliot Margolies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Snow Zhu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: snowxzhu@berkeley.edu <Snow Zhu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Snow Zhu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Molly W <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: meleleshopping@gmail.com <Molly W> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Molly W 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Daniel Walker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dan.walker1@gmail.com <Daniel Walker> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Daniel Walker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Randy Popp <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp> Message: This is the right time to consider changing the status quo for housing and parking requirements. Please approve this project without delay. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Randy Popp 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Liat Zavodivker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lzavod@gmail.com <Liat Zavodivker> Message: Build housing for the improvement of the environment! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Liat Zavodivker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Naphtali Knox <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: knoxnaph@gmail.com <Naphtali Knox> Message: If not here, where? If not now, when? Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Naphtali Knox 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeremy Hoffman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: hoffmanj@gmail.com <Jeremy Hoffman> Message: I used to live in the apartment complex that overlooked that empty parking lot. It'll be lovely to replace that lot with a useful building. And it's a great location for housing, being walking distance to the Cal Ave downtown and farmers market, the Caltrain stop, and being right next to the bus stop. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeremy Hoffman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah Bell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bell.sarah@gmail.com <Sarah Bell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarah Bell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Youseffi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jyouseffi@gmail.com <Jessica Youseffi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Youseffi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Barb Swenson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: swenson.barb@gmail.com <Barb Swenson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Barb Swenson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kyle Barrett <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kylembarrett@gmail.com <Kyle Barrett> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kyle Barrett 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nancy Olson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nso2431@icloud.com <Nancy Olson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nancy Olson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jermsica@comcast.net <Jessica Clark > Message: I support this but would also like to see some BMR's worked into this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Andrew Boone <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nauboone@gmail.com <Andrew Boone> Message: Dear Palo Alto City Council, More affordable housing near high-quality transit is key to creating a sustainable and equitable community. That's why I support the 60-unit Windy Hill apartments at 2755 El Camino Real. Higher-density housing and fewer car parking spaces are a common sense solution to providing more residents access to transit and good bicycling and walking opportunities. Vote YES for more homes for people! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Andrew Boone 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Fred Glick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fred@fredglick.com <Fred Glick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Fred Glick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Uhrbrock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com <Ellen Uhrbrock> Message: Instead of stopping them at the drawing board - encourage competition with a significant prize awarded the architect including a green light to build immediately, subject only to Council's and neighborhood's approval. Do not give city employees, or teachers priority - Give financial priority only to car less renters and owners. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Uhrbrock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jerry Schwarz <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jerry@acm.org <Jerry Schwarz> Message: There may be objection to the height of the building My own feeling about height is well known. Tall buildings can be attractive. And I like them. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jerry Schwarz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gary Fine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gary@finepoquet.com <Gary Fine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gary Fine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Melody Baumgartner <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melodybaumgartner@gmail.com <Melody Baumgartner> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Melody Baumgartner 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Neil Shea <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: neilshea@yahoo.com <Neil Shea> Message: Need to maximize centralized locations like this -- and make a dent in our housing/cost crisis Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Neil Shea 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Uyvova <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.uyvova@gmail.com <Jane Uyvova> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Uyvova 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Omar Diab <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: me@omardiab.com <Omar Diab> Message: The entire Sam Francisco Bay Area needs more housing and Palo Alto is ground zero of this crisis. This project must be built! It is in a prime transit corridor and just makes so much sense. Please construct it! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Omar Diab 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Kiefer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amy.kiefer@gmail.com <Amy Kiefer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Kiefer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ozzie Fallick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ozzie Fallick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Aleks Totic <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: a@totic.org <Aleks Totic> Message: Studios and one bedrooms would be a nice addition to PA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Aleks Totic 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erhyu Yuan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erhyoohoo@yahoo.com <Erhyu Yuan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erhyu Yuan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lauren Winslow <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lauren.winslow@gmail.com <Lauren Winslow> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lauren Winslow 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maristela Cardoso <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marismach@yahoo.com <Maristela Cardoso> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maristela Cardoso 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Keva Dine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kmdine@gmail.com <Keva Dine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Keva Dine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Edward Hillard <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: edhillard@gmail.com <Edward Hillard> Message: It is still painful to me that some sixty units of affordable housing for seniors were eliminated due to the political pressure of the Baron Park community. I believe we should be building multi-unit housing wherever possible in Palo Alto. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Edward Hillard 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Eittreim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: eitteeimcs@gmail.com <Steve Eittreim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Eittreim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Buchanan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike.r.buchanan@gmail.com <Mike Buchanan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Buchanan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Matt Austern <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: austern@gmail.com <Matt Austern> Message: We need more housing construction in Palo Alto to address the housing affordability crisis. There's no better place to build housing in the city than right next to a public transportation hub. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Matt Austern 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rohun Jauhar <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jauharro@gmail.com <Rohun Jauhar> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rohun Jauhar 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gail Price <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price > Message: We should take every opportunity possible to expand housing options throughout our community. Close to transit and the California corridor enhances the location ! More complexes like this are needed to make support our S-CAP plan. Frankly, one of the problems is simple: supply of housing vs. demand for housing. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gail Price 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ciera Jaspan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ciera.christopher@gmail.com <Ciera Jaspan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ciera Jaspan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Fingal Surma <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laura.surma@gmail.com <Laura Fingal Surma> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Laura Fingal Surma 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Huang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.x.huang@gmail.com <Jane Huang> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Huang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Becky Richardson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: becky.richardson@gmail.com <Becky Richardson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Becky Richardson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jared Bernstein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jared@erosenfeld.com <Jared Bernstein> Message: I would have written something a bit shorter. But the message is: I support dense housing at PageMill & El Camino. /Jared Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jared Bernstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kim Butts Pauly Ph.D. <kbpauly@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I read with great interest the story about the small housing units for El Camino and Page Mill. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is another group of people for whom small apartments and only bike parking would be perfect - the hundreds of postdoctoral fellows working at Stanford. As it is, they contribute to the hundreds of commute trips through Palo Alto to housing around the peninsula. These are people with advanced degrees, but little pay. This type of housing would fill a huge need and reduce commute trips. Thank you, -Kim ********************************** Kim Butts Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Susie Hwang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shwang@me.com <Susie Hwang > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Susie Hwang 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Anita Lusebrink [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:50 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anita@satakenursery.com <Anita Lusebrink> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anita Lusebrink 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erika Conley <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erikaconley@gmail.com <Erika Conley> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erika Conley 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bette Kiernan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: betteuk@aol.com <Bette Kiernan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bette Kiernan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Judy Adams <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: judyblueeyes1@gmail.com <Judy Adams> Message: In addition to including "affordable units" (below market rate), the project needs low-income units, probably the studio size. The use of the term affordable is not really accessible to low-income residents and there needs to be an element of truly low-income in ALL Palo Alto and all peninsula housing elements to serve community needs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Judy Adams 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Penstock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: karenpenstock@yahoo.com <Karen Penstock> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Penstock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mark Kennedy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mdavkennedy@gmail.com <Mark Kennedy> Message: You need to do this. If you do not, then you are the problem. MDK Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mark Kennedy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeffrey Salzman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jsalzman3@gmail.com <Jeffrey Salzman> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeffrey Salzman 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Darryl Fenwick [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick> Message: In a time when everyone is complaining about lack of affordable housing, it would be a poor decision to not back this project! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Darryl Fenwick 2755 El Camino Real Project Description The project proposes to develop a new multi-family residential building, 50 feet in height and totaling 41,304 square feet at 2755 El Camino Real. The project site is a vacant parking lot formerly used as a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride facility. The development proposal includes the following requests: 1. Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; 2. Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district to the subject site. 3. Site and Design review to allow for construction of a proposed four-story multi-family residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of partially below-grade parking. The project would also require an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi- family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. 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 “2755 El Camino Real” 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 “2017-0509 Project Plans” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8022) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Maybell Avenue: 16 Single Family Residential Units (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and Construction of 16 two-Story Single-Family Residences With Basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract 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 approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment 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 extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55688]. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F. 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 Background On June 28, 2016, the City Council approved the Tentative Map for the project site that established 16 lots and a private street. On February 2, 2017, the ARB reviewed the Architectural Review project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: [http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-56]. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table and expanded upon in the Analysis section: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Parking. Guest parking and parking within the private street area. No change is proposed. Plans need additional information. Update the information in the plans to help with evaluation The revised plans show separate floor plans and provide clarity to identify the lots. Other information is also updated. Covered Patios. Depth of covered patios in the rear was excessive The deep patio covers have been reduced by a foot. Garage/Driveway Orientation. Lots 2 and 4- Driveway design could lead to unsafe backing out A new design type is introduced to eliminate concern. Complicated Design Palette. Simplify the exterior palette of the project Exterior material palette has been simplified - Reduced the number of materials, incorporated wood siding extensively, and simplified colors palette; reduced the amount of stone being used across all lots; changed all white painted surfaces to either shades of gray or beige; all arched windows have been changed to rectangular windows. Privacy. Show upper level windows affecting sight lines to neighboring properties to better evaluate privacy. The revised plans show the location of windows that may affect privacy. Analysis1 The Board discussed six 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. Parking on the Private Street 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 concern The board had concerns that no parking was allowed on the private street leading to congestion for the subdivision. The Board requested that the applicant look at ways to add parking. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant responded in a letter that the PAMC does not require guest parking for single family developments. The applicant also cited that the tentative map was approved and that consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, that no conditions can be added to the map requesting the width of the street to change. Staff concurs that there is no regulatory requirement for the additional parking and that the location of the private street has been approved in the tentative map. The design of the private street is consistent with the PAMC Section 21.20.240. The project includes a 20-foot setback that allows for parking within the driveways. This would allow for guest parking. It is conceivable that delivery vehicles may temporarily park in the street, however, that is a temporary situation and not one that would affect early mornings or evenings when parking peaks are expected. Staff recommends that the Board find the project maintains consistency with Findings #2 and #4. To the extent the Board does not believe it can make the requisite findings based on the design of the street, the Board may recommend denial. Update the Information on the Plans Summary of concern There were a number of comments regarding the details of the plans. The lack of certain detail made it difficult for the Board to evaluate the project against the findings. The additional information necessary included the demarcations of the lots, and the roof plans were difficult to read. The plan only included generic floor plans that did not relate to the uniqueness of each unit. The plans should show a perspective view down Maybell and Clemo. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant made holistic changes to address this issue. The revised plans show a floor plan for each unit. This helps with evaluating the privacy concerns raised by the Board. The revised plans show a perspective along Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue, which helps provide insight on the streetscape massing. The project shows potential solar panels on the south and west side of the roof on every house. The existing traffic control features that were omitted from the previous plans are back at Clemo and Maybell. Depth of the Covered Patios Summary of concern There was a concern that the covered patios made the individual units have unnecessary bulk and reduces the potential for light. Summary of Response and Analysis City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The revised project reduced the patios by one foot. This does not appear to address the issue completely and direction from the Board would help resolve this issue. Perhaps this issue could come back as a Subcommittee item or addressed clearly in a condition of approval. This issue affects Finding #2. Driveway Position of Lots 2 and 4 Summary of concern There was concern that it would be very difficult to maneuver into and out of the garages on Lots 2 and 4 since they were oriented parallel to the street and required a curved back out onto Maybell Avenue. Summary of Response and Analysis The revised plans show a straight approach into the garages from Maybell. This will be easier to maneuver from the garage to the street. This revision appears to address the Board’s concerns. The revisions address Findings #2 and #4. Simply the Exterior Palette Summary of concern The Board had concerns that the project included too many elements and features for a small subdivision project. The project would benefit from simplified details and colors. Summary of Response and Analysis The revised project simplified the exterior material palette by reducing the number of materials, incorporating wood siding extensively and simplified the colors palette. Stone material was reduced throughout the project. The number of railing styles was reduced to two styles. Arched windows have been changed to rectangular windows. The revisions address Findings #2, and #3. Show How Upper Level Windows Affect Sight Lines Summary of concern The Board had concerns that the project did not demonstrate a design that addressed privacy. Summary of Response and Analysis The project shows that there are no issues with privacy along the side property lines. While there are views from the rear to other rear or rear to side occur. However, with the distance and eventual landscaping, there is no privacy issue. The project is consistent with Finding #2. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 was previously evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration when the Tentative Map component was approved by the City. The project description in addition to the subdivision included the site development of 16 single-family dwelling units. The project description anticipated the units having basements and that the project would meet the minimum requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the previously completed environmental review, staff will incorporate standard conditions of approval related to basement dewatering, construction logistics plan and similar conditions to minimize construction related impacts. Link to prior Final Mitigated Negative Declaration: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52262 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 June 2, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 5, 2017, 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. 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, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's May 12, 2017 Response Letter (PDF) 2 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 F: February 2, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 567 Maybell Avenue 15PLN-00248 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. 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 Single-Family Residential and Multi- Family Residential. The project proposes single-family residences. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. The project is a compact single-family use development near the El Camino Real corridor. Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. The project will complete a gap in the sidewalk that currently exists along the project’s Maybell Avenue. The Maybell Avenue corridor includes a public park and schools, which make the corridor heavily used during the morning and afternoons when schools are in session. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing transitional, traditional and contemporary designs, which is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. The scale of the units, colors and materials are also similar. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. There is a public park across the project along Clemo Avenue. The project will not be altering the park in any way. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The project will eliminate a sidewalk gap along Maybell Avenue. A sidewalk will be provided along the internal private street. Because the project is located adjacent to a public park no other common on-site areas are proposed. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project includes 16 unique designed buildings. The design represents the mix of styles found in the adjacent neighborhood. The project as conditioned provides a variety of architectural styles, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. The project is consistent with the zoning requirements for single-family uses including, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. 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: As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the area is comprised of various residential buildings, of mostly single or two story heights. However, the adjacent property does include mid-rise building. In addition, adjacent to the site is a public park. The project provides the required setbacks and relief between the subject property and surrounding properties. As conditioned, internally, the project provides the appropriate transitions between properties and respects the setbacks. As conditioned, the project’s design is compatible with the surrounding residential development. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a variety of architecture with differing visual elements. All four sides of the buildings provide appropriate visual attention. At the same, there are three consistent design themes that provide harmony and is compatible with the surrounding existing developments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structures on the lots respect the adjacent Lots’ yards and respect the privacy of neighboring development as well as on-site buildings. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that for single-family development the garage and uncovered spaces are appropriately designed. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site includes a variety of architectural styles in a simplified palette. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The surrounding area includes an eclectic variety of architectural styles with no one dominate theme. The project includes a variety of architecture. Each of the units incorporates one of three architectural themes, however, each unit has different elements that are consistent with that theme. The project includes metal, stone, stucco, wood material used in a manner that is appropriate with the architectural theme. The project includes three styles of architecture and within those styles, the separate plans include a simplified palette. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: Five units are proposed along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two driveways and one unit possessing its own. A private street entrance on Clemo Avenue would provide both ingress and egress for the 11 units on the interior of the site. There is no direct vehicular access from Clemo to Maybell (however, emergency vehicles do have access), so the vehicular traffic on Clemo will need to traverse Arasterdero Road to get to El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway. The project site is within the vicinity of Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. Maybell Avenue, Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road are considered walking and biking routes to these facilities. With these institutions, Maybell Avenue experiences heavy pedestrian bicycle usage during the mornings and afternoons when the schools are in session. The project includes construction of a sidewalk along the Maybell Avenue frontage, which would eliminate an existing gap between the site to the north and Clemo Avenue. The inclusion of this sidewalk will help make the site more pedestrian accessible. The project includes typically designed driveways so that backing is minimized along Maybell Avenue. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project is consistent with the finding in that the project preserves trees and relocates trees where necessary to design a better neighborhood, while protecting the integrity of the trees. The design includes permeable pavers that will reduce storm water runoff. As designed, unnecessary pavement areas are replaced with vegetation. The project’s landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. The plantings focus on the most visible locations such as along the streets (Maybell, Clemo and the private street). 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. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, laundry to landscape diversion, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. Construction of the site will also divert at least 75% of the waste associated with construction. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 567 Maybell Ave 15PLN-00248 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Maybell Avenue Site, 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto,” stamped as received by the City on April 3, 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. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $1,067,232 plus the applicable affordable housing fee associated with the housing regulatory agreement. 7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. 8. NESTING BIRD PROTECTION MITIGATION (BIO -1 From Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration). To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT: 9. FINAL MAP shall be recorded. 10. 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.” 11. 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 12. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), existing utilities, temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), existing trees to remain and tree protection measures, 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. 13. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Since the existing storm drain line is to remain, plot and label the line on the shoring plans. Provide shoring for the storm drain line if necessary. 14. 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. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 15. WATER SUPPLY STATION: Applicant shall install a water station for the 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. Applicant shall meet with Public Works - Engineering Services to coordinate the design details and location of the station prior to applying for a dewatering permit. 16. 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. 17. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department and the Planning Division 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, phasing plan and 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. 18. 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. 19. Dewatering Permit Time Duration: The Dewatering Permits (Note: The City uses Street Work Permits to serve as Dewatering Permits.) will be limited to a maximum of 10 weeks from the date of issuance. After 10 weeks, the permit will expire and any dewatering occurring afterwards will incur an administrative citation of $500 per day of dewatering. It is in the best interest of the Contractors and applicants to have as much onsite equipment (settling tanks, dewatering wells, pumps, water stations, etc.) in place as much as possible before the permit is issued, so that the Contractor and applicants can maximize their dewatering time once the permit is issued. The 10- week permit duration does not apply to commercial projects, which will be addressed on a case by- case basis. 20. Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below-Ground Garage Construction: If the proposed work requires dewatering, note and address the attached Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below-Ground Garage Construction. In regards to the water truck hauling, the applicant will need to provide proof that they have hired a water truck to deliver water (1) day per week to discharge the groundwater to sites identified by the City before the Dewatering Permit can be issued. The applicant will need to hire onto the City’s current contract with the water truck. The applicant has the option to use the water truck services offered by the City. If the applicant chooses to use the City’s water truck services, the applicant shall contact Walter Passmore (E: walter.passmore@cityofpaloalto.org and P: 650.496.5986) from Urban Forestry or Daren Anderson (E: daren.anderson@cityofpaloalto.org and P: 650.496.6950) from Community Services for more information. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 21. STREET TREES: 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”. 22. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table that shows the earthwork (cut and fill) volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans including Rough Grading and Shoring Plans are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available on our Public Works website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 23. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 and Grading & Drainage Guidelines for Residential Development form for guidelines. Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2010 CBC Section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system is required for all exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwells, 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. 24. 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”. 25. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and/or landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 26. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 27. 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. 28. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 29. CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: The plans sheet TM6.0 shows the graphical depiction of the designated bio-retention areas along with the drainage areas. This plan shows that the storm water runoff from the entire lot is designed to drain into 14 treatment areas. In other words, the runoff from the impervious roof areas and the runoff from the pervious landscape will be combined into one area. However, sheet TM7.0 which shows the tabulated break down of the impervious and pervious areas, shows that the bio-retention areas are only sized to treat the impervious surfaces. To eliminate the conflict, revise sheet TM6.0 so only the impervious surface is draining into the bio-retention areas. The runoff from pervious surface collected by area drains shall be directed to another dispersal area within private property. The pervious surface runoff shall be a separate system, also located 10-feet from the back of sidewalk. 30. 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. 31. Regulated projects with 3,000 SF or more of pervious pavement systems installed required installation inspections. The project is proposing to install permeable pavers, provide permeable pavement area per lot and the total permeable area for the site. Plan shall include a detail for the permeable pavement system. 32. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 33. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit and demonstrate if project’s storm drain utility will drain by gravity or if a pump is required. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate downspouts will be disconnected, daylight at grade, directed to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. If pumps are required plot and label where the pumps will be located, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight to the onsite landscaped areas allowed to infiltrate and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. Bioretention swales shall be designed to use the full swale length for treatment, place the bubbler (outlet) and catch basin (inlet) at the ends of the swale. For example swales near building two appear to have inlet at the midway point instead of the ends. The plans provided show the storm water detention, however the proposed calculations and analysis was not submitted with the planning process. Applicant shall provide the calculation for the detention directly on the plans. Calculation shall be based on the 10 year, 24 hours storm. Include the intensity used for the 10 and 100 year storms. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing public storm drain system in the Maybell Avenue to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. 34. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly transformer shall also be located within the private property. 35. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 36. 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.” 37. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 38. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Project shall also replace the two existing at the intersection of Clemo and Maybell Avenue with new accessibly compliant ramps. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. At minimum the curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage shall be shown to be replaced. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 39. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue along the project frontages. 40. DEMOLITION PLAN: 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”. 41. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 42. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie- backs for the basement, provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 43. 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. 44. STORM WATER TREATMENT: At the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a 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. 45. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic copy of the Off-Site Improvements As-Built set of plans to Public Works for the City’s records. The as-built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 46. 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. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 47. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 48. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 23 Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected.. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 49. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include 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. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 50. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 51. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) c. Add Site Plan Notes.) i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at _________ "; iii. 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.” iv. 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.” v. 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” 52. 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. d. 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).” e. 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 53. LANDSCAPE PLANS f. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, g. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. 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. x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). h. 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. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. i. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letters of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. 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. 54. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 55. 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. 56. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, ArborResources, (650-496-5953, 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. 57. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. 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 61. 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). 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 65. 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. UTILITIES ELECTRIC ENGINEERING 66. Easement shall be given for all the equipment on site. 67. Ingress/Egress easement is required to access all the equipment on site. 68. Show conduit routing to MH3435 which is right in front of Fire Station 5. 69. Show conduit routing from secondary box to street light pedestal. 70. The electric primary power for this project will come from an existing underground system at the corner of Arastradero and Clemen Ave. 71. CPAU will require easements at multiple locations for equipment such as load break, transformer, vault, underground box and conduits.CPAU will also require ingress/egress easement to access these equipment. 72. The locations of the equipment mentioned above shall be determined by CPAU and the developer. The clearance for the pad mount equipment is a typical 3’ all around and 8’ in front. Conduit route shall be clear of tree drip line. 73. The locations of the electric service for all the individual houses shall be close to the service points determined in step 4 above. 74. Applicant shall provide all the electric load information for transformer sizing. 75. Each parcel shall only have one electric service. The “Duet” units seem to be on a single parcel; therefore will only have one electric service per “Duet”. Consequently, each “Duet” shall have one common electric panel with two meters on it. 76. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 77. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 78. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 79. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 80. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 81. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 82. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 83. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 84. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 85. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 86. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 87. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 88. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 89. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 90. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 91. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 92. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 93. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 94. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 95. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 96. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 97. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 98. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 99. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 100. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 101. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 102. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 103. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 104. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 105. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 106. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 107. All fees must be paid. 108. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SUBDIVISION PROJECTS 109. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous sections of this document. 110. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 111. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 112. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. 113. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 114. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 115. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. BUILDING DIVISION Include in plans submitted for a building permit: 116. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct a complete project. 117. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems and components if utilized: E.V., P.V., and Solar Hot Water systems. 118. Deferred submittals shall be limited to as few items as possible. 119. A written outline/plan needs to be provide prior to building permit issuance to demonstrate compliance with CBC Section 3302 (Construction Safeguards) and Section 3306 (Protection of Pedestrians) during construction. 120. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on site. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 567 Maybell Avenue, 15PLN-00248 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 2.46 acres Minimum/Contextual Front Yard (2) 20 feet or the average setback (18.12.040(e)) 20 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 12 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet 14 feet 16 feet Special Setback Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Building Height 30 feet or 33 feet for a roof pitch of 12;12 or greater (3) 20 feet Varies, but 28 feet is the tallest Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle (6) Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 16 feet at rear setback line then 60 degree angle (6) Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 35% with an additional 5% for covered patio/ overhangs (42,863 sf) 9 % 29% (32,017 square feet) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 45% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 30% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf 0.09:1 37% (40,708 square feet) Max. House Size 6,000 sf 2,400 square feet 2,550 square feet max Residential Density One unit, except as provided in 18.12.070 Complies Complies (3) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heights are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 33 feet. (6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase in the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Single Family Residential Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 parking spaces per unit, of which one must be covered 8 spaces 32 total spaces with 16 covered Bicycle Parking None n/a n/a Studio S² Architecture, Inc. 1000 S Winchester Blvd San Jose, CA 95128 ph: (408) 998-0983 fax: (408) 404-0144 ESakai@studios2arch.com May 12, 2017 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 285 Hamilton Ave # 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner Re: Project File: 15 PLN-00248 Studio S Squared job#: 16-025 Project Address: 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto CA Dear Mr. Ah Sing: Thank you for taking time to review our drawings for the above project. Please see our written responses to your comments below: General:  Every lot is shown separately with its own floor plans, roof plans, sections, details, elevations, and perspectives;  We are showing property lines and setback lines on every ground floor plan;  Basement outline is shown on ground floor plan;  For 16 lots we provided 8 unit types but every house is unique (by materials, window design, front door treatment, roof design, and overall style);  Lot Coverage, FAR and all areas included/excluded in the FAR (with dimensioning) are shown for each lot. See sheets Ax.1a - Floor Area Calculations;  The depth of the covered patios have been reduced by one foot;  We provided a second floor site plan sheet showing 45 degree view lines from balconies and windows with sills lower than 5 feet above finish floor;  In an effort to reduce bulk/mass as perceived from the street, we have introduced a spit level 2nd floor that allows us to have higher ceiling at the rear of the house and lower ceiling at the front. This split level introduces a break in second floor roof plane, which we feel also helps break up the roof massing while adding visual interest. We could simplify the roof design 05/12/2017 2 of 3 by having taller wall heights at the front, but that would defeat the purpose of reducing the scale of the front elevation;  We added car outlines on site plan and floor plans - in the garage and on uncovered parking space, as well as additional provided parking in driveways (cars are shown in different colors so it is easy to read the plan);  We are showing potential solar panels on south and west side of roof on every house; these panels are not part of this application but to show that the roof framing will be designed to withstand panel weights;  All street front orientation label issues have been corrected;  The amount of paving for walkways and driveways has been reduced as much as practical given the vehicular circulation requirements;  The windows and balconies are positioned in conjunction with the landscaping;  See landscape plans for all landscape requirements, trees locations, plants species, fence locations, material and heights;  See sheet TM3.1 for new and relocated trees. Lots 1, 3 and 6 – type 1:  Second floor layout has been modified so the bedroom 3 and bathroom 3 now sits at the lower second floor finish floor height rather than sharing the higher finish floor height of the master suite;  House on lot 6 has been shifted to the west while still complying with side setback and daylight plane to make the parking easier without relocating the oak tree #3;  On lot 3 the flat band has been redesigned as the hipped roof. Lots 2 and 4 – type 4:  We provided new unit type design in response to ARB concerns about the driveway position. Lot 5 – type 5:  The house design has been design to be more traditional, for example the metal roof has been changed to asphalt comp shingle roof;  We reduced the number of materials and the amount of stone, we simplified the belly-band trim, removed the trellis above garage door, added two new windows to the front elevation, and also added a planter to soften the front elevation. Lot 9 – type 7:  Radii of the roofs are now all consistent;  Detached garage has been moved farther back so parking will be easier. 05/12/2017 3 of 3 Lot 13 – type 3:  We reduced the size of the balcony on the front elevation. Lot 14 – type 6:  We added vining plants to the north side of the garage to soften the appearance of the garage for lot 13’s benefit. All lots:  Exterior material palette has been significantly simplified - we reduced the number of materials, incorporated wood siding extensively, and simplified colors palette;  We reduced the amount of stone being used across all lots;  We changed all white painted surfaces to either shades of gray or beige;  All arched windows have been changed to rectangular windows;  Lot designations are easier to read on site plans and house footprints are colored by the style so the site plan is easier to read;  All flat roofs are called out as TPO membrane roofs with decorative gravel cover;  Number of proposed rail styles have been reduced to two styles;  Triangular traffic control elements are shown to remain in Clemo Avenue; See sheets A0.5a, A0.7 and A0.8.  We added eye level perspective views. Thank you for your review. Please do not hesitate to call our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Eugene H. Sakai, AIA, LEED AP President, Studio S² Architecture, Inc. cc: Ted O'Hanlon, Property Owner Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7629) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Maybell Avenue: 16 Single Family Residential Units Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and the Construction of 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract 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. Conduct a public hearing and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. Report Summary Applicant proposes to demolish four existing single-family residences and construct 16 two- story single-family residences with basements on a 2.47-acre site. The project site was subject to a previous tentative map action that established the subdivision. The project is subject to architectural review findings and single-family design criteria. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has previously been prepared for the subdivision application, which anticipated this housing development; no further environmental documentation is necessary. Standard findings for consideration and conditions are included with this report, including special conditions related to reducing the paving area for driveways along Maybell Avenue; the relocation of the detached garage for Lot 14; the elimination of an architectural element for Lot 15; and the reduction in roof-pitch for the first level of the Spanish style units. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: Golden Gate Homes, LLC Architect: Studio S Squared Architecture, Inc. Representative: Ted O’Hanlon Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 567 Maybell Avenue Neighborhood: Green Acres Lot Dimensions & Area: 326 ft x 316 ft (2.47 acres) Housing Inventory Site: Yes – 26 Units (Maximum Yield based on Current Zoning) Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes (29 Oaks)(four to be relocated on-site with others retained in place) Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): Four single-family, single-story detached dwellings constructed between 1953 and 1968. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant and housing. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PC-2656 (Multi-Family Residential) West: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) East: PC-2218 (Multi-Family Residential) South: PF (Briones Park) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps, December 2016 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: R-2 Low Density Residential (0.81 acres)/RM-15 (1.65 acres) Comp. Plan Designation: SF Single-Family Residential & MF Multi-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes. However, not applicable to Single-Family Development 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): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Immediately adjacent to residential uses and districts. Located w/in the Airport Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Influence Area: Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: June 20, 2016. Approval of Tentative Map http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52772 http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-93/ PTC: May 25, 2016. Recommendation of approval to City Council of Tentative Map. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52513 http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-33/ HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish four existing single-story single-family residences. Consistent with the previously approved tentative map that subdivides the property into 16 lots and a private street. The applicant further proposes to construct 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Five units will replace the existing four units along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two separate driveways. The interior of the site will have a private street entrance from Clemo Avenue providing both ingress and egress for the 11 units. The project also includes a finished sidewalk along Maybell Avenue eliminating the paving gap that currently exists. The design concept includes a mix of contemporary and Spanish style architecture themes with a transitional style theme that creates a bridge between the contemporary and Spanish styles. While multiple units may share an architectural theme, no two units share the same architectural design. Each unit has two parking spaces. 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 & 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. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The 2.46-acre site is relatively flat; a portion of the property is zoned R-2 (0.81 acres) and includes four single-family dwellings that front Maybell Avenue. Another portion of the property is zoned RM-15 (1.65 acres) and is vacant (former orchard) that fronts Clemo Avenue. The property is bounded by two to three-story multi-family dwellings to the north; an eight- story residential tower to the east; Briones Park to the south, and single-family residences to the west. The property is located within the vicinity is Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, the City’s Fire Station #5 and other single-family neighborhoods. Clemo Avenue has no vehicular access to Maybell Avenue, however, pedestrian and bicycle access is allowed. The proposed two-story buildings complement the adjacent structures within the vicinity. There is no dominant architectural style within the area, which includes some original homes and renovated sites. The project adds to an already eclectic mix of styles. The size and scale of the proposed residences in is appropriate to the scale of other single family residences in the neighbor and the layout of homes is compatible with the surrounding community. Zoning Compliance2 Although, the project site is zoned R-2 and RM-15, the application was reviewed, consistent with applicable regulations, to the R-1 development standards since the project proposes single-family development. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is included in a summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations of “Single-Family Residential” and “Multi-Family Residential” that support residential uses. Single-Family residential uses are consistent in both designations. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Comp Plan standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. On balance, the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Housing Element The site is included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element inventory of housing sites, which indicates a maximum yield of 27. While the project would provide fewer units than the number specified in the Housing Element, the Element’s inventory contained a buffer in excess of the city’s State allocation to account for projects such as this. Attachment C provides details on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the City Council last year approved the subdivision map for the subject site that authorized the 16 lot subdivision. Multi-Modal Access & Parking A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed for the tentative map that includes a project description that is consistent with the architectural review request. The TIA was previously evaluated by the City’s Transportation Division and this evaluation was included in the PTC report in May 2016. Five units are proposed along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two driveways and one unit possessing its own. A private street entrance on Clemo Avenue would provide both ingress and egress for the 11 units on the interior of the site. There is no direct vehicular access from Clemo to Maybell (however, emergency vehicles do have access), so the vehicular traffic on Clemo will need to traverse Arasterdero Road to get to El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway. The project site is within the vicinity of Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. Maybell Avenue, Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road are considered walking and biking routes to these facilities. With these institutions, Maybell Avenue experiences heavy pedestrian bicycle usage during the mornings and afternoons when the schools are in session. The project includes construction of a sidewalk along the Maybell Avenue frontage, which would eliminate an existing gap between the site to the north and Clemo Avenue. The inclusion of this sidewalk will help make the site more pedestrian accessible. No bicycle parking is required for single-family uses, however, bicycles could be parked in the garage, within the house or somewhere else on the property. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to two sets of findings. Architectural Review findings are pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.020 and Context-Based findings are pursuant to PAMC Section 18.16.090(b). These findings are included in Attachment B for consideration. There are aspects of the project that staff believes should be modified and has incorporated conditions of approval requiring these changes. Specifically, Lots 2 and 3 as well as Lots 4 and 5 share a curb-cut to Maybell Avenue. As proposed, Lots 3 and 5 include significant paving in the front yard to maintain turning movements out of the street-facing garages. The amount of paving seems excessive and could be reduced if the homes on Lots 3 and 5 were placed closer to the north property line. Condition number 3a and b, requires this home be placed within no City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 closer than 9.5 feet of the north property line and the front yard paving to be reduced to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In another instance, Lot 14 mostly mirrors Lot 9 (opposite the Lot), however, the detached garage is placed along the north property line, which is adjacent to the front yard of Lot 13. There is room on the property to place the garage along the east property line. Understandably, the lot would have a reduced rear yard, however, that is not uncommon with newer single- family developments to have small rear yards. In addition, Briones Park is a close distance away. Staff proposes two other conditions; one requires the elimination of an architectural roof element for Lot 15. The roof connector on the second floor (front) which shapes the opening through the roof shall be removed because it does not provide any structural integrity or strengthen the architectural identity of the style. Another condition requires the reduction in roof-pitch for the upper level of the Spanish style units to achieve consistency with the lower roof pitch. In the Spanish vernacular, the roof pitch is lower. 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 was previously evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration when the Tentative Map component was approved by the City. The project description in addition to the subdivision included the site development of 16 single-family dwelling units. The project description anticipated the units having basements and that the project would meet the minimum requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the previously completed environmental review, staff will incorporate standard conditions of approval related to basement dewatering, construction logistics plan and similar conditions to minimize construction related impacts. 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 January 20, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 23, 2017, 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. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Findings for consideration (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment G 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 “567 Maybell” 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 Package Resubmittal May 2017” City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Chair Lew: Welcome to the Architectural Review Board meeting for May 18th, 2017. Can we have a roll call, please? Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Board Member Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Absent: Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Peter Baltay Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. The public may speak to any item, not on the agenda. There’s a limit of 3-minutes per speaker. I don’t have any speaker cards. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: Then for Staff, are there any agenda changes? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: No changes Chair Lew: Great. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design 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 between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us Chair Lew: Then I think we can move onto the first item which is actually item number two – listed as number two. It’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter 3877 El Camino Real. Recommendation on ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 18, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 applicant’s request for approval of a site and design 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 which are flats and townhouses. Parking for the project is provided in the 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 is mitigated negative declaration was circulated between March 6, 2017, and April 7, 2017, and the zone districts is CS and RM-30. We have our project planner here today which is Sheldon Ah Sing. Welcome. Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, thank you and good morning. I do have a PowerPoint presentation and the applicant is also here with their PowerPoint. So, you did describe most of the project in a brief description but just a little bit more of an overview. There is a mixed-use building that will include six flats and then there will be 11 townhomes on the balance of the property. It’s an irregularly shaped lot, it’s an ‘L’ shaped lot that has frontage both along El Camino Real and Curtner. The CS zoning district is along El Camino and that’s where the mixed-used building would be. Then the townhouses would be along the balance of the site with frontage along Curtner. It’s a .75-acre site and there’s an existing vacant restaurant that’s there with some surface parking in the rear. There are two proposals – two requests as mentioned. You have the site and architectural – site and design with architectural review and then you have design enhancement exception that is for the basement to allow for a deviation from the 10-feet down to 6-feet so that is their request. This project has been before the Planning and Transportation Commission and they did have a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council on the site and design. As well as the adoption of the environmental document. This project did come before this Board last month and the Board did have some direction for revisions on the project. I have just a brief kind of overview about that. The applicant’s presentation specifically focuses on the responses to those comments and those are, of course, illustrated in your plans in the packet. The Board did have concerns about the landscaping on the site. It need to be – have more screening and providing some more native plantings. There was also some concern about security. There was some public comment regarding that as well. In particular with the basement, so the applicant has responded with a security plan that they will go into detail about. Then in addition to that, there was some comment on the existing building itself and the nature of it being historic. The Board had mentioned maybe having a commemorative plaque regarding the building’s history and past so the applicant has responded on how they would try to address that. I did want to go into more detail about the environmental aspect of the project which is the mitigated negative declaration. That was submitted and circulated between March 6th and April 7th. We did receive a lot of comments and they were all very good, very insightful comments. The consultant that drafted the environmental document did put together responses to those comments and those are included in your packet. Regarding those, there were some topics regarding the cultural resources. There were a number of alterations to the building but still, there are some significant thresholds, that because the building was altered so much, it just did not have the level of integrity to have it eligible for listing as a historic resource. Then regarding the traffic. Again, there are standards such as level service to the closest intersection. That was at Curtner and El Camino Real. That’s a level service A, which is the best and the project is pretty small and doesn’t contribute a lot of traffic to lower that threshold down to a level where it would be a significant impact. Then there were comments about hydrology and it was found that even though they are doing a basement there wouldn’t be any dewatering that would be required. Then having to also deal with hazards and emergency access, the project is designed to have standpipes so you really don’t need to have the fire trucks actually go into the site. They are able to address any fires or emergencies through other means that were designed. Those are ok with the Fire Department. If you have any detailed questions about that, we do have the environmental consultant here that can address some of those. After this meeting, if we do resolve everything and there is a recommendation for approval of the project. Then it will go forward to the City Council and that’s a decision on site and design, architectural review, and adoption of the negative declaration. Our recommended motion is that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration, approval of the architectural review and design enhancement exception to allow the construction of the mix-used projected based upon the findings and the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here with their presentation. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Lew: You have 10-minutes for the presentation. Mr. Mark Wommack: Good morning. My presentation was put together to specifically address some of the questions that were raised in our previous meeting. Chair Lew: Could you just state your name for the record? Mr. Wommack: Oh, I’m sorry. Chair Lew: We have minutes and video. Mr. Wommack: My name is Mark Wommack with the EID Architects. The first item that I wanted to cover actually wasn’t on the list that Sheldon just described to you but speaks to some of the questions that you had about the materials that were being used on the project. We have submitted the revised materials board which I believe you have available to you. Yes, ok. In just a description of some of the material -- there were questions for instance about how on the El Camino Real elevation the Trespa Panel details would work and what that would look like. This is a modularize panel system that can be put together to create some really very clean sophisticated looking detail. I chose these imagines to show to you because they address the issue of what happens at soffits and corners. This particular image you are seeing one of the product lines that’s not quite the same tone that we are choosing but the same wood grain product. This is the typical detailing system that is utilized. A rain screen system that allows us to get the tight joints and clean design appearance. This is the product that we will be using the key accents on the buildings. The next product that we are using is the hardy reveal panels. This is a similar product but it’s a more cost-effective panel and in our instance, because we are going to be utilizing a hidden fastener system, these panels will be painted to match the color selections on the board. This is the other option for it which has the exposed fastener system but we’re not proposing the exposed fasteners. We wanted to show you these though so you get a sense for how these materials will look in a final installation. Moving onto to the privacy screening. The landscape architect has incorporated additional trees places specifically in front of the balconies per your request. In order to do that, this had to be coordinated with the C3 drainage systems and so the design will incorporate some newer products that allow us to incorporate both C3 drainage systems and landscaping together; including trees. Then we can meet both objectives in this instance. Then moving onto the issue of the commemorative plaque. We’ve reached out to the family and asked them to give us some input regarding what they would like to see in terms of verbiage on the plaque that we intend to place on the site. Blending that in with the bench seating that we are providing. We are also proposing to utilize some of the elements that were saved from the building after the historic analysis. These will be added together to create a commemorative area to celebrate the contribution that the family created in their work over the years. Moving down into the garage to address the site security and lighting design. The security plan that was put together for us by a security consultant that we’ve engaged on this project includes a number of emergency call box features that are – moving back here – located throughout the garage; by elevators, by stair entrances. These will be monitored 24/7 by a security company. It also includes cameras. One of the nice things about modern technology is that these cameras are not only available for monitoring by the security company but also by the residents who can access that through internet web pages. That means that they would even be able to monitor security onsite from their iPhone as they are approaching the site or leaving their house. The gates that we’ve employed throughout the project will secure the garage completely after hours. Adding to security and that will be augmented by a routine, regular patrols by the security company. The lighting consultant has expanded their analysis to create a lighting plan for the basement. The thing that we want to point to here is that the level lighting that is being provided in this is actually quite good. These are fairly high levels of (inaudible) throughout the garage so we feel that we’ve really done what is necessary to create a secure and safe environment in that garage. It’s a challenge. I understand and appreciate fully the concerns about an environment like that. On the other hand, when more and more projects within the City are moving towards parking solutions that are below grade, this is the kind of balance that I think we have to strike in order to meet the criteria of providing adequate onsite parking and addressing the security needs. That wraps up the presentation on the specific questions. I would be happy to answer questions. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Lew: Ok, so we can do questions or also if there are any members of the public who want to speak. I don’t have any speaker cards but now would be the time to submit a card. Robert, questions? Wynne, you have questions? Board Member Furth: Yes. Could you take me through what the experience of a pedestrian walking by the building would be on El Camino? What portion, if any, of the site, would they see as welcoming to them if they weren’t spending money on whatever the retail project turns out to be? Mr. Wommack: Sure. Let’s see. Board Member Furth: And if they were making use of the retail project, to what – how far back into your landscaping and courtyards would they be invited? Mr. Wommack: Ok, on sheet A1.0, this gives you a bird’s eye view from the El Camino Real perspective. Board Member Furth: My set came stapled in a usual fashion. You have to turn it upside down several times to find the sheets. Where did it go? This one is amazing. Thanks. Mr. Wommack: Ok, so what we have done here is first we have the driveway ramp down into the garage that we’ve placed next to Starbucks. This was placed on this corner specifically to address concerns from the owner of the Starbucks property. (Crosstalk)(inaudible) Board Member Furth: So, that’s adjacent to the Starbuck’s drive through. Mr. Wommack: So that creates a fairly wide-open vista starting at that corner, where you can see all the way back past the mixed-use building into the residential portion of the site. As you pass by that driveway, you enter into an open area that’s underneath the floors above but again, this vista is unimpeded except for the security fence that segregates the residential portion of the project from the commercial portion of the project. Board Member Furth: Excuse me, and that’s the fence that’s behind the … Mr. Wommack: Yes. Yeah, where you can see… Board Member Furth: … where the ramp goes underground. Mr. Wommack: …you can see the large column. Board Member Furth: Yes. Mr. Wommack: It’s in line with the first of the two large columns. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Wommack: That’s really the transition from the Paul Book space – the plaza that services the retail area and the entrance to the mixed-use portion of the building. The view corridor draws your eye all the way back into the site. Obviously, for security reason, you don’t want to invite the general public to have complete access to the residential portion of the site but by hold this building up the way that we have. We’ve really taken almost 50% of the frontage of the property and created a view corridor that goes all the way back to the first down home. Board Member Furth: If I wanted to sit down, where would I sit? Mr. Wommack: There are a number of places where you could sit. You don’t see it from this perspective… City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Wommack: …but the backside of that planter that faces the retail area, on both ends of those there will be benches to sit on. I think you can see that on – oh, I miss spoke. It’s just the first one. On sheet 2.1, there is a bench that starts at the first column of the building and goes back to the second column of the building. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Wommack: So, that’s the bench seating for the public area of the project. Board Member Furth: Then the commemorative plaque, which I am very appreciative of. Where is that? Is that in the public are or the private area? Mr. Wommack: Well, we’ve got two places… Board Member Furth: You have two places… Mr. Wommack: …where we have proposed that it could be placed We had quite frankly… Board Member Furth: One on the pillar. Mr. Wommack: …we had hoped that we would be able to have more interaction with the family to move this a little bit further forward because obviously, what we want to do was make sure that they are… Board Member Furth: Of course. Mr. Wommack: …happy with our solutions. On sheet A3.1, you can see that the idea is to place this plaque into the backs of the bench seating. In here, we are showing a potential location that would locate this in the commercial set area of the project, which I think is probably the most appropriate because you want this to be available for the majority…(crosstalk)(inaudible) Board Member Furth: I would certain be in favor – yes, if we are trying to let the public know about the history of this site, that would make sense. Mr. Wommack: Right. The other opportunity that we’ve shown is on the next page, 31-B. That would be back in the common use area of the project. We – as I said, I personally believe that the public area is probably the more appropriate of the two. Our intention was to work with the family to make sure that we can incorporate the verbiage that they want and any sort of imagery. It’s a work in progress. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question for you. On the mixed-use building -- a portion of the building on El Camino – facing El Camino. You do have a large recessed are on the first floor or it’s not a recessed are. It’s an area that’s covered by the second floor. Mr. Wommack: Right. Chair Lew: You have a large blank wall on the ground floor unit that faces… Mr. Wommack: From the front elevation? Chair Lew: Not on the front elevation. This is on the – yeah. It would be on the – I’m trying to figure out – the southeast? The long elevation, the right-side elevation. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Wommack: Right. Chair Lew: That’s where you have a – in the landscape plan you have like the acanthus plants. Mr. Wommack: You’re speaking of the wall that is in between the store front and the opening for the lobby of the mixed-use building on sheet 2.5, drawing number two. Chair Lew: When I get to the elevation—let’s see. Yeah, so A2.5, right. Drawing number two? Right. Yeah, so it’s the long wall on the first floor on the right side. Mr. Wommack: On the right side after – ok, yeah. That’s… Chair Lew: Yeah, so I was wondering if there is room for – my question is if – what is your thinking about that because that’s a pretty long blank wall. It’s in the – I think I am understanding that you want privacy to the unit… Mr. Wommack: Right. Chair Lew: …there. I do understand that there’s a planter there so it won’t be completely blank. That will be filled with – that it will be filled with plants. I was just wondering what you were thinking about in terms of the big idea of that. Mr. Wommack: The landscaping is the intended solution. You are absolutely right. That it was a privacy issue and that’s why we didn’t put windows on that wall. We wanted residents who are entering the site to be focused more on the common use areas that they are beginning to experience as they enter that space. We wanted that wall really to be more of a backdrop to what was happening. We certainly didn’t want views into a private residence, which is what’s behind that wall, from that very public courtyard area. Yes, landscaping is the intended focal point along that section of the wall. Chair Lew: Ok, and is it a raised planter? I don’t really quite understand the podium. Mr. Wommack: Yeah, because everything underneath this building is parking. Chair Lew: Right, yeah. Mr. Wommack: In order for us to put any meaningful landscaping in, we have to build planters. There are obviously some plants that we can deploy across the site that don’t require much soil to live in but to get any substantial landscaping into the project, we’re going to have to bring in planters. Some of the planters are going to be used to help with the C3 drainage but not in this instance here. So, that’s why we do have raised planters in this area. Chair Lew: Ok, and it’s not – those aren’t shown in the drawing, in the architectural elevation. Mr. Wommack: Yes, and the reason why they are not shown in the architectural elevation is because we’ve put these – the architectural aspect of the drawing, including the Revit model that was utilized to present the 3D views. That work took place prior to the evolution – very recent evolution of the landscape design. Chair Lew: That’s fine. Ok, and on the – if you could go to the – I have a question on lighting. I think you’re – the lighting – I think you’re cut sheets, I think you included four fixture cut sheets and then I think there are five fixtures being called out on the lighting plan. Mr. Wommack: Is that 6.1 or 6.2? City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Lew: This would be – let’s see, it’s at the back. I was actually interested in the – my concern was the wall pack fixture. I’m looking for the sheet right now. Mr. Wommack: Yeah, I’m not sure which fixture you’re speaking of but the intent of the selection of the lighting was to try to avoid glare. Similar to the type of requirements that we have to meet when we’re building residences in Woodside. Where they have very strict… Chair Lew: Right, that’s… Mr. Wommack: …requirements regarding glare. Chair Lew: That’s my concern too. So, it’s on 6.1 and I think on your – on the schedule it is fixture number – which one is it? C, LED wall pack. My main concern is that wall packs are usually – they do cause glare because they’re shining – often times they are shining directly outwards. I mean sometimes some wall packs shine down but I just – I want to make sure that we sort of close the leap on this one because you have so many of them. You have them on all of the building and on all of the – on most of the fronts and backs. (Inaudible) Mr. Wommack: Well, we would welcome a condition that spoke to eliminating glare and not utilizing fixtures that create that problem. Chair Lew: Yeah. Again, it’s just – I think you have five fixtures and you’re showing four cut sheets so I’m not exactly sure what you’re proposing in this location. Ok and I think my last question is on the mailboxes. You’re showing a mailbox area inside the gate on Curtner. Mr. Wommack: Yes. Chair Lew: I was just wondering if it made sense to have them outside the gate. I mean that’s up to you and the post office but there’s package drop off and stuff that usually happens outside the gate. I don’t think we have to resolve that at the moment but it was just a question that I had. Mr. Wommack: Ok, I was trying to determine whether or how we would incorporate that outside the gate. What structure that we would need to put out there to screen it and make it attractive. It could be done. Chair Lew: You don’t have to -- we don’t have to design it now but I just wanted – have you reviewed it with the post office? Mr. Wommack: No. No, but we have a number of mixed use multi-family projects where the mail rooms and the package drop-offs are within a secure area of the buildings. Chair Lew: That’s fine. Why don’t we move on to – if we are done with questions, we can move onto comments. So, Wynne, will you start us off? Board Member Furth: Thank you. Well, thank you for persevering with this. It’s good to know that we’ll have some more housing in a fairly – extremely accessible location. I realize that what we see is virtuous because it provided additional housing can also be seen as difficult for people trying to get in and out of Curtner. I think some of the responsibility for that really has to lie with the City and not this particular project. Staff, did we hear anything back from our Staff – Public Work Staff about the design of the street? The use of rolled curb on what’s now a more intensively traveled street. Do we still think that’s appropriate? I’m not asking whether the applicant should deal with this but what our own Staff thinks about our own responsibilities. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Thank you, Board Member Furth. Jonathan Lait, assistant director. I did have a conversation with our Transportation Department and that design, with the rolled curbs, is not City of Palo Alto Page 8 something that is imploded anymore. It’s not a desirable street design. It’s not something that we continue to do, there is – I know that we heard in the public testimony some concerns about vehicles parking over the rolled curbs and into the sidewalk area. Which is not actually a permissible activity by our local regulations. From time to time we do code enforcement or courtesy notices to remind property owners of that issues but yeah, it’s not a design feature that we do today. Board Member Furth: So, my comment basically is that I think that we should or I would like to mention to Staff that when you are thinking about capital improvement project plans for the City, that maybe we’re at the point where we need to be doing some retrofitting. That this was built under county standards and most of the county won’t let you do this. I found that when I’ve been walking it, every single car has been parked on the sidewalk because they feel that if they don’t park on the sidewalk, you can’t get traffic through there. I think that this may be – as we continue to intensify housing, it has many upsides but if we want to reduce the downsides for the people who live in that area. Perhaps the City needs to spend some of its own money on that frontage. I was good – happy to hear the answers to the questions about how people would sit and how they would be invited in and the view corridor in, I think was very appreciative of housing that makes its self-known on the street. This should be inviting and attractive and I like what you are proposing. Staff, I did have one question about flat 101, which is the – I was trying to figure out that wall related to the garden on that ground level as wells. It’s a below market rate unit and it’s comparable in size to the other below market rate units. It only – it seems to have very limited natural light because of the narrow setback – relatively narrow setback on the north side. What I think of as the north side, towards downtown and because it’s got a completely blank wall on the other side, how does this compare with the natural light in other units? Mr. Ah Sing: Maybe we can have the applicant respond to that. Thank you. Board Member Furth: Thanks. Mr. Wommack: The configuration of the windows in flat 101 mirrors very closely to the configuration of the windows in 201 and 301. Board Member Furth: Which is on page… Mr. Wommack: Above them. Board Member Furth: ...22? Mr. Wommack: Oh, I am sorry. Sheet 1.2 and 1.3. Board Member Furth: Ok, I’m looking at 2.1. Mr. Wommack: Oh, that would have worked too. Board Member Furth: Those work also, right? Mr. Wommack: Yeah, I just happened to open to the site plan instead of the building plan. Board Member Furth: They are a little bit bigger. Mr. Wommack: The wall that faces the courtyard on the stories above, is the (inaudible) wall in between units, on the second floor. Board Member Furth: Ok. Mr. Wommack: So, the unit directly above it has no opportunity… City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Furth: So, no natural light in the kitchen is a recurring condition. Mr. Wommack: I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Board Member Furth: Not having any windows in the kitchen is a recurring condition. Mr. Wommack: Yes. Right, the – from a functional perspective, there really is no difference between 201 and 101. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Mr. Wommack: Yeah. Board Member Furth: I see you do have lighting on two other sides but—natural light. Thank you. I was curious because of our requirement – our goal is that these units be comparable to the others and I’m satisfied with that answer. I defer to my more knowledgeable colleagues. Chair Lew: Did you comment on the DEE? Board Member Furth: I have no objection to the DEE in this case. Chair Lew: Thank you. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I (inaudible) – when – just as a side note. My first house that I had, had a kitchen that had no windows in it. Based on how the lighting is done, it works just fine. There really isn’t that big of a problem and it is true, I didn’t have a big issue because the first floor and the second floor are exactly the same. Anyway, having reviewed this, I’m relatively happy with all the modifications that you made and so I’m – the only thing that, I guess just sort of caught my eye as an afterthought is the plaque. Which has 15 lines of text on it and it’s 8-inches high. Come on, give me a break. It – we’re talking about a plaque this big with 15 lines of text on it. That might as well just be a – nobody is going to be able to read that. That thing is going to need to be at least twice that size. Mr. Wommack: I agree that a larger plaque will probably be required. Until we… Board Member Gooyer: I mean I saw your comment about, or larger, but in any kind of thing like this. When you are sitting here, I never like to see, or larger or smaller, because then that – who knows what we are going to end up with. Mr. Wommack: We didn’t know the final size of the plaque because we haven’t resolved the final design with the family. If you’d like to put some condition that specifies a minimum size, we’re more than happy to work with that but we were really thinking of it as not so much as trying to minimize the display but rather that it’s a work in progress. We still have more information to gather from the family before we finalize any design on the plaque. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. That was basically the main thing that I saw. I can approve it the way that it is now. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. I would say that thank you for the project. This one has been in planning for several years. I think this is approvable – I think I can recommend approval for it today. I had a couple things that I – I think that it may be better to come back to subcommittee. One is the lighting. I think you are admitting that the first-floor covered area that we were talking about before with the acanthus and the blank wall. That’s not showing on your drawing at the moment and I think that’s important because that’s pretty – kind of a public area. I would want to see how that’s being illuminated. Then again, the wall, I would like more information on the wall pack fixture. On the landscape, I do think that the changes that you have made to provide more screening to the neighbors; I think that’s good. We do City of Palo Alto Page 10 – we did change the finding for landscape for native plants and that happened recently. That was this year and I know your project has been around for several years but it is a finding and it is going to Council. I think I would recommend that to come back. I think the landscape design, I think is – has the landscape architect – I think has picked out sort of architecturally – have like architectural foliage and they’re very attractive and durable plants but I think we’re actually – from the City’s point of view, we’re looking for something different. We’re actually looking for habitat for wildlife and I don’t really see very many plants on the plant list that fit into the plant communities of Palo Alto, which are coastal sage scrub and oak – central oak woodlands. I think that there – you can make quite a number of substitutions but without really effecting anything. You could get the same – achieve the same look with native plants. So, I think that’s – it’s not a – that’s just mostly the shrubs. I think the trees can all stay as proposed. I think maybe also at the same time, I’d be kind of curious to see the hardscape. I think you have some notes on the hardscape about what it is but I’m curious to see more in terms of the materials. It’s mostly because you’ve got a very large podium. It’s kind of – you’ve got something unusual there with such a large amount of podium space. Also, at the same time – yeah, if you’ve resolved the mailbox design with the post office, I would be curious to see that as well. Regarding the plaque, I think that – yeah, I don’t have any specific comments about the plaque but I think that the idea of incorporating the plaque and artifacts in there is good. The – I can support the DEE for the rear setback – encroachment into the rear setback for the basement, mostly because this is a very unusual, very difficult, very narrow site. On the parking, I would say that I think your drawings are saying that everything is going to be designated parking and in a way, between all the different uses – right, so the residences have designated parking and the office and retail have separate parking. In a way, I just want to generalize, I would think it’s a missed opportunity for shared parking. Underground parking is very expensive and the City does encourage or I would say allows parking reductions for mixed use buildings. It’s really – the point is to be really efficient and not to build unnecessary spaces that stay empty all – for half of the day. I do realize that parking on El Camino and Curtner is limited and so I think what you are doing is probably the right solution in this particular instance. Then I think my last thing is that I was a little bit concerned about the blank wall. It seemed like you could have small windows that are up high that wouldn’t – that would allow light into the unit and allow for privacy. It’s not really on the major public face of the building so if you want to keep it the way that it is, I would not object to that. Then I think my last comment is not really sorted of the purview of the Board because it’s more of the inner workings of the units but on those – on the flats in the mixed-use building. I would kind of be more tempted to put the living unit – the living rooms down at the end where you’ve got the balconies. That means that you would have to go through the bedrooms – like have a hallway from the front door. It seems like that’s the more public – you would be putting the public space of the unit or the more public – the more – the living areas of the units facing the common area. Anyway, I think that’s not typically a Board – ARB concern, right? So, Wynne, I think you had one final comment? You had a follow-up. Board Member Furth: I did and this is both for Staff and the applicant. This is going to be divided or is already divided into two parcels? One for the commercial building and one for the residential or is it a single, unified parcel? Is it going to be under one ownership with – and everything will be rental or will some of it… Mr. Ah Sing: I think we’ll have… Board Member Furth: …or will it be condominiums? Mr. Ah Sing: … the applicant describes that for you. Board Member Furth: Thank you. What I am trying to figure out is how the security plan for the garage is managed and paid for. Mr. Wommack: This – the plan is that this will be a condo project… Board Member Furth: Alright. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Wommack: … but it is one project and it is one parcel. It just happens to span across two zones within the City, which made it a very challenging project because we had to treat it as though it were two parcels. Meaning that we had to comply with all zoning criteria on each end but it will be one homeowner association – home perhaps may be miss leading because it also includes some retail space. Board Member Furth: Yeah. Mr. Wommack: The retail ownership will also be part of that association. Jointly, they will manage the property and the security and all other aspects of the operation. Board Member Furth: That will be a complicated sense of CCNRs. Mr. Wommack: That’s why we have (inaudible). Board Member Furth: Department of Real Estate is going to have an interesting time with that one. For Staff, my concern is with condition ten because we’re not doing a Conditional Use Permit, are we? We’re just doing a design review essentially and a DEE? Mr. Ah Sing: Yes, that is correct. Board Member Furth: So, we don’t have that enforcement mechanism that we will, for example, have with the school project that comes next. The enforceability of this is going to depend upon the way the CCNRs are drawn and reviewed. Whether the City has a right of enforcement with the CCNRs and I think that’s important. I’d like to ask you to consider – I’d like to recommend that condition ten be modified so that the review includes the review of the relevant – we probably—in some cases, we’re always reviewing CCNRs. I don’t know if we are going to be here but includes reviewing the relevant portion of the CCNRs to ensure that there’s adequate enforceability by the residents. If necessary the City, with respect to this safety program and I’d also – would it be acceptable to ask that where it says approval from the City, that would include review by the Police Department since they are the people most knowledgeable about security issues? Mr. Lait: The – from time to time we do ask the Police Department to review… Board Member Furth: For comment? Mr. Lait: …plans to address areas that they might think are problematic from a security standpoint. Board Member Furth: Public safety point of view. Mr. Lait: Dark corners or things like that, that might contribute or facilitate activity that is not legal. We can certainly do that and have that reviewed. As far as the CCNRs go – and so that review would be – perhaps there should be some other language in here that talks about the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall approve a security plan and in the course of that review, we shall consult with the…(crosstalk) Board Member Furth: Enforceability and – practicality and enforceability. Mr. Lait: Enforceability and it would also be – yeah, and also have the Police Chief or his designee review the plans. Board Member Furth: Well, if you’re in the custom – if you’re in the practice of doing that, we don’t need to put that in the conditions. That’s just going to be good practice on your part but I would like to add that with the City, for a plan – and shall be reviewed for practicality and enforceability (inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think there’s sufficient authority in the ARB findings to enforce this condition. As you do look at the safety and security of and access to the site, which would include pedestrian access and so forth. I think there’s sufficient leverage for the City to enforce this but we’ll look at opportunities to tighten it up. Board Member Furth: My experience is that it’s more useful if the people who are living there have the ability to resolve these issues internally because they’re going to be the people most interested in having this work. If we have back up enforceability, that’s good because I agree that we wouldn’t approve this design if they didn’t have adequate security measures. Mr. Lait: Right and then perhaps the condition could also reference the map that eventually comes through and the encouragement or the requirement for a condition be imposed on the map itself. So, that we are reviewing that when we are looking at the CCNRs. Board Member Furth: Review the CCNRs. Fine. Chair Lew: Ok, so are we ready to make a motion? Board Member Furth: I don’t know if I took enough notes on your matters to be (inaudible). I can start. Chair Lew: Start and then I’ll add… Board Member Furth: Alright. Chair Lew: …to it. MOTION Board Member Furth: Pardon. I move that we recommend approval of the application for 3877 El Camino Real. Both for the site and design review and the Design Enhancement Exception with the findings and conditions presented by the Staff but subject to the following modification. First, that condition number ten be modified as per Staff’s statement to be reviewed for practicality and enforceability of the security plan and that the following matters be referred to a subcommittee for further review. That would be the location of the mailbox and box drop off, the landscaping along the wall – the kitchen wall of flat number 101, and what else? Board Member Gooyer: Do you just want to say the landscaping plan because we talked about possible native (inaudible). Board Member Furth: Further review. Oh, yes, the substitution of native plants suitable for habitat in the landscaping plan. Chair Lew: Yeah and then I think in the recessed area was just the lighting. Board Member Furth: Oh, and the lighting, further review of the lighting. In particular, along with the recessed area adjacent to flat 101. Chair Lew: Ok, is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: Oh, I’ll second that. Chair Lew: So, we have a – yes? Mr. Lait: Chair, just before you vote. You had some other comments about hardscape and more information on the wall packs. Did you want that to return also? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Lew: Yeah, so I think on condition – I think the fourth item that Wynne mentioned was lighting and so that was the wall packs in the recessed area. Mr. Lait: Got it, thank you and the hardscape? Board Member Furth: Do we want something specific about plaque size? Chair Lew: Oh, yeah. Plaque size? I don’t know. Board Member Furth: And that there be a further review at the subcommittee level of the size of the proposed plaque. Board Member Gooyer: I figure with the plaque; the family is not going to be happy with an 8-inch by 12- inch (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Board Member Furth: In argot type, yes. Board Member Gooyer: … with a text on it. Chair Lew: Ok. Board Member Gooyer: I’m assuming that they can figure that out themselves. Chair Lew: So, clarification – there just to clarify, so there’s a recommendation for approval. This is site and design so it’s going to Council so we’re –it’s a recommendation to Council. We normally do it to the Director. Ok, and then the plaque size. Why don’t we just say this, the final design… Board Member Gooyer: Why don’t we it with a minimum or that – or I’d say change the minimum from 8 x 12 to let’s say 16 x 24. Board Member Furth: I’m happy to add that. Board Member Gooyer: Twice its size. Chair Lew: Ok, so that’s the six items. So, all in favor? Opposed? None. So, that’s 3-0-0-2. Congratulations. MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE 3-0-0-2 WITH BALTAY AND KIM ABSENT 3. QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER/PUBLIC HEARING. 689-693 Arastradero Road [16PLN- 00089]: Consideration of the Applicant's Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit for the Demolition of Three Existing Single-Family Homes and Construction of a New Preschool for up to 60 Children That Would Also Serve as a Satellite Expansion of the Existing Bowman School on Terman Drive. Three new Single-Story Structures Will Have a Combined Floor Area of 17,132 Square Feet and Will be Used for the Preschool, Gymnasium, and Classrooms. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From January 19, 2017 to February 21, 2017. A Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available. For More Information Contact: Claire Hodgkins at: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We can move onto item number three which is a quasi-judicial matter and public hearing for 689 and693 Arastradero Road. Consideration of the applicant's request for approval of an Architectural Review Permit for the demolition of three existing single-family homes and construction of a new City of Palo Alto Page 14 preschool for up to 60 children that would also serve as a satellite expansion of the existing Bowman School on Terman Drive. Three new single-story structures will have a combined floor area of 17,132 square feet and will be used for the preschool, gymnasium, and classrooms. (Inaudible) in there. Environmental assessment is a draft initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated from January 19, 2017, to February 21, 2017. A final initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available. We have Claire Hodgkins for our Staff planner here getting ready for a – oops, there we go. Welcome, Claire. Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Staff Planner: Good morning Board Members. I’m Claire Hodgkins and I’m the project planner for this project. Also known at the Bowman school project and it’s located at 689 and 693 Arastradero Road. Just a quick overview of the project. The proposed project includes construction of a new private school for up to 60 students, ages 3-5 and satellite break out space for students at the existing Bowmen school campus at – which is located at 400 Terman Drive. The total gross floor area proposed is 17,132- square feet. This includes the children’s house which includes a classroom and administrative office for the preschool students, in addition to a science lab, art building, and a gymnasium. There would be an exterior play garden – play area, gardens, sunken learning circle, associated landscaping and a parking lot drop off area. Total enrollment at both sites will not exceed the currently permitted 300 students the Bowmen school campus at Terman Drive. The project replaces three existing single-family residences. This map is just a quick map that shows you the location in reference to the existing Bowmen school campus. This map just shows the neighborhood context and surrounding uses include mostly multi-family residential and single-family residential. Just north of the site is the Palo Alto Christian Reform Church and just south of the site is the Hitachi right of way pedestrian trail and Alta Mesa Memorial Park. Key considerations, the ARB raised a few key items for consideration during the first formal hearing. In particular, consideration of circulation in traffic specifically concerns for queuing on Arastradero Road where raised. Staff believes that the alternate parking layout better addresses this concern along with other concerns raised by various different departments across the City. Additional information regarding circulation between the main Bowmen School campus and the new annex campus at 693 Arastradero Drive has also been provided to provide additional clarity about that circulation. In addition, the ARB raised concerns regarding shading at the adjacent Young Life Preschool and the applicant has made revisions to the roof line based on a recommendation from various Board Members, which has reduced shading on the adjacent property. Today, Staff is recommending that the ARB consider the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and approve the project with Staff’s preferred alternate parking layout to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Claire. We can do the applicants presentation now and you have 10- minutes. John, if you could just state your name for the record, please. Mr. Jon Daseking: Thank you. Just waiting for the presentation to get up. Oh, I’ll start. Good ahead. Good morning Board Members. My name is Jon Daseking as you may recall and I’m the architect for Bowman School. With me today is Mary Beth Ricks of Bowman School –head of school, as well as Colleen Reilly who is the project manager and representative for Bowman School. [Bob Cleaver], landscape architect and Robert [Eckles] for traffic consultant are here today to answer any questions that you may have. As Claire mentioned or we – this is our third time in front of the Board here. At our last meeting, I think we – the Board had a very favorable opinion of the project. There were a few items that they wanted us to address, which Claire outlined well in her Staff report. I won’t go through all of those but there was just a couple that I wanted to touch on. The first one was on this slide here, there was a concern with the doors into the mechanical room on the Children’s House being – maybe looking too much like the entrance for the building. I think part of that was due to the way that it was presented. We had shown individual buildings and when you do that, I can see where that concern comes up. We – so we did this drawing which is – shows the full campus with both buildings, the materials rendered and so on and I think you can see from here what we are showing – I don’t know if I have a little pointer on this. Where did it go? There we go. With – note this area here is where those doors are so they're pretty subdued because they are meant to blend in with the wall. Also, there is – there was originally a plan for bicycle parking in that area because it’s sort of a natural and nice little notch for them to be parked in City of Palo Alto Page 15 and so we have that there as well. Then we’re also showing in this the Paseo entrance. We did some revisions to that. It always had an open gate entrance way but we met with Palo Alto fire further since our last meeting and refined their requirements in terms of the width of gate access and so on. So, we were able to refine that and I think the scale of this one is much nicer than the one we had before when we had the wider gate entrance. Then lastly was just to show the – to illustrate the open fencing that was in front of the ideal lab which was another concern of the Boards on that. Let’s see, then this slide was just to show an enlarged view of the Paseo entrance, as well as how that bicycle parking lays outs in the plan. Then the second item that I want to touch on was in the shadows. We had met with Diane Chambers of Young Life Preschool a couple of months ago. We had – before doing that, we took your comment about creating a shed roof over the bleacher portion of the building to reduce the shadows so we did that. Then we produced this drawing that we shared with Ms. Chambers and I’m not sure if she is here today to talk about it but I think it was a favorable meeting. This illustrates sort of item or section four shows what is allowed by zoning—current zoning and then one, two, and three. One being the initial proposal that we had when we first met; here. Then two is when we rotated the gym showing further reduction and then three shows how we changed the roof line over the bleachers. Also, it shows what’s happening inside the building when we do that. I think we’ve really reduced this tremendously each time we’ve done that and we’re well below what could have happened. These little pie charts just help illustrate again, how we’ve reduced – what time of year the shadows actually are cast and showing how with each revision, we’ve – the cone has been reduced and reduced. Then these are just the shadow studies that are part of your packet. The next was on landscaping and for that, I’ll let [Bob Cleaver] make comments. [Mr. Bob Cleaver]: Good morning. [Bob Cleaver] landscape architect for the project and that I’d want – I want to first address is the parking – I’m sorry, planting area along Arastradero. It’s the public section and it’s a strip between the curb along Arastradero and the public sidewalk. We propose a narrow planting of a native sage Juncus. We chose it and we’re not planting the entire width of the planting area but we’re providing if you will, a hedge of the Juncus. The plant material is evergreen and it’s a good solid dark green. It grows upright and we chose it so that it had a minimum of maintenance, either flopping or growing over the curb or the sidewalk. We feel that although management, meaning watering, it could be a series of seasonal watering where it’s deeply watered and then allowed to dry out and then deeply watered. It wouldn’t be a constant water requirement and then over time, it doesn’t get very tall and it doesn’t need a lot of maintenance so we felt it was a good choice for a public zone. Going the wrong way. The next item that I wanted to talk about was that there’s a series of questions and clarification for the existing oak tree; maybe I’ll go back one slide. The large oak that is really the hallmark of the design of the [Paseo] and how a lot of the buildings are located. It is between the Arastradero road and the parking strip and the [Paseo] and the main corridor through the buildings is centered on this tree. There are protection measures and planting measures that deal with raising the driveway above existing conditions – above the existing grade and having a series of either geo-mats and root protection material that allows the driveway to occur above existing grade and still protect the tree itself with – well, during construction some silt fences. In the long term, a geo-grid that is protecting existing grade from the proposed parking above. Then a nice soft, simple transition off of the parking and paving area. Then, I believe just as a clarification, there was an issue brought up about the clearance from the tree to the parking. Our 9-foot dimension – I’m going to ask Jon to weigh in as well. He might clarify it further but the 9-foot dimension radius that we have as a clearance was from the Arborist Report. If you look at our plans, there is a further distance beyond the 9-foot that is actually clear. I believe we have an 11-foot clearance available to the – from the tree to the paving at the parking area. I believe the recommendation from the Staff report was for 10-15. So, I think we’re close – I believe we are complying and we’re – but I just wanted to clarify where the 9-foot came from and that we exceed it. I’m available for questions and I’ll let Jon continue. Mr. Daseking: Thanks, Bob. The last slide I was going to show today was just to show that Staff had referred to the Staff preferred alternative parking layout. This drawing slide shows both parking layouts side by side with the Staff preferred parking layout on the left and the Bowman original proposed layout on the right. The only thing that I want to say on this was that Bowman School feels strongly that their proposed parking layout, rather than the Staff preferred alternative, is the better design for numerous City of Palo Alto Page 16 reasons but primarily for children safety. However, with that said, if the project can only be approved with the Staff preferred alternative, then Bowman School is willing to accept that option. That is, it, I thank you for my time and if you have any questions, please let us know. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this item? No. Are there any – yes. Yeah, please state your name and you have 5-minutes. Ms. Christina Hildebrand: I don’t need all 5-minutes. My name is Christina Hildebrand, I am a parent of two children who attend Bowman and I live in the area. I just wanted to give my support and ask you to approve the project and I did write a letter as well, which sort of expanded on my thoughts on the matter. I also ask you to approve it with the current CUP as it stands. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I will close the public portion of the hearing and are there any Board Member questions? Board Member Furth: Could Staff go – I have two questions. One was in regard to Penny Elson’s letter of May 2nd. One of the concerns that she raised was the impact of this project on traffic in the bicycle lanes. I understand that we have a Conditional Use Permit condition that essentially says no traffic back up allowed so whatever is necessary to make that happen, will happen. Could you explain to me what, if any, impact – adverse impact this might have on bicycle lane use during the hours in which the school is loading and unloading? Ms. Hodgkins: Thank you. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Ms. Hodgkins: I did, yes so, a couple things. Firstly, we are not anticipating an impact as outlined in the final initially study Mitigated Negative Declaration because we aren’t anticipating based on the anticipated number of drop offs at each time period. We don’t anticipate that queuing would happen in the street. However, we have provided additional measure just to ensure the contingent item… Board Member Furth: The unpredictable. Ms. Hodgkins: …ensuring – I want to also note that the way its design is essential that you would move into the bicycle lane and then turn and that’s kind of per MTUCD standards in terms of how you’re supposed to turn into bicycle lanes. So, instead of turning over the lane, you would merge into that bicycle lane and then turn into the site. Board Member Furth: So, you would be going bicycle speed, we hope. Ms. Hodgkins: Yes. Board Member Furth: Then with respect to these alternative proposals for getting on and off the site. Could you take me through that just briefly and explain to me how it relates to the proposed Arastradero median islands and what not. Did the original plan assume a gap that doesn’t exist? Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, essentially it looked at a design where there was an option to turn into the site from the westbound – going westbound and the Fire Department did anticipate that they would have that option. However, in coordinating with Public Works Engineering, they identified that as a potential landscape area that they really wanted to keep as part of that Charleston/Arastradero corridor project. In discussing with them and discussing fire, fire indicated that if Public Works – if they couldn’t have that option, they would prefer not to be turning into the egress to the site because that would have them going into oncoming traffic. Board Member Furth: They’d enter at the other end of the sight. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Gooyer: You’re looking for questions? Yeah, so can you – the request was obviously made to have a complete redesign of the front parking lot. Can you basically describe why the Staff thinks that this alternative design is so much better than the existing one or the one that they proposed? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, of course. I’ve actually – I have outlined in the Staff report under the analysis section on page 84 of the packet, a number of different reasons why we feel that this preferred – this is the preferred parking alternative. I think I spoke to a couple of those reasons that were related to Public Works engineering really wanting landscape in that area. There are not a lot of opportunities for landscape along the Charleston/Arastradero corridor and based on public comments going back to, I think 2004, in creating that concept design for Charleston/Arastradero that was approved by Council. This was a real opportune area so there’s that and based on that and addressing fire’s concerns and still having access to the site. The other reasons were – that we outlined where this – the way this is designed would allow for queuing at a point in the street where there is more room essentially; not at the narrowest point of the street. So, if queuing were to happen, we wanted to mitigate that issue by providing opportunities for a car to still be able to move around them. As you know, Charleston/Arastradero corridor is – has a lot of traffic on it so we really want to ensure that flow is maintained. I think that’s all. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. That’s all I needed. Chair Lew: Ok and I have one question for the – I guess this is a landscape question for the landscape architect. On the – adjacent to the Hetch Hetchy right of way in the multi-use trail. I think you're – there is an existing fence, which I think you are proposing to remove, I’m guessing from the drawings. I was just wondering what you’re proposing there along the – in the front setback area in terms of plantings and if there’s – and fence design? [Mr. Cleaver:] Ok, thank you. The existing fence is in pretty poor condition and we were discussing replacing it with a wood fence – solid wood fence that would have a – let’s call is a natural finish. It would not be a color, it would have either a weathered or a color compatible with the buildings and the other improvement but it was a simple, solid fence. It would wrap from the Hetch Hetchy towards the Children’s House – towards the main building and there are utilities that the fence would separate from the children’s play area and the parking area. The intent was just to have a simple clean fence with no distractions for kids in the children’s play area and for privacy or views in – from Hetch Hetchy to be minimal. Chair Lew: Then closer to the street, what were you thinking in terms of planting? [Mr. Cleaver:] We – I’m going to ask Jon for a – to follow up. Currently, our fencing was stopping at the return of the fence to the Children’s House and there is the bike path that comes between the parking and Hetch Hetchy. I believe there’s a turn-off and I’m trying to look at the screen and if I can point it, I want to say that – no, I’m not getting… Mr. Daseking: (Inaudible) [Mr. Cleaver:] Right. Thank you, Jon. So, with the bike parking – bike path in there between the parking and Hetch Hetchy, there was no fence proposed. It was just a planting buffer and literally, the fence would turn back onto the Children’s House. Chair Lew: That’s fine. I was actually interested in the actual plants that you’re proposing and then I think there’s an art piece proposed in the walkway and I was just trying to understand – just sort of conceptually understand what’s happening in there; like the big idea really. [Mr. Cleaver:] The planting I can speak to directly and the art piece, I think Mary Beth the school Director can help us with that. The planting is all native and mostly evergreen and it’s mostly low because of the narrowness of the planting areas. In the importance of visual, being able to see bike paths, being able to City of Palo Alto Page 18 see out and people being able to see in onto the bike paths and people on it. The planting is mostly mixes of grasses and things that are relatively soft. The intent was to use a mix of plants that didn’t require a lot of maintenance and that would have a natural look to them. There are oak trees proposed and again, we were thinking that they were standard form from where the branching was high enough that – again, visual would be easy in and again, see the interaction of people on the bike path. Can I clarify further or? Chair Lew: Nope, that’s good. Thank you. I was mostly concerned because there really isn’t anything – there isn’t very much planting on the Hetch Hetchy and I was just trying to figure out how you’re going to sort of blend in and I think it’s actually better not to have the fence in this particular location. Great, thank you. [Mr. Cleaver:] Understood, thank you. Chair Lew: The art piece, I am interested in that. Welcome. Ms. Mary Beth Ricks: Good morning, my name is Mary Beth Ricks, I’m the head of school at Bowman School in Palo Alto. The art piece currently being proposed is a collaborative work between an artist and our students using the ten sorts of tenants of Montessori, to create some large embedded pieces on the sidewalk that goes on the school property part. Not the public sidewalk but the school sidewalk so that will be accessible to the public and that you would walk over these pieces of art as you entered and exited our building. Chair Lew: Great, sounds good. Thank you. Ok, if there are no more questions, why don’t we move onto Board Member comments. Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you. I appreciate the efforts that were made to reduce the shading next door. I’m sorry that there are still shade impacts on a nursery school play area but I think that you have done what you can and that the impacts are no more severe than would be provided by a single-family development here. I think we cannot really ask for at this point so it’s regrettable but I think you’ve minimized it to the extent that you can. I suspect the Juncus can be used for craft projects as well as landscaping. It’s a nice plant. On the parking, I’m convinced by the Staff analysis, which I think was on page 87. I went over it fairly carefully and drove by the site and walked it a couple more times. I realize – schools are interesting. I mean they get conditional use permits because they are a desirable use but they need special handling so as not to adversely affect their neighbors and the disadvantages of schools as a neighbor is that they involved peak traffic at peak hours. The advantage, of course, is they are schools and particularly, in this case, it’s a community that has a lot of power to regulate the behavior of its own participants and to work together to make this possible. I realize that it will require lots of education and training and reinforcement to have people use this system the way that they need too but I believe the Staff recommendation is the better one. Staff recommendation is the better one. So, I would support this enthusiastically with that proviso. Chair Lew: And Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I agree that the modification that you’ve made, I think to work very well, especially with the gymnasium. Like I said, that’s about the best that you can do other than making it an impractical building for what the function is. I do also agree that having done various schools, there’s always when you get with the little kids, the queuing and dropping them off and everything else. I like the alternate if you want to call it, Staff requested alternative better and I think I’d be willing to approve it with that; not the other one. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think we’re – I’m in agreement as well with the other Board Members. It seems like the alternate is better for –(inaudible) – for off – I think it helps with the drop-off but also it mostly helps with – to me with the flow on Arastradero. I think it’s better not to have a great separation between the parking entrance and then the Hetch Hetchy multi-use trail because I use the trail occasionally and I City of Palo Alto Page 19 think that particular corner, where the trail hits Arastradero is pretty tricky at peak hours. It’s pretty difficult to cross there so I would support that. I do understand that you’re losing three parking spots. It seems to me that 90 degrees parking a little harder to turn into then the angle parking that you had. Yeah, I understand both sides but it seems to me that – yeah, that the Staff alternate seems to meet all the City’s department requirements so I’m fine with going with that. I have one last question for Staff with regard to the oak tree so tree number two. I think the Staff report is recommending modifying the condition of approval if I understand that correctly. So, we have an existing – we have an arborist report, right? Then we have their drawings and we have an existing condition of approval, right? Which is 30—is it 29 or 39 – where is it? 39 and so I guess my question is does 39 cover everything? The 9-foot that is listed in the drawings and the arborist report and then the 10-foot that was suggested by I think another Board Member. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, so I have added a condition of approval to provide a 10-foot radius from the tree. Board Member Furth: And where is that? Chair Lew: Do you want – well these are a draft, right? I think these are draft conditions. Ms. Hodgkins: These are draft conditions. Chair Lew: Yeah, you’re thinking or are you proposing to amend 39 or were you thinking of adding something in addition to that? Ms. Hodgkins: I’m trying to find it. Chair Lew: 39 was on page 104. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, so actually I had added it under planning condition of approval. I had added a requirement for a 10-foot radius so I had actually put it under our conditions rather than Urban Forestry Conditions. It’s under number 7, additional parking layout refinements. It says in addition; the parking layout shall be revised to provide a 10-foot radius from the nearest parking stall to the truck of the protected oak tree prior to building permit issuances. Chair Lew: Ok, so then I think we’re good to go as is. Ok, I’m willing to entertain motions. MOTION Board Member Furth: Ok, I move that we accept Staff’s – that we recommend to the Director of Community Development that having considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted, that we recommend the approved project with Staff’s preferred alternative parking layout included in Attachment one or I, sorry. To the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in Attachments A and B to the Staff report number 7845. Chair Lew: Is there anyone seconding? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Excellent. All in favor? Opposed? None so that’s a 3-0 with two Members – with Baltay and kyu abstaining or absent. Yes. Congratulations. MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE 3-0-0-2 WITH BALTAY AND KIM ABSENT Ms. Hodgkins: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Lew: Do you need a break? Board Member Furth: That would be nice. Chair Lew: Ok, we’re going to take a 5-minute break and then we’ll hear the last item, Study Session 4. STUDY SESSION. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00033]: Preliminary Architectural Review of Location and Design Options for the Deployment of Verizon Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right-of-Way. The Proposed 18 Small Cell Node Locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review Application are Considered a Cluster of Nodes Within the Proposed Overall Deployment of 92 Small Cell Locations. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Varies. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: [Video started midsentence] …the address is 250 Hamilton Avenue here on the agenda but it’s actually multiple sites in south Palo Alto. Preliminary architectural review of the location and design options for the deployment of Verizon small cell wireless communication equipment on utility poles in the public right-of-way. The proposed 18 small cell node locations in this preliminary architectural review application are considered a cluster of nodes within the proposed overall deployment of 92 small cell locations. Environmental assessment is it’s not a project. A formal application will be subject to CEQA review and the zone district varies. We have Rebecca Atkinson from the Planning Department here. Welcome. Ms. Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you so much Chair and Board Members. Good morning. The project description for this Preliminary Architectural Review application is as you stated. There are 18 proposed small cell deployment node locations which are considered one cluster of nodes. Specifically, in this application for the Mid-Town, south of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens and Palo Verde neighborhoods and vicinity. Verizon proposed a total of 92 small cell deployment nodes that will be identified and similarly clustered together in future applications. Today, Verizon prepared three proposed equipment configurations for preliminary public and ARB review and comments. This location map was included in your Staff report and on the project plans but generally, this shows the distribution of proposed small cell nodes. They reflect the tolerances that each small cell node has in order to provide coverage and so forth. The applicant can provide more information on how frequent a node would be necessary in order to provide ‘x’ amount of coverage. Here’s an excerpt of a proposed or comparison of the proposed 3- configuations. Generally, each configuration has the same antenna and attachments; a wood (inaudible), fiber and these locations would be provided through an aerial drop. The difference begins with the various equipment, cables, and mounting attachments proposed for each configuration and of course, configuration one has a ground mounted equipment cabinet. Key considerations, formal applications will need to demonstrate compliance with FCC emission standards for health and safety. The proposed equipment configurations are for wood poles only, at this time. You can see the design per street lights in a future application. Wireless carriers also appear to have different designs for their small cell deployment per informal communications that I’ve had. In the future, formal applications will be reviewed for constancy with the Comprehensive Plan. We included a summary of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in Attachment A of your Staff report and that starts on page 155 in your overall packet. Staff also included a copy of the wireless portion of the Municipal Code and that is Attachment B, starting on page 158 in your overall packet and that’s another key item that the formal applications will need to conform too. Of course, architectural review findings, conditional use permit findings and the before mentioned FCC standards. The purpose to the Preliminary Architectural Review meeting today is to receive early feedback from a member of the public and from the ARB, to discuss the key questions that Verizon has posed beginning on page 1 of the project description. Also, to discuss the City Department preliminary location and criteria, the configuration design criteria and the configuration design options that are outlined in the Staff Report. Next steps include the discussion today. Obviously, Verizon will submit formal applications and there will be detailed Staff analysis. I also included contact information from City of Palo Alto Page 21 members of the public, for the Architectural Review Board Members and also my Staff contact. I am happy to answer any question that you have. I included copies of public correspondence received since the production of the Staff report. I also include the paint samples for the proposed ground mount equipment and those are At Places. There was a mock cell site, non-live, installed near 1350 Newell and I don’t know if you have had the opportunity to go out but I do have photos. We also have quite a few Staff members here from our Utilities Department; electrical Jim Fleming, Gregory McCrunan and Jimmy Carter. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Rebecca. So, now is the time for the applicant presentation and you have 10-minutes. [Mr.?? Angeles:] Chairmen and Members of the ARB, good morning. My name is (inaudible) Angeles and I’m the manager of the (inaudible) limitation for Verizon Wireless in northern California and… [Mr. Matt Yergovich:] I’m [Matt Yergovich], the applicants permitting agent. Mr. Angeles: … we’re here to present the Verizon Wireless small cell project in the City of Palo Alto and seek recommendations from the ARB in our design concepts that will be utilized for this project. In this presentation, we’ll go through the project overview, such as the objectives, deciding criteria and the design configurations of the project. At the end, we have a list of questions for the ARB that we would like to discuss with you that pertains to the design concepts. You also received a detailed packet from us that has more detailed information about the project, such as photo sims, individual site criteria and also some sample paint colors for the equipment. The main objective of this project is to improve the wireless compacity and coverage in the City of Palo Alto. In the past 5-years, we’ve seen a significant increase in wireless data usage and we need to address the – not only the capacity concerns currently but also to improve – to keep up with the current trends in increased usages for our customers. To accomplish this, we will be implementing this new wireless solution called small cells. Small cells are low power sites that typically cover about 500 – 1,00-feet and they can be mounted on existing utility poles in a right-of-way. They work in conjunction with existing macro sites that surround the Bay Area. They are – since their footprint is very limited, they can only be placed in strategic and targeted locations. So, think of the macro sites as the overlay coverage in the network. These small cells are underlying coverage that assists in improving the capacity and coverage. The current project comprised of five clusters and this is the first cluster and all of the design configurations in this cluster will apply to all the different five clusters. In general, 2016 we – Verizon Wireless and the City of Palo Alto executed the Master Lease Agreement that would give Verizon Wireless the opportunity to attach to utility poles. This next slide shows the coverage condition here in a neighborhood in Palo Alto just south of Oregon Expressway. These are the neighborhoods so Palo Verde, Mid-Town and St. Claire Gardens. Color scheme, the red means poor coverage, yellow means marginal and green means excellent. The map on the left shows the current coverage condition here in this neighborhood. As you can see there are a lot of reds in this neighborhood. Those little circles are actually the small cells that we’re proposing. The map on the right shows our projected coverage after the system has been implemented. You can see from this map that the reds have been replaced with the yellows and the greens. We’re expecting a significant amount of improvement in the RF conditions in this neighborhood after the project is complete. What makes up a small cell? This diagram here gives you an example of a small cell drawing. The must haves for a small cell are the following, the antenna that transmits and received the signal. They are typically placed on the top of the pole, the three radios that are mounted in the middle of the pole. These are the ones that process the signal that’s being communicated and then each small cell has power and fiber. To power the equipment and also to communicate to our centralized sub location. An optional equipment that we are adding to our design is the backup battery and this helps the sites stay on during the case of a power outage. Then there is also some other axillary equipment to connect the equipment together and as Ms. Atkinson mentioned, there is a mock site that we completed right across the Palo Alto Art Center. Hopefully, you folks have had a chance to visit it and we would like to hear some feedback from you from that installation. How do we select the pole locations? There are three key items that we have to meet in order to finalize the site locations. The first requirement is our Verizon engineering requirement. As I mentioned earlier, they only cover a very small footprint so they have to be located in specific locations. City of Palo Alto Page 22 We don’t have a whole lot of wiggle room in placing these locations from the target that the RFD must provide. The second requirement pertains to the California Public Utilities Commission and also the City of Palo Alto Utility Engineering requirements. We also call this the utility requirement and that pertains to the constructability and the safety requirements of the pole. For example, there is a limited amount of vertical space on each pole where you can mount the equipment. Most of the pole candidates in an area have actually failed this particular requirement due to the existing infrastructure already on the poles. The third requirement pertains to planning and other siting concerns. We walked several sites with the City Staff from the Planning Department, Urban Forestry, and also from the Utility group and they provided us some valuable information and feedback on the design. As an example, placing a pole in the corn of a street verses in the middle of the street. What are our three different design configurations? We have three right here on the screen. The first one shows what we call the vertical lineup of equipment. Each of these sites – configurations have an antenna on the top. Then you can see the radios in the middle here in a vertical line up. We feel that this is the most seamless and most aesthetically pleasing configuration. In addition to that, we have the cabinet on the ground for the backup battery. The second configuration is instead of the backup battery on the ground, we have it mounted on the pole. Because of the limited amount of vertical space on the pole, we have to put the radios in a horizontal configuration so this is what’s called the horizontal line up. Then configuration three is very similar to configuration one except that there’s no battery backup. Most of our sites in this application are under configuration three. In the past 6-months, we have conducted several community outreach initiatives to educate the residents in the community to answer some of their questions and also to seek design feedback from the community. We established a website for the project, we had a text campaign and we’ve had two community meeting thus far. We’ve had significant positive feedback and support from the public. What we – we didn’t receive any preference from the public as far as the configuration. We’ve been asking their preference on the configuration and the lineup and we haven’t really received any preference either way or the other from the public. Which leads us to the questions that we have for the ARB Members. Pertaining to the design, we’d like to seek your feedback and recommendation on the following. From the design component, do you prefer the horizontal or vertical line up of the radios? Do you prefer a ground mounted cabinet or a pole mounted cabinet for the battery backup and also for the paint of the equipment, we provided three samples of brown? We feel that the color brown would be good for the equipment because it’s the color of the pole so it blends in better. On the ground cabinet design, we provided two samples of green for the ARB Members as well. We provided street furniture options and also an (inaudible) option for the cabinet. In summary, we’ve provided an overview of the project objective, deciding criteria and design configurations. We’d like to again, receive your recommendation on the design concepts so we can implement them in the design and finalize it and hopefully move forward with the project. In addition to that, I would also like to thank the Staff for all of your support that you provided thus far for this project. That concludes our presentation. I would like to open it up for questions. Chair Lew: Are there any questions from the Board? Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I have a basic question. Having seen the drawings you have and I went out to the mock-up that you have on Newell, which is a little bit deceiving because you’ve got nothing but trees as a backdrop. They have a tendency to disappear in the trees but having something like that put behind a beige colored building makes it a lot different. I guess my basic question is, in the 21st Century, based on what you can do, you’ve got to be able to come up with something that looks better than any of these. I mean, to me these are just pug ugly no matter what and that’s basically it. I can imagine that there isn’t a design – I mean if you look at these things. There’s wiring hanging down from the bottom of it. It looks like an afterthought and that’s my main problem with it. I got to figure that – I’ve seen others that seemed like they were much more thought out than these. This is – rather than—I’m guessing based on the way you have the three radios and that sort of thing, that this is a set design using those three radios and that sort of thing. Yet it looks like it’s a piecemeal approach to doing this. I mean it wasn’t like well, usually, we have two but we had to squeeze in a third radio in this particular design so that’s why it looks the way that it does. I got to figure that there’s another way to do it. Right now, I’m just really disappointed from a visual standpoint. I mean I’m an architect and I look at it. I know everybody wants their cell phone to work better and so everybody goes yeah, we love the project but mainly because what City of Palo Alto Page 23 it does for their cell phone and not what it looks like. It’s our job to sit there and critic what it looks like and right now, I’m not a happy camper. Mr. Yergovich: Board Member Gooyer, we respect your concerns. You mentioned several factors and I think that those factors can be addressed on a site by site basis. Starting this the color as it matches the background scenario. Depending on the surrounding foliage and depending on the exact location, we can paint the equipment to match perhaps the background if there is a particular foliage around a utility pole. Perhaps we could look at some of the shades of green for the equipment to better conceal that equipment. With regard to the cable management -- you had mentioned the cable management is an issue. We have currently painted the cables to match the pole; painted brown. There are some other alternatives that we could do as well to conceal the cables, our current proposal is consistent with section 18.42.1.10-I criteria one of the Development Standards, which sets forth that we shall use the smallest footprint possible. However, in deviating from that standard, we could also deploy an equipment shroud. We like the idea that less is more – less equipment is more and that seems consistent with the standards but an equipment shroud would be possible. In the packet that I provided to you, the third to last page and also on the presentation – let’s see if I can – yeah. So, this configuration here involves an equipment shroud and I’ve worked on some limited selected deployments where the equipment shroud has been utilized. The dimensions are approximately a foot and a half wide but a foot and a half deep by about nine feet long to fully shroud the cables you mentioned and the attachments. The difficulty obviously, is the that it’s a much bigger appearance on the pole, whereas the proposing individual boxes tend to fit within the silhouette of the pole and have less of an appearance. The individual boxes are also constant with these being utility poles but the equipment shroud is feasible. We found that often times in deploying the equipment shroud that the public tends to prefer the individual units, rather than the singular shroud but it is a possible design alternative. Chair Lew: Ok, I do – if you – the women in the back. If you want to speak, we’re going to do the public comment next so I do – I would like you to fill out a speaker card, which is right up here in the front. Up here near the lectern and I do have two speakers who will speak before you. We have [phonetic] [Herk Quan] and Wolfgang [Himobower]. You each will have 5-minutes. So yes, we’ll do it now [Mr. Quan.] [Mr. Herk Quan:] Hi, my name is [Herk Quan] and I actually sent an email to Rebecca about – several days – two days before I guess. I mean, I don’t have a prepared speech but then I actually – my house is actually right there on the second one; 2490 Lewis Road. (Inaudible) reviewing my address but the fact is that I’m very concerned about this project and then because I have two young kids going to school here. Then we – our house is actually being remodeled right now and then I actually found that this project – it sounds like it’s in stealth mode. I did not find this out until I actually saw a notice right outside my – there’s a pole outside my house and then also I got this notice and I told Rebecca that there’s actually (inaudible) -- that the public hearing today is actually on March 18th. Yeah, I think this is actually done – not appropriate at all because nobody – I mean, I don’t know how many residents are here today to listen to this project. Then – I just lost my dad too – he actually just died of cancer last year in October at Stanford Hospital and it’s not due to that but it’s just that I’m a son of someone who actually got cancer. I have heard about – a lot of stuff about emission from RF and all that and then – I mean if – I just noticed that there are so many supporting letters here to that say I like this project. If that’s the case, please move those – that antenna to someone who wrote these letters. I mean not in my backyard. I really don’t – I mean I don’t know anything about the health factor and all that. I mean if someone actually is informed – well informed and know exactly what the health effect is, maybe we can consider it but then, look at the turnout today. There are not many residents that came here to listen to this hearing. I suggested to Rebecca that we should move this hearing to anything date so that more residents can attend. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. That’s ok and Wolfgang [Himobower]. [Mr. Wolfgang Himobower:] Good morning. My name is [Wolfgang Himobower] and I am a Palo Alto resident and I have a long-term question. If you look at the history of these antennas, it was At&t a few years ago, right? Now it’s Verizon. We can probably guess who is next so every carry who comes in here, City of Palo Alto Page 24 it setting up close to 100 antennas. We are going to be clouded with antennas all over and going forward, there will be less and less antennas to choose from. The concern that I have is – so the ARB has set forth criteria on how to select poles and which ones to exclude. As more and more carries come into the neighborhood and set up these antennas, will these criteria be weakened or perhaps ineffective because there are simply not enough poles to choose from? That’s my question. Do the City have a long- term strategy to address that? Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. We have the last speaker and I don’t – Rebecca, do you have the card? We have one last speaker. Great, thank you. This is Barbra and I can’t read the last name. [Ms. Barbra Cryner:] I’m Barbra [Cryner] and the only reason I am here is because I exercise in this building, usually every day, by walking up and down the stairs. I got the notice too that the speaker was talking about; the first one and I thought why in the hell are they sending me something that was for a meeting in March, which I received last Saturday. I presume that everyone else got their notices with the same date and I wouldn’t have been here if I hadn’t just walked through just at the very moment and I heard them say something about this that made me sit down instead of taking the stairs. My other concern – and they spoke about those earlier meetings to inform the neighborhood. I never got any kind of notification of any meeting so I don’t know who sent them or how people got to them. I do have to say that I don’t use a computer so if you were notified by any of those methods, rather than regular US mail, then perhaps that’s how they got the information but I certainly didn’t get any. This was my first notification that said March. Chair Lew: Yes, great. Thank you. Ok, and we have two more. Ok, so we have two more speakers. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) stop? Chair Lew: There we go. Got it? Well, it’s an old and crotchety timer. There we go. Ok, so we have Michael Murry and – or Michael [phonetic][Madvae] and [Carl Darling]. [Mr. Michael Madvae:] Good morning. My name is [Michael Madvae]. I actually live in Barron Park, not in this target area but I think it’s probably just a matter of time before the project – in fulfilling it’s 92 cells site locations is going to enter out the neighborhood. I have serious concerns about the aesthetics. The poles in our neighborhood, in particular, are loaded with wires and it’s growing. At&t is rolling out their fiber network with copper on the poles extending from the fiber cabinets and so on. We’re already growing and I have a special concern about having read the package that there’s a co-location automatic approval that if some cell company puts in equipment at a location, that automatically approves presumably a competitor from coming in and adding to that location. The fact that’s automatic if I am interpreting that correctly, suggests to me that we’ve got limited control to this process. If we don’t exercise the control now, we’re locked into automatic features going forward. Speaking for myself as a homeowner, the pole across the street from me stands alone. There are no trees to mitigate the view. It’s been a mess for decades. At&t’s telecommunications wires are rat’s nests until recently. There’s a power transformer on the pole. Palo Alto utilities came by the other day and added some expenditures to the pole as part of a program that I’m sure what that was but they left a mess. There are coaxial cables dangling and so on. I am concerned about being backed into a corner where now, in addition to all that, there’s going to be a cell site and then on top of that, because of approval of that cell site – pardon me, a sight is going to have automatic approval. Again, it’s mostly aesthetic. There is one thing that I have not seen in any of the documentation and that relates to the noise. I know when At&t went through the neighborhood, there were complaints about the humming noise and I saw a reference in the package to an interest in passive cooling, which suggests that the cooling fans were creating the noise. I don’t—I’ve not seen where that’s been addressed at all. I bring that up as a secondary concern to the visual aesthetic concern. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry about the mic. Chair Lew: Thank you. No, that’s fine, thank you. Ok, and our last speaker is [Carl Darling]. City of Palo Alto Page 25 [Mr. Carl Darling:] Thank you for listening to me. I’m a 20-year resident of Palo Alto and I live in St. Claire Gardens in Mid-Town so I am in the jurisdiction of this project. As a project manager on many Bay Area jobs, I appreciate the work – the hard work that this group has to put into to study these proposals. I do really appreciate it and I appreciated being invited by Rebecca to this meeting. To – the work that has to be done to improve this cell phone reception in this area. Many people do business out of their homes in Palo Alto and the cell phone reception is a huge issue. I realize that certain people will have esthetic problems with some of these poles being added and I do appreciate that. I also feel that something needs to be done sooner and that to improve this cell phone reception; which is terrible in Mid-Town. It’s a major problem for people who do business, which is becoming more of an issue as time goes on. My wife does a lot of business out of her house. She works for Hewlett Packer and she is a director there. I’m kind of speaking for her in a way and that I appreciate that whatever is being done on this project. If there are shrouds that need to improve the look of it, that it would happen because it’s a definite need for the people of our community. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I’m going to close the public portion of the hearing today and thank you for speaking. Thank you also for all the people who have sent emails to us. Staff, do you want to comment on the public notification? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Planner: Thank you. We just – we do regret that there was a mix up with the noticing. There was an incorrect date as residents have mentioned on the notice. Staff did realize that and has sent out another round of notices but more importantly, this is a preliminary review application. No decisions are being made at this time and so the Municipal Code does not actually require notification. We do try and do that notification to bring these issues forward as soon as possible. We also have in these 19 locations, there is the on-site notification so we do hope that, especially neighbors in the immediate area, would have seen those on-site boards and would have been able to gain information from that. Chair Lew: Was there – the newspaper—was the newspaper notification… Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Lew: …did that have the correct date? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. As always, our ARB meetings are posted in the weekly and it does have this project description there. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Ok, so I’m going to bring it back to the Board for comments. I just want to mention before –mention that we have – we only have purview over esthetic issues here today. We don’t have any purview over health – potential health impacts. I think we don’t have – it’s not our decision whether or not to do an emergency backup but we can comment on the aesthetics of it. I don’t think we have any say over the technology that they are using—that they are proposing; say like macro-site versus these distributed micro-sites. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Well, I’ve already pretty much mentioned that I’m just not really a fan of any of these. I guess they have to be taken on a one to one basis. The whole idea about do you put it on the pole or do you put it in the container? A lot of it depends on, obviously, the sidewalk and everything else that’s there. Some of the questions – I think I’d rather just have a stealth painted box rather than – I mean let’s face it, I guess in our society we’ve just gotten used to those things. I just assume a sort of have it be out of sight, out of mind rather than making them a colorful art statement because that just brings them to the foreground. I mean if I had to have a choice of those three, I think I’d pick the one – I guess it’s the – what? The first one that has the actual unit on the ground as much as possible. I would also like to see that if you do have a shrouding situation possibly on your mock up, put either a partial shroud so you can get the sense of here’s what the shroud looks like and that sort of thing because I’d like to see that. I have a hard time believing and I’m not arguing the point but I have a hard time believing that other than guys like me or in my profession would even care about what’s up there. I have City of Palo Alto Page 26 a hard time thinking that somebody would go gosh, I really don’t like that shroud on there. I like the – but be that as it may, sometimes it’s the busyness of 18 different items up there and with wires up there that draw your attention to it more than a single box that is totally enclosed or painted to match the pole. I’d rather have an option to see something like that. Other than that, it’s just – I can’t imagine still, based on all the technology that we have, we can’t do something a little bit more sophisticated than what’s there. Ok, that’s it for me. Chair Lew: Any comments on colors? Board Member Gooyer: Colors? I mean, colors are basically if the pole is brown then if you make it brown, that’s probably the best solution to match the pole that’s there. Chair Lew: Sure, and then they had cabinet colors. They actually have… Board Member Gooyer: Well, I mean the cabinet is sort of the idea that if it’s against a beige wall or near a beige wall, you paint it beige to make it disappear. I think that’s what you meant when you used the term stealth. You sort of match what’s around it. If you’ve got a lime green building, you paint the thing lime green. Even though you would never do that anywhere else but it matches – it blends into the surroundings. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I think this is an interesting issue for us to comment on because there is so much federal preemption. Some of it appropriate given the nature -- sort of semi-public utility nature of this and some of it perhaps, unfortunate. Was the City required to enter into a Master Lease Agreement or was that just a City commercial decision since we own these poles? Ms. Atkinson: I’d like to forward your question to Jim Fleming. Board Member Furth: Sure. Mr. Jim Fleming: Board Members, my name is Jim Fleming and I’m with City of Palo Alto Utilities. I’m a senior management analysis. The question is was the City required … Board Member Furth: Essentially, do we have to make our poles available for this kind of technology or was this a choice that we made? Mr. Fleming: The applicant has the right to build in the right-of-way and they have a Master License agreement for use of City controlled space on those poles. Board Member Furth: They have a Master License agreement because the City granted that license or because State and Federal Law grant them that license and all we do is the details? Mr. Fleming: Both. The Council approved the Master License agreement on June 27 of last year. Board Member Furth: Right. Thank you. Oh, one other question since you are here. Utility poles as we’ve heard are not necessarily presented as objects of beauty. That’s not what they are designed for or often what they achieve but sometimes our straight lighting poles are intended to be design elements on a streetscape and they do have rather a clean design. Does this Master License agreement also require that we permit this equipment on light poles that are pearly light poles in undergrounded districts? Mr. Fleming: Yes, it does because they are in the right-of-way. Board Member Furth: That’s unfortunate. Thank you. Maybe very fortunate from the point of view of receiving cell phone service. It seems to me with respect to the aesthetic questions that are asked by the City of Palo Alto Page 27 applicant or by the – by Verizon and its agents, that these are site specific questions that can’t be usefully answered on a blanket basis. The color that you should use, the design that you should use all depends on where you are putting it. In the – across from the Art Center, I did go look at your mock-up. It’s heavily wooded and at first glance, it looks like there… Board Member Gooyer: It looks fine. Board Member Furth: …purple Martin houses and it looks fine. I mean there’s a lot of stuff going on there. It’s not particularly close to a residential property so it would be good to see a mock up in a more exposed and difficult location. I think in some cases, shrouding will feel much better and safer and more attractive to people. I think the same is true of colors. As to whether – as to where batteries go, again I think we – in my neighborhood, which is downtown north, we’re losing a lot of landscaping to pedestals; to utility and communication pedestals. The rose bushes go out and they go in and so, of course, I’m in favor of underground vaults whenever we’re permitted to require them but as I recall, that’s not very often. So, my first preference is underground and my second preference is sight specific and certainly, with as much accommodation to residents as possible. I mean we walk by parks, we walk by businesses but if we have a home, that’s where we are all the time. That would be my first concern with the aesthetic and installation. I saw commentary about how the installation of these facilities might interfere with undergrounding and I don’t know if that’s correct, Mr. Fleming? Future undergrounding, that it would make it more expensive or less possible? Mr. Fleming: There is a number of underground utility conversation project that will occur over the next several years. Within the Master License Agreement, if a district is converted from aerial to the underground, then the – whatever is on that pole would have to go underground also. Board Member Furth: At who’s expense? Mr. Fleming: It would be at the applicant’s expense. Board Member Furth: Thank you. It does seem to me that we’re not really going to successfully address the esthetic issue of aerial clutter until we underground utility poles. In the meantime, it seems to me that the answer to these questions is site specific at best. I really – oh, I do agree that there was some discussion of noise and that would be a major issue because it’s easier to close the door or look elsewhere. It’s not easy to abate noise so that needs to be done by sitting. Chair Lew: Ok, so great. Thank you for the – for your submittal and doing the mock up. I did look at the mock up yesterday and I did look at the three – I did look at three of the sites. The ones that are highlighted in the Staff report, I did look at all of those yesterday. There was something interesting that we haven’t seen before which is the art proposed – there’s a possibility of an art project and I did do some research on that. I don’t know if you wanted to comment on that at the moment but I did look at that. In Campbell and San Jose, they’ve done like 100. Mr. Yergovich: Yes, we provided some photos of art wraps, is the term of art. They’re vinyl wraps that wrap around the ground equipment. The photos that we provided were from Walnut Creek and that’s an interesting option that the City might want to consider. However, keep in mind that with the ground cabinets, those provide battery backup so for example, of the 18 facilities that we’re talking about here, only three involve ground cabinet. Very few ground cabinets are being proposed. Also, I want to mention that the radio units themselves emit zero noise. This is state of the art equipment. There’s no acoustical implication from the radio equipment. Only the battery backup units that again, are very infrequently deployed, emit any noise at all. Those are well within the City’s acoustical standards. Back to the art wrap, if I can answer any other questions about that. Chair Lew: Yeah, I have a couple questions about that. So, the ones in San Jose, some of them have – a few of them have been vandalized and so how do you handle graffiti? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Mr. Yergovich: The good news with an art wrap is that the goal with an art wrap is to prevent graffiti and in fact, they often times do prevent graffiti. The graffiti artists are less inclined to impact other folk’s art so that’s the good news. Otherwise, Verizon maintains a network operation center, 24-hour knock, that promptly responses to graffiti removal requests. Chair Lew: The situation that I’ve – that I understand down in San Jose was that these where individual artist painting boxes and the vandalism was actually not – it wasn’t really tagging per say. It was actually somebody repainting them gray. Then some of the artists didn’t want – the artist was donating their time. I think they got materials or what not but you know, if you are an artist and are spending three weeks painting this thing. You don’t necessarily want to repaint it so I was just wondering how you propose – how you’ve been thinking about that? Mr. Yergovich: That’s a good question. I would say there are several different ways to address that. The art wrap companies can deploy their own designs. It’s a vinyl wrap and those designs can be pre- approved for example or there could be a more collaborative effort with the art community to design specific items. Chair Lew: If you – the ones in – the ones that I am aware of in San Jose and Campbell are on – they are typically on corners of more major streets. Then what I think you are proposing here, which is really more -- seems like more in people’s front yards. I was wondering if you could speak to the Walnut Creek art wrap? Mr. Yergovich: With regard to the ground battery backup unit deployments, we’ve selected locations as tactfully as possibly to avoid the heavy residential areas. For example, with the mock up, you can see that the unit is not directly in front of a house. It’s behind a bus stop bench and that’s a good example. So, avoiding those sensitive, highly visible locations altogether is our primary goal. Secondarily, the art itself could be tailored to the particular site depending on what are the goal is there. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. On the – on some of your alternates, I think you’re – there’s one alternate for like a concert bench. I was wondering – I’ve never seen that before. I was wondering if you could speak to the – how that – if you’ve used it before and whether it works? I’m looking at and the dimensions seem – for the cabinet and that’s not for a person. Mr. Yergovich: Yes, we did site several concealment options. Actually, two different types of benches; there was a concrete bench and also a metal bench. You’re absolutely right, the – specifically the concrete bench looks a little big. Difficult – I hope no one is sticking their baggage below the bench or putting their feet under there. That might be impossible to do but there are some different design options. Also, the mailbox option was another one. That I might add, that I believe is utilized just outside here – the window. There are some other design options with regard to the battery backup ground units. Board Member Furth: Well, I was – yeah, I was curious to whether this stealth garbage can option actually functions as a garbage can. It could lead to like a disappointment. Board Member Gooyer: That’s what I was afraid of. People are going to throw garbage toward it and go, oh. Oh well. Mr. Yergovich: That could be a problem, yes. Board Member Furth: In the right place, the metal bench could work. Chair Lew: Ok, so let me back up for a second. One is the criteria the ARB setup and that you’ve been trying to follow where ever possible. That was sort of written at the same time that the At&t DAS project went through. At the time we wrote it, we were assuming that it was the duel antennas on each one—on each pole. At the very last minute, At&t agreed to do a – the single antenna per pole. I think that project has, I think, turned out pretty well. There were times after it was installed and I went to look at some of the poles and I looked at them – I was looking at some of them thinking oh, they haven’t installed them City of Palo Alto Page 29 yet. I’m too early and then I looked again and realized that oh, it’s actually – it was installed and I just didn’t even really notice it. I think there are ways of addressing the design to make it look better. It seems to me that the criteria that we had didn’t also anticipate mailboxes, benches or an art project. I think that we could look at – I think that the Board could consider reviewing the criteria for – to allow for more options. For example, as I mentioned before, the art project seems to be better for more prominent locations. If it’s on a corner near – close to the corner on a more – say like on Middlefield or something. That – I think that we should be open for a discussion because I think the art piece could be an interesting project. I don’t think it makes sense on this particular – in this particular situation but again -- yeah, the Board never really considered any of these; like the benches or trash cans or the mailboxes. The art project, at least the ones that I’ve seen in San Jose, it seems to me that they are – those are only public boxes – publicly owned cabinets and not privately owned so that’s a little different. Then they also relied on donations and sponsors so again, those are a little bit different than this particular situation so we would have to address that if we do want to do that. I think some of your locations, the bench could be appropriate. You have one – let me see. Let me get the address. It was number 135, which is next to the creek. For example, -- and that’s on Ross Road. For example, just on Lewis Road, one block away, there is actually a regular bench; presumably, City owned or what not. In that kind of situation, I think that a bench could work there. Mr. Yergovich: To clarify that proposal 135… Chair Lew: It doesn’t… Mr. Yergovich: …we are proposing a pole mounted battery backup unit. Two of the 18 originally had designed have pole mounted battery backup units. Would the ARB prefer to see a ground mounted cabinet instead of the… Chair Lew: No, I don’t want to get into to specifics. Yeah, because you have a lot of locations and I think we’re just trying to give you general comments. I’m saying that there are situations where a bench could work and I would say that’s one of them but you have other ones. Say for example 139, on Colorado, where there just isn’t space. It’s somebody’s front yard and they’ve got a fence there and they’ve got all new landscaping so obviously, you wouldn’t put it there. You guys understand that and you’re trying to put everything on the pole in that situation. Mr. Yergovich: Actually, with 139, we’re not proposing any battery backup so again… Chair Lew: Right. Yeah, so… Mr. Yergovich: …respectfully to that situation. Yeah. Chair Lew: Then say for example on location 143, which is – I forgot the name of the street. Mr. Yergovich: El Verano I believe. Chair Lew: Verano, yes. Thank you. That’s the back corner – it’s sort of like the back corner of somebody’s property – near the back corner of somebody’s property. It’s mostly hedges and fences and like in that case, it seems to me that just the most stealth options make sense. There’s no reason to call attention to it like with a bench or an artwork. In that case, I would be fine with a – if there’s a pad mounted box, I think that would be ok. With regard to the boxes, I actually like the mailboxes but I think – the mailboxes work down here downtown where there in an urban location and they are on the sidewalk. It seems like your regular cabinet kind of makes more sense out in the residential districts because there are other telephone boxes that sort of look like that out there. The – I think you were showing two green colors and I think we only have one maybe here. I think there’s a dark green in the packet, possibly. This color, I think we have used something like this for the cable boxes that were installed a long time ago in the City. These – I think this – I don’t have – I don’t necessarily have an objection to this. This doesn’t – these seem to – like over time, I’m saying like 30-years, they look pretty City of Palo Alto Page 30 faded and I would say that there are situations where a darker color is better; like if it’s in a hedge. The darker color picks up the shadow of the leaves better than the lighter color. I would say also that the darker color – like a dark color green would be more similar to other things that we have in the right-of- way. We have backflow preventers and sometimes the backflow preventers have a cage around that and those are all typically dark green. That’s what I am thinking of with regard to the greens. On the brown colors that you have on the poles, I think on the mockup it looks pretty good. I’m happy with the color with that. I think I agree with Robert that I think there are places where shrouds would be better. Maybe not everywhere but like the one – on site number 139, which is on Colorado Avenue, which is – yeah, near Colorado Avenue. It’s close to a corner, I don’t think there are any street trees there or I don’t remember anything—nothing large. There are no large evergreen trees. It’s right near somebody’s front door. It seems to me like a shroud would be more appropriate there, even though it’s bigger but to me, it’s cleaner. On the mock-up site, I wouldn’t think a shroud would be necessary. There’s enough – there are redwood trees all around there. Yeah, and it makes the visual size of its smaller. Let’s see if I had any other comments. I think that may be all the comments that I have. Robert, did you have something else that you wanted to add? Board Member Gooyer: No, no. Like I said, it’s just – it is based on a lot of one by one basis. Chair Lew: I would just say on the – maybe Staff can correct me if I am wrong but on the at&t project and this was before your time. I think the Board got every – I could be wrong. I think we got every location for the first phase but then I’m not sure that we actually reviewed all the future locations in other future phases of the project. We reviewed it but then, the thing is – but when we actually had the hearing, we didn’t comment on every location because we would have been here for days to do it. It was useful in just – for the ARB to sort of see if the project was headed in the general – in the right direction and give direction to Staff if they thought there was a larger problem that needed to be addressed. We could do it that way if you want. Yes? Board Member Furth: My experience with the City and new utilities is back in the very late 90’s, the City had on Staff an architect whose job – consulting architect actually, whose job was to go out with Public Works and the Utilities Department and increasingly with other communications companies and look at sight by sight location of all these facilities. Looking at setting and landscaping and all these variables to try to minimize the adverse impacts. I suspect we don’t do that any longer or do we still do that? Ms. Gerhardt: We do have a consulting architect on Staff but that person is mainly used in the review of our two-story houses through the IR process. Board Member Furth: This was about what happened in the public right-of-way and it was a deliberate response to concern about how we sighted our utilities. That kind of Staff level review is probably the most effective way to get to the fact that these facilities need to go in, there is a certain drive toward uniformity by the installers and maintainers but site-specific adaptations can make things a lot better in a particular block or household. I will say with respect to these locations here, most of them would not, to me, be appropriate for art; though a few might. Also, what is the color coding on this cover sheet? I couldn’t figure out what the colors – differently colored dots meant? I couldn’t find a key. Mr. Yergovich: Oh, I’m sorry. Board Member Furth: There’s pink and blue and green and black. Mr. Yergovich: Which sheet? Board Member Furth: Top… Board Member Gooyer: This cover sheet right here. Mr. Yergovich: Oh. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Mr. Yergovich: It’s just to distinguish that they are different… Mr. Angeles: That map shows the different configurations types for each of the poles so configuration one is one color, two is the other color and three is the majority of the poles. This signifies where we have ground based cabinets or a pole mounted cabinet and where there are no cabinets. Board Member Furth: Where is the key that would explain to me which is which? Right in front of my nose, I’m sure. Mr. Yergovich: Yeah, there is a… Ms. Atkinson: There is a list of all the nearest, adjacent private addresses and all the different pole—sorry all the different pole numbers and also the different node number. In that list – it’s Attachment F in the applicant’s project description. It has all the different configuration listed. Chair Lew: It’s not in the drawings. It’s in the …(crosstalk) Board Member Furth: It would be helpful in the drawings to know what we’re trying to look at. Mr. Yergovich: We can make that more conspicuous on the title sheet. Chair Lew: Page 193 of the packet. Board Member Furth: That’s a lot of cross referencing. Chair Lew: Yeah but the – yeah. Board Member Furth: It’s good to know that noise will not in fact, as far as we know, be a problem. That’s a relief. Chair Lew: Ok, I did want to address one of the public speakers about the co-location. I understand that there is a – this came up on the Little Leagues site before the – I think At&t as well with regards to co- location. I think the speaker is correct. They do have – there are – other carriers have rights to co- location and minimize or reduces the approval process. That is an issue. I don’t know if we have any say over that. Ms. Atkinson: As part of the formal application, the applicant will be required to show the full build out scenario associated with each of these nodes. I would suspect that you have an opportunity to review the implications of siting and note any one particular location. It’s not an automatic approval in later stages because they – any carrier would have to show compliance with FCC standards and so forth. If there was a particular type of stealth requirement or something, we would maintain existing screening and things like that. That would be a tier one wireless project and then tier two would be a project that exceeded some other prior stealth or some – or exceeded some other limit but wasn’t actually a new site so that would be a tier two project. There are different review time frames, shock clock deadlines and different ways of reviewing the different type of forthcoming applications. Chair Lew: I forgot about the shock clock. When this – if this – if and when this comes through for a formal application, could you mention the time schedule in the Staff report because it’s different than our regular ARB timetable? The public isn’t always aware of that so if you could do that for the next report that would be good. I have a question for Staff, are there other similar projects coming from other carriers? City of Palo Alto Page 32 Ms. Atkinson: Yes, actually we have at least three other applicants that are in discussions with Staff about submitting either formal applications or Preliminary Architectural Review application. Staff has strongly encouraged all applicants to submit Preliminary Architectural Review applications. Chair Lew: Thank you for that. I think that’s all the comments or do we have any follow-up? Do you have any – yes, Wynne? Board Member Furth: Some of these are probably relatively non-controversial and they can be done fairly easily. I think the Newell is an example of something where you could do almost any of these things and everybody would be fine with it except the few people who noticed it. There are others clearly, which are not in that way. They’re either very distressing to people who are living near the proposed project or they’re otherwise visually difficult so if it’s possible for Staff and the applicant to sort those out so we put our energy and thought into the difficult problems, that would be helpful. I don’t know how you do that but that would be very helpful. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think that’s a good idea. [Mr. Paul Albrit:] Paul [Albrit], outside counsel for Verizon Wireless and perhaps you remember me from the At&t projects a couple of years ago and (inaudible) Middlefield Palo Alto Little League project that we also worked on. I just wanted to say on your specific question about, what’s now called the Spectrum Act and the administrative approval of additional facilities on an existing facility. That you have an additional layer of control here because it’s a Master License Agreement. There has to be a site license agree from Palo Alto to go onto each pole and so there’s an ability to direct carriers to other poles as opposed to co- locating on a similar pole. Of course, it would depend on the kind of design. I just wanted to quickly add that we did learn a lot from you, the ARB, several years ago and those esthetic criteria were all taken into account in locating these poles. Not located on corners where they could be seen in two different directions. Not placing in front of people windows but between property lines and driveways to avoid views. Locating whenever possible, adjacent to trees like the mock location; wherever we can do that. We’re putting the radios within the trees; the antenna sticking up above so all of those esthetic criteria that you asked us to look into before is being done in this project as well. Lastly, I just want to say that as a telephone corporation, Verizon Wireless has the right to use the right-of-way. We can even put our own poles in the right-of-way but we’re doing everything we can do use existing infrastructure. These really are telephone boxes on a telephone pole but because of Public Utility Commission general order 95 requirements for linemen to be able to climb the poles and all sorts of things, we have a lot of constraints about any kind of camouflaging or – because the poles are supposed to be used by multiple utility companies for utility purposes. We do what we can to minimize the equipment, streamline the boxes so that they are with verticality and so forth and we have some shrouding options. There are these federal and State laws that affect how we use these telephone poles. We’re working as closely as we can with the City to do that. Every pole is walked with the Utility Department, the Planning Department, and our people. We’re following a similar process to At&t where we’re bringing forward four clusters, which is what we did with At&t. You will see each of the poles and each of the clusters before it comes to you. I know that some of the Members walked those poles before each of those meetings and then if you have individual poles that you want to call out during that meeting then you can do that. As you know, the public will also have the ability to come and express their concerns about a specific pole, which may also allow us to modify the design for that specific pole. Verizon Wireless is very conscious of these concerns and we’re working with the community and we’ll continue to do that throughout the process. We really appreciate the comments today. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. This is a preliminary so there’s no action that is being taken today. We will see you again in the future once you submit an application. Any last comments? No. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that it on this one and I think we still have minutes to review so thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Approval of Minutes: 5. Draft Architectural Review Minutes of May 4, 2017 Chair Lew: So, we have the last item on the agenda and that is to review the draft Architectural Review minutes from May 4th, 2017. Those came – they are not in the packet. They came by email. I had a couple comments. Did – Wynne, did you have anything? Board Member Furth: I have some minor corrections for Staff. Again, my favorite was that we don’t have implacable ordinances, we have applicable ordinances. Generally, I thought it was a good job. Chair Lew: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: No. Chair Lew: Ok, so I just had a couple comments and so on page 12, this was on the bridge – on the bicycle bridge. There was a woman mentioned as Claudia and that was Claudia Guadagne from FMG Architects from the – that’s G-u-a-d-a-g-n-e from the Architects; Project Architect’s Office. Then also on page 20 and 21, the minutes cited a male speaker and I think that was Roy Schnabel from Biggs Cardosa from the bridge ANE firm. MOTION Board Member Furth: Move approval as amended. Chair Lew: Ok, second? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Lew: Thank you. All in favor? Opposed? No, so that’s a 3-0 with two Members absent. Great and Wynne, I think you had one last comment? MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BALTAY AND KIM ABSENT Board Member Furth: Oh, I have one general comment which was (inaudible) came from the comment by either Staff or I guess the applicant that we were going to be seeing more underground garages and perhaps more mixed-use projects. I suspect that’s true and I hope that when we look at these in the future, we think about security and sense of security from the beginning because this was a very constrained site and probably very difficult to address but in my view, an expensive operating system is much less desirable than a design that works on its own. Chair Lew: Yeah, it’s a tricky one. I like the recent grocery – the multi-story grocery stores and they do all glass stair enclosures and glass elevators. It seems to me to make it – it’s the transparency that makes it seem much more – seems much safer and I think Board Member Baltay in the past has argued for natural light. Say like the Kepler’s bookstore in Menlo Park does make those – the light wells do make a difference. There are ways that the design can be addressed. Board Member Furth: I think it’s a design problem worth addressing early because – very early because once you get very far, it’s too late. Chair Lew: Ok, we are adjourned. Thank you. Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 34 Adjournment