Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-04 City Council (12)City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE: SUBJECT: August 4, 1997 CMR:351:97 4290 EL CAMINO REAL (CABANA HOTEL) : APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION, VARIANCE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR SITE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HOTEL AND NEW 14-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (CITY FILE NOS: 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3 AND 96-EIA-32). REQUEST The project applicants, Carrasco and Associates, request the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning to R-1 and a Planned Community (PC) District, Tentative Subdivision Map and building height variance for the subdivision of the 10.1 acre Cabana Hotel site. Approval of applications would permit 14 new single-family residential lots and site and building improvements to the existing Cabana Hotel facility. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff recommend that the City Council take the following actions: Approve the attached Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7, 96-EIA-32) and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 7A), finding that the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Adopt the attached resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the western 3.24 acres of the subject property from Service Commercial to Single-Family Residential (Attachment 1A). CMR:351:97 Page 1 of 9 o J Adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the western 3.24-acre portion of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) District to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District (Attachment 1B). Adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the eastern 6.82-acre portion of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) to PC (Planned Community) District for the continued operation and maintenance of a hotel use (Attachment 1C). Approve a Tentative Map for a 15-lot subdivision and conditional exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), permitting the extension of Glenbrook Drive with a 50-foot-wide right-of-way, based on the findings presented in Attachment 1E and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 2A of this report. Approve the ARB findings and Standard Conditions of Approval for the hotel site and building improvements (Attachments 1F and 2B). Approve the proposed variance from PAMC Section 18.68.110(c) and 18.68.150(b) (maximum building heights of 50 feet and 35 feet, respectively), allowing an increase in hotel building height to 100 feet, based on the findings presented in Attachment 1D of this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Cornprehensive Plan Compliance As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report of July 9, 1997 (Attachment 2C, pages 10-14), the proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the Pal. Alto Comprehensive Plan. The residential portion of the project is also consistent with the City of Pal. Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines. In addition, the proposed PC District rezoning and hotel site and building improvements are consistent with E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines~ A summary of the significant policy issues that were addressed and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board is provided as follows: Consistent with Policy 7 and Program 13 of the Housing Element, the project proposes to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program. The 14-lot single-family residential portion of the project is obligated to provide 1.4 units priced for below market rate households. The project proposes the payment of BMR in-lieu fees. The specific details of the proposed program and payment schedule are outlined on page 11 of the Plannin, g Commission staff report (Attachment 2C) and in a letter to Carrasco and Associates from Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber, dated May 15, 1997 (Attachment 6). While the applicant initially disagreed with the payment schedule (see Attachment 6A, letter CMR:351:97 Page 2 of 9 from Carrasco and Associates), the Planning Commission upheld the staff recommended payment schedule, as outlined in the staff report and in Tentative Map conditions of approval (Attachment 2A) and the applicant indicated at the July 9 Planning Commission meeting that they now accept the payment schedule. The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board found that the project would not be inconsistent with Policy 4 of the Schools and Parks Element and Policy 10 of the Open Space Element, which encourage linear parks, trails and public access along creeks. As discussed on pages 20-22 of the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2C), potential opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access along the contiguous Adobe Creek were studied and explored by the applicant. One access study was completed by the City’s Transportation Division (See Attachment 10 for potential access routes). The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff crncluded that public access is not appropriate along this portion of the Adobe Creek, given hotel site and improvement constraints, proximity of. improvements to the creek banks and potential public safety concerns. The project would be consistent with Policy 4, Program 2 of the Environmental Resources Element, which encourages reduction of negative impacts of human activities on plant and animal life. Specifically, the Architectural Review Board has recommended conditions to further encourage tree preservation, as well as improved -pedestrian access through the main hotel parking lot. The applicant is studying revisions to the hotel parking lot layout; a current schematic of these revisions is presented in Attachment 15 .of this report. Secondly, the Planning Commission imposed a Tentative Map condition requiring that a 20-foot-wide non-development setback be provided along the southern portions of residential lots 1 through 4, which abut Adobe Creek. This setback is intended to provide a buffer between the development and the creek. Standards for Architectural Review The design, layout and architecture of the hotel portions of the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff for compliance with Standards for Architectural Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). Proposed findings regarding the project’s compliance with these standards are provided in Attachment 1F of this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description and Proposed Public Benefit The project proposes the subdivision of the current 10.1-acre site into 14 new single-family residential lots (for the western 3.24 acres of the site) and one parcel for continued hotel use (eastern 6.82 acres). A detailed discussion of the proposed project and information on the site CMR:351:97 Page 3 of 9 and setting are provided on pages 2-8 of the attached Planning Commission. staff report (Attachment 2C). The PC District rezoning of the eastern 6.82 acres would permit the hotel use/operation and site improvements. The project proposes a significant reduction in the amount of non-site parking that is required by the PAMC. The PAMC would require a minimum of 499 on-site parking spaces, compared to the proposed.284 6n-site parking spaces. The PC District application is accompanied by a public benefit statement and supplemental drawings, presented in Attachments 4 and 4A-4D. Furthermore, a summary of the proposed public benefits is provided on pages 26-32 of the attached Planning Commission report and in the proposed PC ordinance (attachment 1C). Proposed public benefits include the installation of "gateway" landscaping and entry signage located at the southeast portion of the site (adjacent to Adobe Creek), installation/replacement of landscaping and repair of irrigation in the center median along El Camino Real (portion north of the project intersection), and installation of two decorative street lighting fixtures immediately north of the Adobe Creek bridge. Summary of Planning Commission Review On July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission voted (6-0-1) to recommend to the City Council approval of all requested components of the project. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are transmitted separately in the City Council packet. The Planning Commission recommendation included support of the proposed public benefit and the draft conditions prepared by staff. The Planning Commission recommended several amendments to the conditions of the draft PC District, Tentative Map and Standard Conditions of Approval. Amendments to required Parking Performance Plan The Planning Commission, as well as the Architectural Review Board, recommended that the parking performance plan for the hotel operation address employee parking. The draft parking performance plan (Attachment 5 of report) specifically addresses operational and monitoring provisions for hotel patron parking, but does not address hotel employee parking. The Commission recommended a requirement for the submittal of an employee TDM program, with the program to be reviewed by the City on an annual basis. The purpose of the program is to monitor modes of transportation used by emploYees (car pooling, public transit, bicycling). The draft PC District ordinance has been amended to incorporate this TDM requirement (See Attachment 1C, Section 4(d)(ii)). The draft PC District includes one minor modification regarding on-site bicycle parking (See Attachment 1C, Section 4(d)(ii)). The draft ordinance includes a 25 CMR:351:97 Page 4 of 9 percent reduction in the minimum amount of bicycle parking required by the PAMC. This reduction is reasonable given the nature of the property use. Additional requirements to address construction impacts to adjacent properties Based on public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended amendments to the conditions of the Tentative Map (Attachment 2A) and the Standard Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2B), which speei~ a) requirements for preparation and implementation of a construction logistics plan, and b) limitations on hours of construction. As presented in the July 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting minutes, residents from the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods expressed concerns about the requirement to route all residential construction traffic through the hotel site for the first two years of construction activity (Attachment 2A, conditions 11 and 30 and Attachment 2B, conditions 9 and 16). While the two-year construction routing had been requested by the Green Acres property owners (to the west), the Planning Commission acknowledged the concerns of the Palo Alto Redwoods residents and recommended that the construction routing to E1 Camino Real be limited to 18 months. Consequently, drat~ Tentative Map conditions 11 and 30 and Standard Conditions of Approval conditions 9 and 16 have been amended to address this change (see Attachments 2A and 2B). The Commission directed staff to review the conditions of the one-way access road (as well as the site conditions) along the south side of the hotel facility (abutting Adobe Creek) to determine if the road are capable of handling/accommodating large, heavy construction vehicles. Public Works Engineering was consulted, advising that the inspection of the road be completed by the project engineer, as it is a private road. The applicant has consulted with Brian, Kangas and Foulk (BKF), civil engineers for the project. BKF has concluded that the one-way road is not designed to accommodate the weight of large trucks that are filled with concrete. This weight load could damage the road and could result in some slope failure along Adobe Creek. However, BFK has concluded that it is possible that the road can accommodate empty concrete trucks. The applicant also contacted the Fire Department regarding a flag- man controlled "two-way" .use of the road during construction. This was not acceptable to the Fire Department. Given the narrow south roadway and its close proximity to the top of the creek bank, staff concludes that construction access should focus on the north side of the Cabana site while allowing empty large trucks and smaller vehicles to use the south access drive for site exiting purposes only. Details of the construction access and egress issue will need to be addressed in the construction logistics plan (Attachment 2B, condition 9). CMR:351:97 Page 5 of 9 The Planning Commission recommended amendments to Tentative Map condition 32 (Attachment 2A) and Standard Condition of Approval 18 (Attachment 2B), limiting construction to a six day work week. Furthermore, the amendment requires that all hotel site construction end by 6:00 PM, Monday - Saturday. Recommendations for non-development setback for residential lots 1 through 4 The Planning Commission recommended that a 20-foot-wide non-development setback be required over the rear of lots 1 through 4. Given that these lots abut Adobe Creek, the setback would provide an adequate creek buffer. The setback would also prohibit the development of accessory structures and swimming pools. This setback is addressed in Tentative Map condition 13 (Attachment 2A). Please note that this condition replaces previous condition 13, requiring tree protection easements over lots 1 through 10. The Planning Commission recommends deletion of this requirement. Access to Glenbrook Drive As designed, the residential portion of the project requires access from Glenbrook Drive. As discussed in the report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2C, pp. 24-26), the fight of the subject property to use this access has been the subject of dispute on the part of some homeowners in the adjacent Greenacres neighborhood. Since the Commission meeting, additional information has been received about the Greenacres neighborhood position regarding access to Glenbrook Drive. The City Attorney’s Office is transmitting this information to Council under separate cover. Based on this information, it is recommended that the wording of Tentative Map conditions No. 12 and 15 be revised as shown on Attachment 2A. ALTERNATIVES The property is currently zoned PC (Planned Community) District, which authorizes continued use and operation of a 200-room hotel complex. Any change in land use requires a property rezoning or an amendment to the present PC District. The alternative that can be considered is denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change applications, allowing the continued use and operation of the hotel complex on the entire 10.1 acre site. FISCAL IMPACT The project involves a subdivision of land for construction of 14 new single-family dwellings. These dwelling units would generate property taxes as well as require City services. The residential dwelling units would also be subject to school impact fees, as required by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The continued operation of the hotel, facility would generate transient occupancy tax. CMR:351:97 Page 6 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and in provided as Attachment 7 of this report. Potentially significant impacts associated with the project development can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is attached for City Council review and approval (Attachment 7A). .STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Following action by the City on the proposed applications, the project would be subject to a number of subsequent City approvals and possible permits from other agencies. An outline of these actions is provided on page 35 of the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2C). ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Attachment 1A: Attachment 1B: Attachment 1 C: Attachment 1D: Attachment 1 E: Attachment 1F: Attachment 2A: Attachment 2B: Attachment 2C: Attachment 2D: Attachment 3: Attachment 3A: Attachment 4: Attachment 4A: Attachment 4B: Attachment 4C: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Location Map Resolution amending Comprehensive Plan land use designation ’ Ordinance rezoning western 3.24 acres from PC to R-1 District PC District Ordinance Findings for approval of a variance from 50 foot building height limit Findings for approval of Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Exception for 50 foot wide road right-of-way width Findings for Architectural Review Conditions for Tentative Subdivision Map Draft Standard Conditions of Approval for hotel site and building renovations Planning Commission Staff Report, July 9, 1997 Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes, June 19, 1997 Residential Lot Inventory Draft CC&R Amendment Draft Public Benefit Statement and Schedule (revisions to 5-23-97), letter from Stephen W. Player, May 13, 1997 Letter from AKA Landscape Architects to Carrasco and Associates regarding tree planting along the center median of E1 Camino Real, May 21, 1997 Sample of decorative street light standard proposed at the northern edge of the Adobe Creek bridge Reduced, schematic plan of El Camino Real center median (landscaping and irrigation) Draft Parking Performance Plan, DKS Associates, April 9, 1997 Draft BMR Statement, letter from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto to Carrasco and Associates, May 15, 1997 CMR:351:97 Page 7 of 9 Attachment 6A:Response to Draft BMR Statement, letter from Carrasco and Associates to Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto, May 23, 1997 Attachment 7:EIA/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 7A:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 8:Memorandum from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey, landscape architects, to Carrasco and Associates summarizing tree removal and transplanting measures, Mar~h 26, 1997 Attachment 9:Memorandum from Jose Jovel, Utilities Engineering to Joe Colonna, Planning Division, October 25, 1996 Attachment 10:Reduced plan of Transportation Division alternative study of potential public access along Adobe Creek, May 1997 Attachment 11:Letter from B.B. Patel, Cabana-Palo Alto to City of Palo Alto, regarding fencing improvements along the northern property boundary, May 19, 1997 Attachment 12:Letter from Stephen W. Player, attorney for applicant, to City of Palo Alto regarding public access along Adobe Creek, May 12, 1997 Attachment 13:Letter from Palo Alto Redwoods Association to Ken Schreiber, June 16, 1997 Attachment 13A: Preliminary fencing repair detail for the northern property boundary of the hotel site ’ Attachment 14: Preliminary plan for on-site bicycle parking Attachment 15: Schematic study of hotel parking lot revisions to address improved pedestrian access and additional tree preservation, Carrasco and Associates Correspondence - written comments and letters from agencies, organizations, special interest groups, neighboring residents and property owners Plans and Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions [Council Members only] PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:351:97 Page 8 of 9 CC:Carrasco and Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 95301 Chilton Lee, 605 Stanford Financial Square, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, 94306 Stephen W. Player, Attorney at Law, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 410, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Kent Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Mitchell and Herzog, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 236, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 , Gloria Kreitman, Green Acres Improvement Association, 4216 Los Palos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Larry Tong, Planning Director, city of Los Altos, One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA. 94022-3088 Griffen Derryberry, President, Palo Alto Redwoods; c/o: PML Management, 655 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 101, San Mateo, CA. 94404 Richard Bartlett, Rancho Laureles Preservation Association, 1138 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Marsha Penn, Rancho Laureles Preservation Association, 1176 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Ross Pont, 1184 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Sue Cohn, 4250 E1 Camino Real, C-325, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Angel Rocha, 4250-E1 Camino Real, D-337, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Elaine Findley, 4250 E1 Camino Real, C-226, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Jo Schuster, 4250 E1 Camino Real, B-402, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Greenaeres property owners CMR:351:97 Page 9 of 9 Project: 4290 El Camino Real 1. Zone change of 6.82 acres from Planned Community (PC) to Planned Community (PC) for Hotel land use. RM-30 ATTACHMENT #1 PF Project,: 4290 El Camino Real 2.Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Service Commercial to Single- Family Residential and Zone Change from Planned Community (PC) to Single-Family Residential (R-l) of 3.24 acres. ATTACHMENT #1A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4290 EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held on July 9, 1997, has recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on , 1997, and has reviewed the contents of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, ’the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: ~. The Council finds .that the public interest, health, safety and welfare require amendment to the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 hereof. Such amendment of the Land Use Map~will permit the redevelopment of a portion of an existing commercial (hotel) site with single-family residential uses. ~o The Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation of a portion of the property at 4290 E1 Camino Real, shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and consisting of approximately 3.24 acres, from "Service Commercial" to "Single-Family Residential," as shown on said Exhibit "A." ~. The Council finds that this project, with implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration~ will not have a significant environmental effect. ~. This resolution shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption. This delayed effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo 970702 lac~ 0080538 Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. petition filed after the effective date shall be untimely° INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: A referendum rejected as City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 970702 iae 0080538 2 RM -30 ,Project: 4290 El (;amino Real 2.Comprehensive Plan Amendment from 5ervice Commercial to 5ingle-. Family Residential an~l Zone Change from Planned Community (PC) to 5ingle-Family Residential (R-l) of 5.24 acres. Date:?-?-96 North ATTACHMENT #1B ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4290 EL CAMINO REAL FROM PC-PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (ORD.NO.2006)TO THE R-I (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT’ The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: The Council finds as follows: ~. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held on July 9, 1997, has.recommended that the Council amend Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the "Zoning Map") as hereinafter set forth. The Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on , 1997. C. Upon consideration of Commission’s recommendation, the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, all all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter, the Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map as hereinafter set forth. ~/~_~. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the "Zoning Map") is. hereby amended by changing the zone classification of a portion of the property located at 4290 E1 Camino Real, consisting of approximately 3.24 acres, from "PC- Planned Community" (PC-2006) to "R-I (Single Family Residence)" District as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. S2~J~Q~_~. The .Council finds that this project, with implementation kof the mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration, will not have a significant environmental effect. // // // // // SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty-first day after the day of its adoption. INTRODUCED : PASSED: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS : ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment on the 970702 lac~ 0080537 2 Project: 4290 El Camino Real 1. Zone change of 6.82 acres -from Planned Community (PC) to Planned Community (PC) for Hotel land use. RM-30 PF Date:?-?-96 North ATTACHMENT #1C ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4290 EL CAMINO REAL FROM PC-PLANNED COMMUNITY (ORD.NO. 2006) TO PC- PLANNED COMMUNITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held July 9, 1997, and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of , 1997, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. (b) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations/ finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 4290 E1 Camino Real (the "subject property") from "PC Planned Community District (Ord. No. 2006)" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of approximately 6.82 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit ’~A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated, and the hotel uses and improvements proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development, in that the existing improvements were constructed under a PC-Planned Community District. Most of the major improvements, including the hotel tower, are to remain. While the subject property could be rezoned to either the CC(H) or CS(H) Districts, application of the standards for these traditional districts would not be appropriate given the uniqueness of the existing hotel land use and property improvements, the uniqueness of the site location and size, and proximity of the site to existing residences. With the exception of parking requirements and height limitations, the other required site development 970728 lao 0080539 1 standards and allowed uses under these districts would be more permissive than is the subject PC district. This would potentially result in a development that would be less compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Therefore, application of a new PC District is appropriate given the existing zoning and the pre- existing use of the property and improvements. (b) Development of the sfte under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combining districts, as follows: (i) The project as developed under the PC Planned Community District will provide desirable street improvements along E1 Camino Real. These improvements include the installation of a minimum of two new pedestrian-scale street light standards to be located on the east and west sides of the Adobe Creek bridge (El Camino Real creek over crossing). (ii) The project as developed under this PC Planned Community District will provide "gateway" improvements, consisting of substantial landscaping and monument-type entry signage at the southeast corner of the property° (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with the mix of residential and commercial uses which presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan "Service ~Commercial" Land use Designation for this site in that it would continue to permit a hotel land use, which is acceptable under this designation. The proposed project would be consistent and compatible with the development pattern and intensity allowable for commercial lands in the south E1 Camino Real area. Finally, while Policy I0 of the Open Space Element and Policy .4 of the~Schools and Parks Element encourage public access along creeks, this Council finds that, in this case, public access along this portion of the creek is not feasible or recommended due to: i) the constraints of the hotel parcel and the location of present improvements as they relate to the location of the creek banks, and 2) the potential of creating an access which could introduce unacceptable use of neighboring residential streets for overflow hotel parking° (d) The parking and loading plan for the project, which conditions on the permitted uses for the site, and justifies modification of the requirements of Chapter 18.83 with respect to number of parking spaces. Relevant studies, prepared by an 970728 lae 0080539 2 engineer qualified in traffic and circulation, have been submitted by the project applicant to support a modification to the minimum on-site parking space requirement. These studies are further supported by a hotel parking and occupancy survey completed by the Department of Planning and Community Environment (included in Environmental Assessment 96-EIA-32). Similar hotel projects located in the Bay Area were surveyed for parking demand, and based on this information it has been, concluded that the project’s proposed parking, with implementation of a parking performance plan as.set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance, will be adequate to serve a hotel facility of the size permitted under this ordinance. In addition, the provisions of this ordinance will allow the City to require changes in the parking performance plan and/or the allowed uses in the district, in the event that overflow parking is experienced and the performance plan measure are not effective. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Cabana--Palo, Alto Hotel, PC Zone Change" prepared by Carrasco and Associates, dated December 19, 1996, inclusive of revisions dated March 25, 1997, May 5, 1997, May 12, 1997, May 23, 1997, and June 19, 1997, and resubmitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board on June 19, 1997, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal. Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited to a hotel and ancillary uses incidental thereto, as described herein and with the following limitations: bar/lounge; (±) (±±) Operation of up to 200 guest rooms; Operation of dining room restaurant, and (iii) Ancillary uses including but not limited to lobby area, swimming pool and similar recreation facilities, kitchen, administrative office and storage; (iv) Use of conference ~and meeting rooms; and (v) Until March i, 1999: Use of the large banquet and meeting room area depicted as the "Banquet Rooms and Conference" area on sheet A2.0ol of the plans entitled "Cabana--Palo Alto, Ground Floor Reference Plan" and dated May 5, 1997, and sheet A2.2 of plans entitle "Cabana--Palo Alto Hotel, Second Floor Plan: Phase II" dated May 5, 1997. 970728 lao 0080539 (b) Conditional Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in this District after March i, 1999, only upon issuance of a conditional use permit: Use of the large banquet and meeting room area depicted as the "Banquet Rooms and Conference" area sheet A2o0.1 of the plans entitled "Cabana--Palo Alto, Ground Floor Reference Plan" and dated May 5, 1997, and sheet A2.2 of plans entitle "Cabana--Palo Alto Hotel, Second Floor Plan: Phase II" da~ed May 57 1997. (c) Site Development Requlations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted~by the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The following are site development regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (i) Final plans, including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans and shall show that~no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respect the building design and setback requirements. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted ~by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the MunicipaI Code. (iii) The approved Development Plan permits some tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of a number of mature trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval 96-ARB-168 shall result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. Any trees permitted to be removed be replaced at a ratio of 2:1; replacement trees shall be planted in a fifty-fifty ratio of 24-inch and.36-inch box size trees, or as determined by the Planning Arborist. (iv) Total hotel building area square footage shall not exceed 180,000 square feet. Total area for conference meeting 970728 lao 0080539 4 rooms and banquet facilities shall not exceed 12,000 square feet. Any square footage proposed to exceed these limits shall require an amendment to this PC District unless the Director determines the change is minor and therefore eligible for approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Municipal Code. (v) Maximum building height shall be not exceed i00 feet, inclusive of rooftop mechanical equipment enclosures. (vi) Screened planting setbacks are required and shall be maintained around the perimeter of the subject property. A ten (i0) foot wide landscape screen area and solid fence of 5’ 8" in height are required and shall be maintained along the northern and western property boundaries. A landscape screen planting area shall be maintained along the southern (Adobe Creek frontage) border of the site. All landscaping and fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the final approved landscape plans. (d) ,Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking for the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. Pursuant to PAMC section 18.68.110(d) and the findings set forth above, the requirements of Chapter 18.83 are hereby modified for this project to allow reduction in the required number of vehicular parking spaces and the development and operation of a special on-site parking and circulation plan for the proposed hotel and ancillary uses. The parking plan shall be as depicted in the Development Plan prepared by Carrasco & Associates, dated December 19, 1996, revised June 19, 1997, and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment~ The Development Plan approves and requires the provision on 284 on-site vehicular parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: (i) Of the 284 total spaces, 207 shall be self- park spaces, 58 shall be for valet parking, and 19 spaces shall be of which 12 (racks/lockers) shall be provided and maintained at the northern (employee/loading area) entrance to the hotel (ii) The hotel operator shall implement a Parking Performance Plan which is designed and intended to manage on-site parking and to ensure pa~king adequacy during peak seasons/period of hotel facility use. The Parking Performance Plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to removal of any existing parking spaces on the subject 970728 la~ 0080539 5 property, and shall include the following measures, as set forth in the plan prepared by DKS Associates, dated April 9, 1997, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment: aa. No parking shall be permitted in any of the fire and travel lanes at any time. bb. No h~tel parking shall be permitted on nearby residential streets at~any time. cc.No hotel parking shall be permitted on any of the private parking lots of nearby commercial uses unless approved by the City in accordance with applicable procedures. dd.Events and activities shall be scheduled so that there is no overlap of full conference/meeting room use during the peak periods of hotel room occupancy. ee. A year-round van/shuttle serv!ce for hotel guests shall be provided and operated. ff.Valet parking shall be provided on a daily basis during peak hours. Extended hours of valet parking shall be implemented during the peak season of February through November. g~-~..~ii~i~ii~iiiiiii ollowlng completion of construction and commencement of full operation of the hotel facilities, a status rePort on the success of the Parking Performance Plan shall be subm±tted by the hotel operator to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The report shall be submitted no later than twelve (12) months after adoption of this ordinance, or six (6) months after approval of the final subdivision map for 96-SUB-5, whichever date is later. The report shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and shall analyze parking occupancy and vacancy on the~subject property, including separate analysis of employee and visitor/guest parking. The report shall include information on the modes of transportation utilized by employees and data regarding parking demand and occupancy based on surveys taken during peak hours as determined by the Director. 970728 lae 0080539 6 The City may require peer review of the report by an independent traffic engineer, retained by City at the expense of the hotel operator. A second parking status report shall be submitted to the Director within twelve (12) months after the initial report. Should the Director, based upon review of the reports and any other pertinent information, determine that during peak hotel operation periods overflow parking is experienced, the Director may require modifications to the Parking Performance Plan to ensure the provision of adequate hotel parking and implementation of the changes. The modifications may include but shall not be limited to: (I) increase in shuttle availability; (2) provision of off- site parking for use by employees and/or for overflow parking accessible by valet or hotel patrons; (3) restrictions on use of certain hotel facilities during times of highest parking demand° (e)Special Conditions° .(i) Street Lights.The project includes installation of new street light standards to be located on the east and west sides of the Adobe Creek bridge (El Camino Real creek overcrossing). These improvements shall include a minimum of two light standards (actual number ~nd designed to be as determined by the Architectural Review Board). The lighting standards shall be selected based on consultation with Public Works Engineering, Planning Division, and Utilities Engineering and shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. These improvements shall be installed no later than May 15, 1999. (ii) Median Landscaping/Irrigation Improvements. The pro~ect includes installation of landscaping improvements to the E1 Camino Real center median located immediately north of the Adobe Creek Bridge. These improvements shall include installation of four new trees, planted at minimum 24-inch box size, installation and replacement of existing shrubs and ground cover (as determined by the Community Services Department and the Planning Arborist) and repair of the existing irrigation system (including replacement of backflow preventers and update of control system). These improvements shall be depicted on a detailed plan prepared by at licensed architect or landscape architect. This plan shall be submitted for approval by the Architectural Review Board prior to-the issuance of a building permit for the hotel improvements subject to ARB approval 96-ARB-168 or the approval of at final subdivision map (96-SUB-5), whichever date first occurs. These improvements shall be installed no later than May 15, 1999. (iii) Gateway Feature. The project includes installation of substantial landscaping and monument-style entry signage to Palo Alto at the southeast corner of the property. 970728 lao 0080539 7 These improvements shall be designed and installed in accordance with City specifications, generally as depicted on Sheet L-l, prepared by Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey, Dated December 19, 1996, and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.These improvements shall be completed by May 15, 1999. (f)Development Schedule’ Construction of the project shall commence on or before June I, 1998, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before May 15, 1999. (g) Mitigation Measures. All mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration for the project shall be implemented as conditions of project approval, and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program shall be implemented. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 6. This ordinance Shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 970728 |a¢ 0080539 project: 4290 El Camino Real 1. Zone change of 6.82 acres from Planned Community (PC) to Planned Community (PC) for Hotel land use. RM -30 PC~-~03 PF project: 4290 El Camino Real 2.Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Service Commercial to Single-. Family Residential and Zone Change from Planne~l Community (PC) to Single-Family Residential of 3.24 acres. ATTACHMENT #1D Findings for Variance from 35 Foot and 50 Foot Height Limits PAMC Sections 18.68.110c & 18.68.150c (97-V-3) There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject 6.82 hotel property and improvements which warrant the granting of a variance from the 35 foot height limit of the PAMC Section 18.68.150c and the 50 foot height building limit.required by Section 18.68.110c. The exceptional circumstances and conditions, in this case, are that a) the existing hotel tower structure is 85 feet in height, which is consistent with the special 85 foot height limit. permitted under the current PC District (Ordinance 2006) for this property and b) the hotel parcel is unusually large and the existing hotel tower is substantially setback from the public street and surrounding properties. The additional height would not substantially change the bulk or massing of the existing hotel tower as it would not result in additional floor or building area. The granting of the variance from the PANIC building height limits, in this case, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and would prevent unnecessary hardship. The additional building height would permit the property owner to improve and update the appearance of the hotel facility, make it more compatible with the design of the adjacent residential buildings, and create a more aesthetically pleasing hotel design from E1 Camino Real. The additional building height would permit improvements to the building roof line, which could not be accomplished without a major reconstruction of the building or removal of the upper portions of the tower, which would result in an unreasonable property loss and an unnecessary hardship. The granting of this variance for additional building height will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and generally welfare of surrounding residents or properties in that, the hotel tower is substantially setback from the public sweet and from adjacent residential properties. The proposed addition to the roof top equipment enclosure would not increase building area,, or the increase the massiveness of the structure, would comply with daylight plane requirements and would not result in the loss of light or air to adjacent residential ProPerties. Furthermore, the tower would continue to be screened from adjacent residents by existing landscaping along the property borders; this landscaping would be maintained under the proposed plan. Finally, the additional building height would not impact the Fire Department’s ability to respond to an emergency situation, as the additional height would only serve to screen an existing roof top equipment enclosure. 1D-1 ATTACHMENT #1E Draft Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map (96-SUB-5) & Conditional Exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2) Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map, As modified by recommended conditions of approval, and upon the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan amendment (96-CPA-4) and zone change (96-ZC-13), the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a project that would preserve a hotel/commercial land use along the E1 Camino Real property frontage and would establish a single-family residential use for the western 3.24 acres of the site. The subdivision would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhood land uses and. improvements. In addition, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a residential density that is within the density range of the Single-Family Residential land use designation and a commercial!hotel land use intensity that is consistent with the Service Commercial land use designation. The project, as designed and approved would not be inconsistent with Policy 10 of the Open Space Element and Policy 4 of the Schools and Parks Element, which encourage public access along creeks in that, after detailed study of possible public access alternatives along the contiguous Adobe Creek, it has been determined that safe public access along this portion of the creek is not feasible or recommended given a) the constraints of the hotel parcel and the requirement to significantly modify existing improvements on the hotel site, b) the proximity of the existing hotel site improvements to the Adobe Creek bank and c) the potential for introducing a point of access to the adjacent residential neighborhood, which could be used for overflow hotel parking; this would result in a significant environmental impact and would be contrary to the mitigation measures presented in the environmental assessment for this project (96-EIA-32). The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single- family residential development, in that the lots are sized and configured to provide sufficient outdoor living space and are designed to allow protection of existing, mature trees along the property border. Likewise, the site is suitable to accommodate a 6.82 acre parcel for continued hotel use and improvements. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision respects the physical conditions of the site by appropriately arranging residential lots with access to and frontage on an extension of Glenbrook Drive, which continues the pattern of the traditional 1E-1 single-family residential neighborhood to the west. As modified by conditions of approval, the proposed 6.82 acre hotel parcel would respect the physical conditions of the site by avoiding impacts to or encroachments within Adobe Creek and by implementing a tree replanting program for proposed tree loss. The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or ~vildlife or their habitat, as documented in the environmental assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32). Mitigation measure have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the various project applications, including the Tentative Subdivision Map, which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. As modified by conditions of approval, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that, all necessary public services, including public utilities and access to El Camino Real, a public street, are available and will be provided. Furthermore, conditions of approval require that the single-family residential subdivision access to and utility services from Glenbrook Drive, a public street, are to be provided prior to the approval of a Final Subdivision Map by the City Council. The subdivision design and recommended conditions of approval for erosion and sediment control would ensure protection of water quality within the Adobe Creek. The design of the subdivision will not conflict With the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to receive direct utility connections from two public right-of- ways. Draft Findings for Conditional Exception from Required 60 foot wide road right-of- way width per PAMC Section 21o20o240(b)(2)o 1.There are special’ circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for the reduced road right- of-way width for the extension of Glenbrook Drive. The subject property being served by the road extension represents a small area (3.24 acres), would serve a limited number of residential lots (14) and is designed to preclude future extension for additional development or road connection. The exception from the 60 foot wide road right-of-way requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would respect the existing tree cover along the property border and would maximize the size of single-family residential lots in a limited area of 3.24 acres. 1E-2 o The granting of the exception, which would permit a 50 foot wide road right-of- way width and a curb-to-curb street pavement width of 30 feet, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that the street is sized (width and cul-de-sac turning radius) to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access. While the road width would limit on-street parking to one side of the street right-of-way, the individual residential lots are adequately sized to pro~de more than the minimmn on-site parking. The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road right-of-way for a cul-de-sac serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. Fndgstm.cab 1E-3 ATTACHMENT #1F Draft Findings for Architectural Review Approval of Hotel Site and Building Improvements 96-ZC-13 & 96-ARB-168 The project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Service Commercial land use designation for the site and is within the overall, average commercial intensity limits permitted for the southern E1 Camino Real area. The realignment of the main driveway intersection with E1 Camino Real would ease the flow of traffic and improve the intersection, which would be consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element. Furthermore, as modified by conditions of approval, the project would be consistent with the Urban Design Element and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines in that, the project would maintain the existing building scale and would contribute to the City’s southern "gateway" by providing significant landscaping and entry signageat the southeastern comer of the site. Conditions of approval require that, although the location of the freestanding, monument- type hotel identification sign is appropriate for the project and the property frontage along E1 Camino Real, the design of the sign should be improved to better compliment the approved design and materials of the hotel facility. The project design and the proposed improvements would be compatible with the immediate environment and the surrounding imProvements. Although the project would permit a slight increase in the permitted building height, the design of the additional height would not be overpowering or appear massive to the adjacent residences and commercial uses, in that the project would maintain, and continue to provide ample building setbacks and landscape buffers. The design of the proposed improvements would be appropriate for the continued hotel use of the property. The project is designed to provide ample landscape setbacks and buffers from adjacent properties to screen parking and other hotel uses. In addition, the parking program and the implementation of a "parking performance plan" would ensure that there is adequate on-site parking and that the use would result in minimal impacts to adjacent residents. The hotel property is not located in an area that has a unified design or a historical character. However, the project design is an improvement to the IF-1 o existing building and in keeping with the variety of architectural designs that are present in the surrounding area. The project, as designed, maintains the present scale of the hotel facilities. The building scale, in combination with the maintenance of existing setbacks and landscape buffers, present project improvements which are compatible with the commercial and residential development ~f the area. The design of the project would be consistent with existing on-site and off-site improvements. Specifically, the project is designed to preserve and protect existing, mature trees and landscaping along the northern and southern (Adobe Creek) borders of the site. While tree removal within the hotel parking lot is proposed, substantial tree replanting is proposed to offset this loss. Furthermore, the project would not result in any major changes to the hotel facility size or footprint. As such, the site would maintain its present character. As proposed and as modified by conditions of approval, the planning and siting of the proposed improvements, particularly the parking, vehicle circulation and landscaping, would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for patrons of the hotel and surrounding property owners and the general community. The amount and the arrangement of the-open space is appropriate to the design and functions of the hotel use and facilities. The design of the site plan ensures that there is ample vehicle access to E1 Camino Real and access for emergency vehicles. The project proposes a design that provides sufficient ancillary functions to support the hotel use. The design of the ancillary functions, specifically the location and arrangement of the on-site parking, circulation and delivery/service areas, as well as outdoor activity areas, are compatible with the project’s design function. 10.The site plan is designed to ensure that property access and circulation are convenient for hotel visitors and service vehicles. On site parking is designed to include the implementation of a valet parking program and shuttle service, as well as areas for employee parking. ~ 11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project. 1F-2 Specifically, the project proposes not changes to and ample setbacks from Adobe Creek and the mature landscaping along the northern property boundary. While tree removal is proposed within the front (eastern) parking lot, a replanting program is proposed and required to offset tree loss. 12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction of the hotel structure were previously reviewed and approved l~y the Architectural Review Board. The Board found that these features to be appropriate to the design and function of the hotel use and are compatible with the neighboring structures, improvements and landscape elements. As modified by conditions of approval, the proposed improvements would compliment the approved building material, colors and architecture of the hotel facility. 13.As proposed and as modified by conditions of approval, the landscape design of the project would create a desirable and functional environment for hotel patrons, visitors and employees. Landscaping is designed to maintain the existing, mature landscape buffers surrounding the site and to maintain the present landscape character of the site. 14.The plant materials as proposed and as recommended through conditions of approval, would be suitable and compatible for the site. Plant materials have been selected that would be appropriate for screening on-site parking, would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies (selection of redwood trees at City "gateway") and to be compatible with the native vegetation that exists along Adobe Creek. 15.The design, as proposed would be energy efficient. New building materials selected for the hotel structure are energy efficient. Furthermore, the improvements would maintenance solar exposure to outdoor use areas. 1F-3 ATTACHMENT #2A Draft Conditions for Tentative Subdivision Map 96-SUB-5 Please note that a separate set of conditions apply to applications #96-ZC-13 and #96-ARB- 168. These conditions address specific site and building improvements for the 6.82 acre Cabana Hotel parcel. Prior to Filing the Final Subdivision Map for Approval and Recordation This map was processed concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan amendment (96- CPA-4) and a zone change (96-ZC-13). Approval of the Tentative Map shall no__At be effective until the effective date of the rezoning ordinances for the PC (Planned Community) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) re-zoning. o The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. All construction, improvements and grading activity proposed within the E1 Camino Real (SR 82) right-of-way may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). If intersection improvements are incorporated into the Final Map improvement plans, the project sponsor shall be required to submit, with the Final Subdivision Map, a written authorization or proof of an approved permit for construction activities within the Caltrans right-of-way encroachment permit. All construction and grading activities proposed Within Adobe Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Califomia Department ofFish and Game (CDFG - streambed alteration), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following shall be submitted with the Final Subdivision Map: a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard streambed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work within the creek. b. Proof of authorization and/or permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers for outfall construction and associated grading within the Adobe Creek (Nationwide Permit). c.A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit from the sCVWD., for all construction and grading work within the Adobe Creek and!or properties owned by SCVWD. In addition to approvals/permits for construction of outfalls, the SCVWD may require an easement for future construction of an access ramp, through the hotel parcel to the creek. If this easement is required by SCVWD, it shall appear on the Final Map. The name of the residential cul-de-sac (Glenbrook Court) shall be changed to Glenbrook Drive. This name change shall’appear.on the Final Subdivision Map. o A detailed following: a. The Co grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The plan shall include the detail plan shall include the submittal and implementation of a drainage and erosion control plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. The plan shall include a detailed program addressing the removal, transport and crushing of the existing asphalt in the rear (western) parking lot. If the crushed asphalt is used as base material for the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, it shall be placed only in areas that are proposed to be paved for parking. No crushed asphalt shall be used in areas proposed for landscaping or planting. Following installation of the base material, the project sponsor shall contact the City Planning Division for a site inspection. The City Staff shall inspect the area to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. Drainage for the residential subdivision improvements shall be designed with a closed, stormwater drainage system. This system shall be designed so that all run-off is collected and deposited into Adobe Creek at one outfall location. Residential subdivision grading shall be designed so that all lot run-off is directed into the closed drainage.system. Drainage for the eastern 6.82 acre hotel parcel shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. The final design of all new stormwater drainage outfalls shall include the installation of an acceptable, biotechnical erosion control measure (e.g. techniques such as mixture of local rock, woody material and native planting). Use of sacked concrete or rock rip-rap for erosion control shall not be permitted. Ultimate design and materials for outfall erosion control shall be determined based on consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In addition, the construction of the outfall shall avoid impacts to or removal of native/riparian trees. If tree removal is necessary to construct the outfall, removal shall be limited to non-native trees and shall be noted on the final grading and drainage plan and shall include details for replanting. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City logo and the word "No Dumping! Flows to Adobe Creek". This shall be noted on the plans. An overland flow path flow must be provided between Lots 10 and 11 to provide a release point from the cul-de-sac in the event of flooding beyond the capacity of the storm drainage system. 2 o 10. 11. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area, submitted with the Final Map. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval of construction by the Building Inspection Division. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and approval. The following permits shall be secured from the Department of Public Works: a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the sidewalk, street and alley. b.A Permit for Construction in the Public Street. c.A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. The Final Subdivision Map and improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit for the hotel parcel shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated October 25, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Utility Engineering Division. (See Attachment #9 of staff report). A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform to the City ofPalo Alto’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. The logistics plans shall be prepared to ensure that, for the first two-years! il 8 months of grading and construction for the subdivision and housing developmentl all construction vehicle access shall be routed eastward, through the hotel site, to El Camino Real. The logistics plan shall identify an access point and staging area to the residential subdivision, designed to ensure minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and operation on the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. 12.Final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C,C & Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval by City departments. 14.The improvement plans for the Final Subdivision Map shall include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model 76 type). A specific plan showing new and relocated hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to the completion of the improvement plans. 15.The property owner shall provide proof that subdivision access and extension of utilities can be provided over the one foot wide strip of land extending over the existing terminus of Glenbrook Drive, thus authorizing the extension of Glenbrook Drive (the proposed residential cul-de-sac). 16.The subdivider shall enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto, which addresses the performance standards and contingency measures required for implementation of a hotel "parking performance plan". The implementation of this plan and requirement for the agreement is outlined in the PC District ordinance for the 4 17. 6.82 acre hotel parcel (96-ZC-13). The agreement shall be recorded with the approved Final Map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder.’ The final layout and design for the extension of Glenbrook Drive shall conform to Article 9, Section 902, meeting specifications for emergency vehicle access. 18.Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, final landscaping and irrigation plans, as well as other pertinent improvement details includingobut not limited to above ground utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board, the City’s Planning Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning Division. The final plan shall include the following: a. Specifications for the removal of fire damaged trees along the north banks of Adobe Creek (south of hotel parcel). Trees shall be pruned to ensure adequate clearance for the vehicular fire lane. b.A total of seven street trees shall be planted along the El Camino Real frontage, spaced at intervals of 25 feet. Tree species shall be Yarwood London Plane (Plantanus a.) and planted at a 24 inch box size. Planting area shall be a minimum of 3’ x 5’, including area for irrigation. c.A total of 18 street trees shall be planted along the Glenbrook Drive extension, spaced at intervals of 40 feet. Flowering Pear - "Redspire" (Pyrus calleryana) is an acceptable species, planted at a 36" box size. Planting area shall be a minimum of 3’ x 5’, including area for irrigation. d.All trees with trunk diameters of 6" or greater that are to be removed (as per Sheet L-I, Preliminary Landscape Plan dated December 19, 1996 and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal Plan dated December 19, 1996) shall be shown on the final landscape plan. Tree replacement shall be two new trees for each tree lost/permanently removed, planted at a 50/50 size mix of 24 inch and 36 inch box size. A mix of deciduous and evergreen species shall be provided for all replacement trees, as approved by the City’s Planning Arborist. e. Landscaping for the "gateway" feature bordering El Camino Real and Adobe Creek shall include 6-7 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) or Deodara Cedar (Cedrus deodar) planted at a 48" box size, arranged with shorter trees in the foreground. The Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii) species is not acceptable and shall be deleted from the plan. The landscaping details for the "gateway" feature shall include plans for construction and installation of a monument-type entry sign to Palo Alto. The sign shall be designed based on consultation with the Public Works Operations Division and in accordance with the sign specifications provided by the City. f.The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall show an area for two pad mounted transformers for the residential portion of the subdivision, one between Lots 13 and 14, and one between Lots 6 and 7. An area for one above ground switch/LB cabinet is required at Lot 4. An area shall be identified for a new pad mounted transformer along the E1 Camino Real frontage, to serve the hotel facility/parcel. All utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping, as approved by the Utilities Department and the ARB. Final specifications for street lighting along the extension of Glenbrook Drive. Specifications and/or plans for perimeter fencing along the northern, western and southern property boundaries of the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. For details of this requirement, see condition 11.t~. of the Standard Conditions of Approval for 96-ZC-13 and 96-ARB-168. Specifications and/or plans addressing landscape treatment, tree protection, parking lot lighting, hotel signage, pavement materials, on-site bicycle parking and pedestrian path details for the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. For details of this requirement, see conditions 11.g. through 11.1. of the Standard Conditions of -Approval for 96-ZC-13 and 96-ARB-168. 19. 20. 21. Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and the City’s Planning Arborist, and implemented prior to demolition, grading and throughout construction. The plan shall include implementation of the recommendations contained in Sheet L-l, Preliminary Landscape Plan (Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey), dated December 19, 1996, and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal Plan, dated December 19, 1996. The plan shall preserve and protect trees that are not proposed for removal on Sheet TRP (Tree Removal Plan). If additional tree removal is necessary, it shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist and a re-planting ratio of 2:1. The plan shall survey and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall include measures for their protection during construction including a temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree, or tree cluster that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the ddpline of the trees. It shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the final landscaping grading is completed. The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or other permeable surfaces. All new development on the proposed single-family residential lots shall be subject to Pal. Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school fees, to be determined by the school district. Proof of fee payment to PAUSD shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the single-family residential lots. The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400 amps or greater will require a three-phase service. 22.The improvement plans shall show that all sidewalks bordering/crossing the project site shall be repaired in accordance with Public Works standards. Approximately 50 lineal feet of sidewalk on the E1 Camino Real frontage shall be removed and replaced. The width of the sidewalk must be eight (8) feet to comply with ADA requirements. In addition, the El Camino Real driveway curb ramp shall be repaired or replaced. The sidewalk improvements may need to include the widening of the existing Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V’TA) bus line stop #22, which fi:onts the subject property. This improvement shall be determined in consultation with the VTA. 23. 24. The Final Map shall show the location of all lot lines along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for private yard areas, common driveways and parking spaces. Easements must be created over parcels crossed by storm drainage or other utility infrastructure. The storm drainage easement must extend to the creek outfall from the inlets on the Glenbrook Drive extension. These easements shall be shown on the Final Subdivision Map. 25.The applicant must apply to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office for a tract number for this subdivision. 26.The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the improvements proposed for the public right-of-way and all public utilities. These improvements shall be installed by the Subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the City’s standard specifications, except as modified by this approval (see City Standard Drawing 201). These plans shall include the proposed modifications and improvements to the main hotel driveway intersection with E1 Camino Real. The fmal driveway alignment with E1 Camino Real shall be designed in consultation with Caltrans, the City Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering. The intersection design shall include the installation of a second pedestrian crosswalk over E1 Camino Real. 27.The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved Final Map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder, and shall guarantee the completion of the public improvements (inclusive of funds to be submitted for City construction of a entry sign to Palo Alto, to be constructed in the approved "gateway" area). This agreement shall include the subdividers agreement to fulfill Program 13 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - Housing Element, below market rate (BMR) housing program, 7 through payment of in-lieu fees. The executed agreement shall include the in-lieu fee program and fee payment structure outlined in the letter to Carrasco & Associates, Inc., from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Development, dated May 15, 1997. This agreement requires that the housing mitigation fee for the 14 vacant residential lots be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the Final Subdivision M, ap. The agreement requires that a further mitigation fee be paid at the time the first building permit is issued for each residential lot. 28. 29. A detailed site specific soils report must be submitted to and approved by Public Works Engineering. This report must include specific recommendations for street design and discuss the suitability of the soil conditions for the proposed development. The tentative map shall be valid for a period of 24 months (2 years) from the date of final approval. During Construction 30.Consistent with the approved ~onstruction logistics plan, for the first tvco-years 18,monflas following commencement of grading and construction, all construction vehicle access to the western single-family residential subdivision shall be routed through the hotel parcel to E1 Camino Real. 31.Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced. Measures during construction shall include: a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening). b. Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and requiring .contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way. Requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth material. 32.All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times, be limited as follows: Single-family residential grading and construction hours: a.8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday b.9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday Grading and construction hours for the hotel facility: a.8:00AM to 8dgOgM, 6~OOP~ Monday - Friday b.9:00AM to 8~PM, ~OOPy~. Saturday For the first ’18 months of construction, +no construction ,shall be permi~ed on Sundays. Signs:s ~hal!be pos~ed+!informingworkers ofrestricted construction hours and fines for violations. 33.Following installation of the base material (crushed asphalt) for, and prior to, the pavement of the eastern (front) hotel parking lot, the general contractor/construction manager shall contact the Planning Division staff for a site inspection. The Planning Division shall verify that no crushed asphalt material has been placed in areas designated/approved for landscaping or planting. 34.¯ All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. 35.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 36.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in Conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developers construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 37.During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained to observe approved ground disturbing activities, including the removal of the rear parking lot and subsequent project site preparation (grading activities). The archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist. 38.A survey monument shall be installed in the bulb area of the Glenbrook Drive. This monument shall conform to CPA Public Works Department standards and be located by the same. On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction) 9 39.City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be subject cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. 10 ATTACHMENT #2B Draft Standard Conditions of Approval for Hotel Site and Building Imorovements 96-ZC-13 & 96-ARB-168 Prior 1. to the Approval or a Grading and/or Building Permit This approval shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. In addition, this approval shall incorporate those conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map (96- SUB-5), which are pertinent to the subject hotel parcel. All construction, improvements and grading activity proposed within the El Camino Real (SR 82) right-of-way may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). If intersection improvements are incorporated into the detailed plans for the issuance of a building and/or grading permit, the project sponsor shall be required to submit, with the application, a written authorization or proof of an approved permit for construction activities within the Caltrans right-of-way encroachment permit. All construction and grading activities proposed within Adobe Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG - streambed alteration), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following shall be submitted with the application for building and/or grading permits: a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard streambed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work within the creek. b. Proof of authorization and/or permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers for outfall construction and associated grading within the Adobe Creek (Nationwide Permit). c.A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work within the Adobe Creek and/or properties owned by SCVWD. All construction shall comply with the standards and regulations of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for minimizing seismic risk. 5. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The plan shall include the following: a. The detailed plan shall include the submittal and implementation of a drainage and erosion control plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. b.The plan shall include a detailed program addressing the removal, transport and crushing of the existing asphalt in the rear (western) parking lot. If the crushed asphalt is used as base material for improvement to the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, it shall be placed o~y in areas that are proposed to be paved for parking. No crushed asphalt shall be used in areas proposed for landscaping or planting. Following installation of the base material, the project sponsor shall contact the City Planning Division for a site inspection. The City Staff shall inspect the area to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. c.Drainage for the hotel site shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. d. The t’mal design of the stormwater drainage outfall shall include the installation of an acceptable, biotechnical erosion control measure (e.g. techniques such as mixture of local rock, woody material and native planting). Use of sacked concrete or rock rip-rap for erosion control shall not be permitted. Ultimate design and materials for outfall erosion control shall be determined based on consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In addition, the construction of the outfall shall avoid impacts to or removal of native/riparian trees. If tree removal is necessary to construct the outfall, removal shall be limited to non-native trees and shall be noted on the final grading and drainage plan and shall include details for replanting. e.All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City logo and the word "No Dumping! Flows to Adobe Creek". This shall be noted on the plans. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and approval. The following permits shall be secured from the Depar~ent of Public Works: a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the sidewalk, street and alley. b.A Permit for Construction in the Public Street. c.A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and the Public Works 2 Department. Construction drawings for issuance of a building permit for the hotel parcel shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated October 25, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Utility Engineering Division. (See Attachment #9 of staff report). A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform to the City ofPalo Alto’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. The logistics plans shall be prepared to ensure that, for the first two-years i.i."i~ili!~~ of grading and construction for the contiguous subdivision and housing development (authorized under Tentative Map #96-SUB-5), all construction vehicles access shall be routed eastward, through the hotel site, to E1 Camino Real. The logistics plan shall identify an access point and staging area to the residential development, designed to ensure minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and Operation on the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. 10. 11. The detailed plans for the issuance of a building permit shall include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model 76 type). A specific plan showing new and relocated hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to the completion of the improvement plans. Submit final landscaping and irrigation plans, as well as other pertinent improvement details including but not limited to above ground utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board, Planning Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning Division. The final plan shall include the following: a. Specifications for the removal of fn’e damaged trees along the north banks of Adobe Creek (south of hotel parcel). Trees shall be pruned to ensure adequate clearance for the vehicular fn’e lane. b. A total of seven street trees shall be planted along the El Camino Real frontage, spaced at intervals of 25 feet. Tree species shall be Yarwood London-Plane (Plantanus a.) and planted at a 24 inch box size. Planting area shall be a minimum of 3’ x 5’, including area for irrigation. c.All trees with trunk diameters of 6" or greater that are to be removed (as per Sheet L-1, Preliminary Landscape Plan dated December 19, 1996 and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal Plan dated December 19, 1996) shall be shown on the final landscape plan. Tree replacement shall be two new trees for each tree lost/permanently removed, planted at a 50/50 size mix of 24 inch and 36 inch box size. A mix of deciduous and evergreen species shall be provided for all replacement trees, as approved by the City’s Planning Arborist. Landscaping for the "gateway" feature bordering E1 Camino Real and Adobe Creek shall include 6-7 Coast Red~cood (Sequoia sempervirens) or Deodara Cedar (Cedrus deodar) planted at a 48" box size, arranged with shorter trees in the foreground. The Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii) species is not acceptable and shall be deleted from the plan. The landscaping details for the "gateway" feature shall include plans for construction and installation of a monument-type entry sign to Palo Alto. The sign shall be designed based on consultation with the Public Works Operations Division and in accordance with the sign specifications provided by the City. An area shall be identified for a new pad mounted transformer along the E1 Camino Real frontage, to serve the hotel facility/parcel. All utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping, as approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Detailed plans for perimeter fencing along the northern, western and southern property boundaries of the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. Consistent with the requirements of PAMC Chapter 18.68 (PC District), a solid fence of 5-8 feet in height shall be provided along the northern and western property boundaries of the hotel parcel. The fencing shall be designed to compliment adjacent building improvements. In addition, the fencing details for the northern property boundary shall be consistent with the improvements as agreed to between the project sponsor and the Palo Alto Redwoods Condominium Association. All fencing proposed along the Adobe Creek frontage shall be designed to detour access to the creek banks and shall not encroach on lands owned by SCVWD. Details for fencing along the creek frontage shall be reviewed by the Public Arts Commission, prior to review by the Architectural Review Board. Specifications for landscape planting, tree protection and perimeter fencing for areas within the 6.82 acre hotel parcel are addressed in the conditions for permit 96-SUB-5. Detailed specifications for off-site landscaping, irrigation and street lighting improvements to the Adobe Creek Bridge and the E1 Camino Real center median are addressed in the conditions for the PC District (96-ZC713). Specifications for all exterior hotel parking lot and grounds lighting shall be presented on the final plan. These lighting specifications shall be identical or equivalent to the lighting specifications presented on Sheet E-I, Site Lighting Plan (Carrasco and Associates), dated December 19, 1996, on file with the 4 mo Department of Planning and Community Environment. Specifications for the location of the freestanding, monument-type sign, which, as required by ARB approval, shall be reduced in height to comply with the City’s sign provisions and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. These specifications shall include improvements to the design of the sign so that it is more compatible with the approved architecture, materials and colors of the hotel structure. , Specifications for the scored, concrete pavement material that is proposed for the hotel entry (porte cochere). Specifications for the location, type and amount of on-site bicycle parking. A total of 28 on-site bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, unless a reduced amount of spaces is acceptable by the Transportation Division. Of the total spaces provided, 40% shall be for Class I, 30% shall be for Class II and 30% shall be for Class III. Modifications to the parking and landscaping plans for the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, which incorporate a centralized and clearly defmed pedestrian path through the parking lot. The path shall be defmed with use of special pavement material and maintenance of the existing Italian Cypress trees (where possible/feasible). Final plans for 1) landscaping and irrigation improvements within the center median of E1 Camino Real (between the intersection of Dinah’s Place and the Rickey’s Hotel driveway intersection) and 2) pedestrian-scale street lighting improvements at the Adobe Creek bridge, as specified in the PC District Ordinance for the eastern 6.82 acre hotel parcel (public benefit). 12.Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and City Arborist, and implemented prior to demolition, grading and throughout construction. The plan shall include implementation of the recommendations contained in Sheet L-l, Preliminary Landscape Plan (Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey)-, dated December 19, 1996, and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal Plan, dated December 19, 1996. The plan shall preserve and protect trees that are not proposed for removal on Sheet TRP (Tree Removal Plan). If additional tree removal is necessary, it shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist and a re-planting ratio of 2: I. The plan shall survey and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall include measures for their protection during construction including a temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree, or tree cluster that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall 13. 14. not be removed until the fmal landscaping grading is completed. The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or other permeable surfaces. The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400 amps or greater will require a three-phase service. The fmal construction plans shall show that all sidewalks bordering/crossing the project site shall be repaired in accordance with Public Works standards. Approximately 50 lineal feet of sidewalk on the E1 Camino Real frontage shall be removed and replaced. The width of the sidewalk must be eight (8) feet to comply with ADA requirements. In addition, the E1 Camino Real driveway curb ramp shall be repaired or replaced. The sidewalk improvements may need to include the widening of the existing Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus line stop #22, which fronts the subject property. This improvement shall be determined .in consultation with the VTA. 15.A detailed site specific soils report must be submitted to and approved by Public Works Engineering. This report must include specific recommendations for street design and discuss the suitability of the soil conditions for the proposed development. During Construction 16.Consistent with the approved construction logistics plan, for the first two-years i!~i~~ following commencement of grading and construction, all construction vehicle access to the adjacent, western single-family residential subdivision shall be routed through the subject hotel parcel to E1 Camino Real. 17. 18. Dust control measures shall .be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced. Measures during construction shall include: a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening). b. Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public fight-of-way and requiring contractors to-clean-up spillage in the public fight-of-way. c.Requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth material. All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: a. 8:00AM to BS~PM, ~s~, Monday - Friday 6 b.9:00AM to 8590tam ..6~00.~M~ Saturday C.~.~,.,-x~w t~ u.~,vx ~w, ~-tit-i 19.Following installation of the base material (crushed asphalt) for, and prior to, the pavement of the eastern (front) hotel parking lot, the general contractor/construction manager shall contact the Planning Division staff for a site inspection. The Planning Division shall verify that no crushed asphalt material has been placed in areas designated/approved for landscaping or planting. 20.M1 new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. 21.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 22.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shallmonitor BMP’s with respect to the developers construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 23.During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained to observe approved ground disturbing activities (grading activities). The archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the .project. In the event indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for fu~er investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist. On-going (Throughout ProCessing and Construction) 24.City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be subject cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. ATTACHMENT #2C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:¯ Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: P!anning AGENDA DATE:July 9, 1997 SUBJECT:4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel); Applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map with Conditional Exception, Variance and Architectural Review for site and building improvements to existing hotel and 14-lot single- family residential subdivision. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: 1.Approval of the attached Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32) and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), f’mding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Adoption of the attached resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the western 3.24 acre portion of the subject property from Service Commercial to Single-Family Residential (Attachment #1A). o Adoption of the attached ordinance rezoning the western 3.24 acre portion of the subject property from PC (Planned Community)District to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District (Attachment #1B). Adoption of the attached resolution rezoning the eastern 6.82 portion of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) District to PC (Planned Community) District for the continued maintenance and operation of a hotel use (Attachment o #1C). Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and a conditional exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), permitting the extension of Glenbrook Drive with a 50 foot wide right-of-way, based on the findings presented in Attachment #1E and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment #2A of this staff report. Approval of the ARB Findings and Standard Conditions of Approval for the hotel site and building improvements (Attachment #2B). Approval of the proposed variance from PAMC Sections 18.68.110© and 18.68.150(b) (Maximum building heights of 50 feet and 35 feet, respectfully), allowing an increase in building height to 100 feet, based on the f’mdings presented in Attachment #1D of this staff report. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The project proposes the subdivision of 10.1 acres of level land fronting E1 Camino Real and Glenbrook Drive into 15 lots/parcels for single-family residential development and building and site improvements to an existing hotel facility. The subdivision proposes a hotel parcel of 6.82 acres, while the remaining, rear (western) 3.24 acres would be divided into 14 single-family residential lots. The property is presently developed with a hotel complex that includes a grouping of low- rise structures, an eight-story tower and ancillary uses (swimming pool, tennis courts and surface parking). The site is located in the South E1 Camino Real area, which includes retail,, service commercial and residential land uses. Details on the project description, as well as information on the subject property and history, are presented below. Project Description A. Modifications and Improvements to Cabana Hotel Facility and Site (96-ZC-13, 96- ARB-168 and 97-V-3) The proposed subdivision would create a front (eastern) 6.82 acre parcel for continued hotel use and improvements. This subdivision is accompanied by a number of proposed modifications to the site plan (parking and circulation), modifications to the building facilities (exterior elevations) and changes in the marketing of the current hotel land use. A detailed description of this portion of the project is provided as follows: 1. A rezoning to a new PC (Planned Community) District is proposed to a) reflect the new hotel parcel size, b) modify the parking requirement for the hotel complex (reduction from current PC District requirement of 575 spaces to proposed 284 spaces) and c) modify the current building height limit (from current limit of 85 feet 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 2 to proposed 100 feet). Approval of a variance from PAMC Sections 18.68.110c and 18.68.150b (Maximum building heights of 50 feet and 35 feet, respectfully), allowing an increase in the building height to 100 feet. o Approval of modifications to the hotel site plan (parking, circulation and access) for the proposed hotel parcel and elevation modifications to the hotel structure. These modifications include the following: a. Modifications to on-site parking and landscaping The on-site parking, circulation, landscaping and parking lot lighting would be modified. The parking lot would be redesigned with 284 "uniclass" parking spaces (a reduction from the current 520 parking spaces). The redesign includes the demolition of the two existing tennis courts located at the front of the hotel site and redesigning the main driveway entrance from E1 Camino Real. The main driveway would be narrowed at the signalized intersection of E1 Camino Real so as to establish a 90 degree alignment with the intersection and Dinah’s Place (Tamarack Court). The hotel operators would introduce a "valet" parking system, where -visitors of the hotel would have the ability to drop-off/pick-up their vehicles at the front lobby entrance. Of the total 284 parking spaces, 207 self-park spaces are proposed along w.ith 58 valet spaces and 19 employee spaces. 4290eer.sr3 The new parking and circulation would result in the removal of anumber of existing, mature trees located on the front (eastern) parking lot, facing El Camino Real. These trees would be replaced with new landscaping, including the planting of a grove of redwood and poplar trees at the southeast corner of the site (along E1 Camino Real and Adobe Creek frontages, the southern "gateway" to the City of Palo Alto). Parking lot improvements include the installation of new, parking lot lighting utilizing three standards: 1) Kastrup (F-can style ballast 120/277 volt, mercury vapor, copper patina metal finish, 20 feet in height), 2) Nyhavn Post (F- can ballast 12/277 volt, mercury vapor, 15’8" in height), and 3) CL-4 Bronze (ground mounted fixture, 75-t00 watt). In addition to on-site vehicle parking, the project proposes to provide bicycle parking. A preliminary plan proposes a total of 20 on-site bicycle 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 3 parking spaces (see Attachment #14 for plan). Of this total, racks for eight bicycles are proposed for hotel visitors, in the area of the hotel entrance. A total of 12 bicycle spaces are proposed at the rear, loading entrance to the hotel (north side of hotel building); these spaces would be for employees only. Modifications to approved, exterior building renovations. In December 1996, the Architectural Review Board approved modifications to the exterior sttrface of the hotel building. The current proposal involves the addition of several roof elements that were not included in the recently approved renovation. The new roof elements appear as hip roof forms applied to the two existing stair towers. Portions of the existing rooftop mechanical equipment enclosure would be removed and replaced with a hip roof element. These features would extend the height of the building to approximately 100 feet. Approval of specific location for freestanding, hotel identification sign. A new monument-type, freestanding hotel identification sign (as well as signage for the building face) was approved by the ARB on June 5, 1997. This sign is proposed to replace the existing freestanding sign (pole- mounted), which, by City approval, must be removed prior to October 1997. The ARB required that 1) the new monument-type sign be reduced in height to meet the City’s sign regulations and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and 2) that the specific location of the sign be determined as part of the PC District rezoning process. The sign is proposed, to be located immediately south of the main driveway access to E1 Camino Real, within the new landscape setback (See Sheet A-3, Site Plan). The modifications to the hotel complex reflect a change in the marketing of this hotel. While originally designed and marketed as a "resort-type" hotel facility, the current proposal is to market the facility as a "corporate/business" hotel catering to business visitors. The proposed’business statement is presented and described in Attachment #5A of the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment #7). Although the proposed improvements to the hotel facilities would not result in new building area or an increase in floor area, the land division would result in a change in the floor area ratio. The creation of a 6.82 acre hotel parcel results in an increase in the building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) from 0.398:1 to 0.597:1. 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 4 B.Single-Family Residential Subdivision and Development (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96- SUB-S) The proposed subdivision of the rear (western) 3.24 acres would create 14 single-family residential lots. The required approvals and the subdivision are described as follows: 1.An amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, amending the property land use designation from Service Commercial to Single-family Residential. A rezoning of the 3.24 acres from PC (Planned Community) to R-1 (Single-family Residential) District. 4290ecr.sr3 Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for the 14 single-family residential lots. Approval of a Conditional Exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), which would permit the extension of Glenbrook Drive with a 50 foot wide right-of-way width, in-lieu of the required 60 foot right-of-way width. The subdivision is described as follows: a.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,069 to 10,906 square feet. An inventory of th~ proposed single-family residential lots (lot size, width, depth) is provided in Attachment #3 of khis staff report. b.Lots are arranged with frontage along an extension of Glenbrook Drive. Glenbrook Drive is proposed as a 50 foot wide, public right-of-way with a paved,, curb-to-curb width of 30 feet. The proposed roadway would end in a cul-de-sac for a total, extended road length ofapproximately 400 feet. c.Construction of required infrastructure, including new drainage line and outfall into Adobe Creek (drainage line easement proposed between lots #1 and #14). d.The project would result in the export of all existing pavement (asphalt) in the rear parking area to the front of the hotel parking lot. The asphalt would be used as base fill to convert the existing tennis courts into surface parking for the hotel. As part of the grading program for the single- family residential subdivision, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported in the area where the asphalt is being removed. A logistics (staging) plan is proposed so that all movement of asphalt or fill material is transported utilizing the hotel parcel for access to E1 Camino Real (easement over the northern, two-way driveway). The logistic plan and transport easement over the hotel parcel proposes to be in-place for up to one year following the recordation of the Final Map, so that this access can be utilized for home construction on the lots. e.Draft conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) have been prepared (draft 1.0-2-96), which are intended to be recorded with the f’mal map for 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 5 the residential subdivision. These draft CC&Rs propose general restrictions on use of the land, as well as restrictions on animals and parking. These CC&Rs also establish a 3-5 member Architectural Committee that would oversee development and design on each single- family residential lot. The CC & Rs do not propose the formation of a homeowner’s association. Consistent with City policy, a program is proposed for project compliance with the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirements. This program, which is outlined in Attachment #6 of this staff report, proposes that the project sponsor pay in-lieu fees to comply with the BMR requirement. City staff has been negotiating the details of the proposal with the project sponsor. The current status of this proposal is discussed below (discussion in section entitled Policy Implications). Site Information The subject property consists of 10.1 acres of level land. The property is developed with a 177,399 square foot hotel complex, originally designed and operated as a "resort" hotel. The hotel complex includes a total of 197 guest rooms, a restaurant and bar, and banquet rooms. The complex includes an eight-story hotel structure, a two-story entrance lobby, lounge and restaurant structure, and two-story hotel room and support structures. Ancillary uses include a swimming pool located at the center of the complex and two tennis courts located at the northeast end of the site, facing E1 Camino Real. The existing building floor area to land area ratio (FAR) is 0.398:1 (based on total building area of 177,399 square feet). The following provides ~e square footage amounts for each of the hotel use areas: 197 Hotel Rooms Conference/meeting rooms/banquet Lobby (main and pre-meeting) Dining. Room/restaurant Bar/lounge Exercise Room Kitchen Office Storage TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 134,386 11,027" 7,310 3,661"* 2,432** 1,392 1,800 3,729 177,399 *Maximum occupancy load per Fire Code (high/low) = 1575/735 **Maximum occupancy load per Fire Code = 392 (combined) 4290eer.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 6 The current hotel use and facilities are zoned PC (Planned Community). The site-specific zoning is described in Ordinance 2006, which was adopted in 1961. Ordinance 2006 references approval of the original plan for hotel development and presents provisions which include, but are not limited to the following: 1.A required minimum of 575 permanent 0ff-street parking stalls. 2.Landscaped and screened property setbacks of 10 feet (northern) and 30 feet (rear and south). 3.Height limit of eight stories, not to exceed 85 feet, plus necessary machinery penthouse structure. The hotel structures and facilities are surrounded by paved parking for 520 vehicles and a series of driveways. Main access to the site is provided by an entrance driveway to E1 Camino Real, located at the center of the site. This entrance driveway shares a signalized intersection with Dinah’s Place (Tamarack Court). A second, two-way vehicle access driveway is located along the northern property boundary, which provides both automobile and deliver vehicle access to the hotel and rear parking area. A one-way, eastbound vehicle access driveway is located along the southern property boundary, bordering Adobe Creek. No direct access to the 10.1 acre site is provided from City streets to the west. The property slopes at a grade of approximately 2 % toward Adobe Creek (south). Site elevations range from a low point of 56 MSL, near the front of the site at E1 Camino Real to 70 MSL at the rear. Approximately 62 % of the site is currently paved, 18 % is covered with building footprints and 20 % is landscaped. Site vegetation consists non-native trees and landscaping, along with a combination of native and non-native trees along Adobe Creek. Based on a survey prepared for a previous project (Villages at Creekside), the site and immediate area contain a total of 293 trees (trunk diameter of six inches or greater). History. of Site and Hotel Pro_iect In 1995, a developer proposed to demolish the hotel facilities and redevelop the site with 93 single-family and multiple-family residential units (Villages at Creekside project). The project proposed an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, a rezoning and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. Following the publication of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR for the Villages at Creekside, Wagstaff and Associates, January 1996), the project was withdrawn. In December 1996, the current property owner/developer received ARB approval to renovate, upgrade and re-open the former Cabana Hotel facility. The ARB approvals were limited to the following: 1.Seismic upgrading of the hotel structure; 2. Exterior building modifications, including new building materials and colors; 4290eer.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 7 3.Hotel signage; and 4.Exterior lighting and landscaping for those areas that are immediately adjacent to the hotel entry. Several components of the hotel renovation project were deferred to the current, proposed PC District application process . These components include modifications to the hotel site plan, landscaping, revisions to the on-site parking and circulation, approval of a variance for additional building height and approval of the specific location for the freestanding, monument-type hotel identification sign. ’ Summary of the Initial Project Review bv the Planning Commission On June 11, 1997, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the project. The Commission provided comments on the proposed use, the environmental assessment, the subdivision, the variance request and the public benefit statement for the proposed PC District rezoning. The Planning Commission voted (5-0-2, Beecham and Byrd absent) to forward the project to the Architectural Review Board with the following comments and recommendations: The Commission commented that the proposed public benefit appears to be adequate for the approval of a PC District. The Commission found the public benefit of the project to include a) the "gateway" landscaping and monument-type entry sign improvements proposed for the southeast corner of the site, b) the installation of two new decorative street lights at the north end of the Adobe Creek bridge and c) the improvements/supplements to the landscaping and repair of irrigation in the center median of E1 Camino Real (commencing at the project intersection and extending north to the Hyatt Rickey’s intersection). The Commission commented that the proposed variance, which would allow additional building height to the hotel tower structure, appears justified and would permit improvements to the hotel building that would enhance the design. A majority of the Commission expressed concern about the adequacy of on-site parking. It was recommended that additional contingency measures be explored for the proposed "parking performance plan". In addition, it was suggested that the PC District zoning be crafted so that the City would have the ability to review the zoning provisions in the future, in the event potential parking problems/deficiencie~ arise. Commission members also requested additional information on a) estimated number of hotel employees and b) the availability of on-street parking and/or the potential for kparking impacts to neighboring commercial uses along E1 Camino Real (See Discussion section for additional information requested by Commission). 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 8 o The Commission recommended that bicycle parking be addressed and incorporated into the final plans (See Discussion section for a review of current bicycle parking proposal). at A majority of the Commission agreed with the staff findings that public access along this portion of Adobe Creek is not appropriate given the location of the existing hotel improvements and the potential for impacts to the creek bank. The Commission supported the proposed Below Market Rate (BMR) housing in-lieu fee reco .mmendationspresented by staff. In addition, the Commission supported the staff recommendations for incorporating tree protection easements along the borders of proposed residential lots #1-10. Project Review and Action by the Architectural Review Board On June 19, 1997, the ARB reviewed those portions of the project that are subject to the Board’s discretion. The ARB reviewed the environmental assessment/Mitigaed Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the PC District rezoning a~nd variance applications for site and building improvements to the existing hotel facility. On a 3-1-1 vote, the ARB recommended approval of the project, with conditions. A summary of the ARB comments and recommendations is as follows: The ARB supported approval of the variance for the additional hotel tower building height, based on the findings prepared by staff. o The ARB_ ....... ~concurred with the Planning Commission’s comments on the proposed publi~ber~efi~-- Specifically, the Board supported, as. public benefit, the list of landscaping and the multi-globe lighting improvements summarized by staff in this report. The Board suggested that the project sponsor consider an integrated public art program into the proposed public benefit improvements. The Board supported the staff recommendation to require the implementation and monitoring of a "parking performance plan" as part of the PC District zoning. However, the Board requested that the performance plan include the monitoring of employee parking. The Board expressed concerns that while visitor parking during peak hotel use periods is critical, adequacy of employee parking is equally critical. o The Board directed the project sponsor tostudy modifications to the parking and landscaping plan for the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, which would incorporate a centralized and clearly defined pedestrian path through the lot. A centralized pedestrian path through the lot could be accomplished with special pavement and 4290~r.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 9 tree alignment extending from the E1 Camino Real frontage to the hotel porte cochere. It was encouraged that existing trees (Italian Cypress) be incorporated, where possible, to assist in defining the path through the parking lot (See Discussion section for a response to this issue). The Board directed the project sponsor to work with the City’s Planning Arborist in determining the appropriate planting sizes for the required tree replacement program. In addition, the Board recornrffended that the project sponsor work with the City’s Planning Arborist to determine an appropriate mix of tree species for the parking lot and for the landscape setback along the western boundary of the hotel parcel. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines, the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Standards for Architectural Review (PAMC Chapter 16.48). The following is a summary of the significant policy issues: Palo Alto Cornprehensive Plan A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with pertinent Comprehensive Plan elements and policies is provided inthe Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment #7, Pages 21 through 25). The most significant policy issues are summarized as follows: Land Use Element The project proposes to maintain a Service Commercial land use designation for the eastern 6.82 acres and an amended designation of Single-family Residential for the western 3.24 acres. The comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision for the western 3.24 acres would accommodate a subdivision of 14 single-family residential lots. The resulting density would be 4.1 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent and compatible with residential land uses and densities adjacent to the project. Maintaining the Service Commercial land use designation for the eastern 6.82 acres would be consistent with the land use pattern along E1 Camino Real. While the proposed subdivision would result in a new hotel building-to-site floor area ratio of 0.597:1, the overall, average developed FAR for the South E1 Camino area is and would continue to be well below the 0.4:1 maximum, permitted under the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 4290eer.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 10 Housing Element Consistent with Policy 7, Program 13 of the Housing Element, the project proposes to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program. Based on current policy, the project would be obligated to provide 1.4 units priced for below market rate households. The project proposes the payment of BMR in-lieu fees. The methodology for determining the specific fees is presented in Attachment #6 of this staff report. While construction of on-site BMR units is preferred and is the City’s first priority in complying with this policy, staff has found that the payment of in-lieu fees, for this project, is an appropriate approach to meeting the City’s BMR requirement. The in-lieu fees that are expected to be collected from the development of the 14 single-family residential lots would go further toward funding affordable housing in the community than the on-site construction of BMR units. The BMR agreement proposes payment of fees in two stages, which is based on 1) the appraised values of the vacant lots and 2) the estimated value of improvements to be constructed. It is recommended that the housing mitigation fee on all 14 vacant lots be paid prior to the approval of the Final Subdivision Map by the City Council. A further .mitigation fee, based on the estimated value of the proposed improvements, would be paid at the time of the first building permit issued for each lot. The project sponsor agrees with the fee amount but does not agree with the timing requirement for payment of fees (prior to City approval of a Final Map). As outlined in the attached letter from Carrasco and Associates, dated May 23, 1997 (Attachment #6A), the project sponsor requests that the timing for fee payment be "flexible". Specifically, the project sponsor requests that payment occur at any one of the three following Stages in the project review and construction process: 1.Prior to the approval of a Final Map, or 2.At transfer of title for each lot, or 3.At the time of building permit issuance for each lot. S~aff does not agree with this request. Requiring the.payment of fees at the time of City Council review and approval of a Final Map is appropriate and is consistent with the City’s standard practice for processing subdivisions. Transportation Element The project, as designed, would be consistent with Policy 4 and Policy 8, Program 17 of the Transportation Element. Policy 4 encourages that "through" traffic be reduced on residential streets. The project proposes that the residential subdivision 4290ecr.sr3 96oCPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 11 receive access from Glenbrook Court, which would terminate in a cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac would preclude future vehicular access to existing residential streets from E1 Camino Real. Policy 8, Program 17 encourages that operational and intersection improvements be made to ease traffic flow. The project proposes an improvement to the alignment of the hotel entrance driveway at E1 Camino Real. This realignment would improve and ease traffic flow at Sis intersection. The City TransPortation .Division has reviewed this alignment, finding it to be an acceptable improvement. However, it is recommended that the alignment improvements include the installation of a second cross-walk at the intersection. Schools and Parks Element Policy 4 of the Schools and Parks Element encourages that park sites of varying sizes and types be provided. This policy specifically addresses park-like natural areas, linear trails and creekside systems. Since the subject property is contiguous to Adobe Creek, a linear trail and/or path system along the creek is encouraged. The project does not propose any trail/path for public, pedestrian or bicycle use along the creek. As presented in the Discussion section of this report a detailed analysis of this issue was completed by staff. Staff concludes that public access along this portion of the Adobe Creek is not appropriate. Urban Design Element The project, as designed, would be consistent with Policy 1 and Policy 7, Program 23 of the Urban Design Element. Policy 1 encourages that the City maintain the present scale of structures. The proposed projectwould authorize an additional 15 feet of building height to the existing 85 foot high hotel structure. While, in general, this building height would be considered "overwhelming", the structure is significantly setback from E1 Camino Real. The additional height would not increase the structure’s "massiveness" or visibility from E1 Camino Real. Policy 7, Program 23 of the Urban Design Element encourages that the City’s gateway identity be strengthened. The project would be consistent with this policy in that it proposes gateway planting at the southeast end of the site, facing E1 Camino Real and Adobe Creek. Proposed landscaping includes the planting of Redwoods, Poplars, and riparian low shrubs, and ground cover. The City’s Planning Arborist has reviewed these plans and recommends that the poplars be deleted and replaced with either redwoods or cedars. Furthermore, the Planning Arborist recommends that these trees be planted at a 48" box size (See draft conditions of approval for Planning Arborist recommendations to landscaping). 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 12 While the project sponsor has argued that a smaller tree size would be appropriate, the Planning Arborist continues to recommend a 48" box size to provide an immediate "gateway" element. The "gateway" planting area is large, providing adequate area for a larger tree size to be planted without constrained for normal growth. Open Space Element Policy 10of the Open Space Element encourages that lands along streams, ponds, creeks, and lakes be utilized, wherever possible, for paths and trails. The project, as designed, proposes no public access path along this portion of Adobe Creek. While the project has presented an alternative site,plan (See Plan Sheets A-3A and A-4A) which includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connection between Glenbrook Drive and E1 Camino Real, this plan is not endorsed or proposed by the project sponsor. Furthermore, this alternative plan raises several safety issues. An analysis of the public access issue is presented in the Discussion section of this staff report. Environmental Resources Element Policy 4, Program 2 of the Environmental Resources .Element encourages that negative impacts of human activities on plant and animal life be reduced. This policy also encourages replanting, where vegetation is removed as part of development. The project proposes the reconfiguration of the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, which would result in a substantial amount of tree removal. A detailed replanting program is proposed, which includes the preservation and transplanting of a number of existing specimen trees. The project landscape architect has provided specifications on how some of the existing trees can be successfully saved and transplanted (See Attachment #8, memorandum from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey). City. of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines The applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and proposed subdivision. of the rear (western) 3.42 acres into 14. single-family residential lots have been reviewed for compliance with the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines. This portion of the project is located adjacent to and would receive access from the Green Acres I neighborhood. The Green Acres neighborhood is developed with one-story, single- family homes on lots that are a minimum of 6,000 square feet. The proposed lots would comply with the guidelines and be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood in that: 1." The proposed lots would range in size from 7,250 - 10,900 square feet and are traditionally shaped to provide home development~ that would harmonize with the 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 13 pattern of home development in the Green Acres neighborhood. The project will preserve existing trees along the property border and along Adobe Creek. The project proposes the introduction of a planting strip along the street extension of Glenbrook Drive (between the curb and the sidewalk). While the adjacent streets in the Green Acres neighborhood do not have such a feature, the proposal would provide a visual enhancement to the street scape and cul-de-sac. The residential lot grades would be above flood plain levels of the Adobe Creek. The stormwater infrastructure for the subdivision is designed to reduce the amount of surface water runoff (from present conditions) into the creek during peak flow periods. E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines The proposed PC zone change and building height variance for the continued operation of and improvements to the hotel facilities have been reviewed for compliance with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. The improvements to the site and the hotel buildings would be consistent with these guidelines in that: 1.The buildings, primarily the tower structure, are not over designed or decorated and offer a far more pleasing appearance than the present elevations. 2.The extended building height offers better screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. 3.Although a majority of the existing front parking lot landscaping would be removed for a new circulation and parking, the proposed new landscaping is ample and arranged to ensure screening from E1 Camino Real. Furthermore, increased landscape setbacks are proposed along the E1 Camino Real frontage to improve the buffer between the street and the parking lot. 4.The proposed building face sign is designed to integrate with the architectural character of the proposed building elevations. 5.New street trees are proposed along the E1 Camino Real frontage. These trees are proposed to be planted in 25 foot intervals, consistent with the guidelines. 6.As required by action of the Architectural Review Board (June 5, 1997), the freestanding, monument-type hotel identification sign must be reduced in height to meet the City Sign provisions and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. As modified by the Board’s approval, the reduced-size sign at the proposed location would be consistent with the guidelines. Recommended conditions of approval require revisions .to the sign to ensure that the materials and the design are compatible with the proposed improvements to the hotel. Standards for Architectural Review (PAMC Chapter 16.48) The design and layout of the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board 429~e~r.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZCo13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 14 and staff for compliance with the Standards for Architectural Review (PAMC Section 16.48.120). Findings regarding the project’s compliance with these standards are provided in Attachment #IF of this staff report. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Zo Project Design and Layout Modifications and Improvements to Cabana Hotel Facility and Site The ARB and staff have reviewed the proposed improvements to the hotel facilities and site, which includes subdivision and variance requests for the eastern 6.82 acres. ARB and staff comments are as follows: 1. PC District rezoning. The proposed PC (Planned Community) zoning is reasonable and appropriate for the proposed 6.82 acre hotel site. A discussion of the proposed PC District and public benefits is presented below. °Variance from 35 and 50 foot building height limit of PAMC Chapter 18.68. The issuance of a variance for additional building height to the hotel tower is justified given the unique conditions of the property and the existing improvements. The property and improvements are unique in that, the current hotel tower is 85 feet in height, which is consistent with the~ currently adopted PC District zoning (Ordinance 2006) for this site. Furthermore, the additional building height would not be detrimental to public health, safety and generally welfare. The proposed design, which includes the current ARB approval for reconstruction of public areas, would add a hip-roof framing and roof element to this enclosure. This proposed roof element would extent the height of the roof top equipment enclosure to 100 feet. 4290ecr.sr3 The exceptional circumstance, in this case, is that the existing hotel tower currently exceeds the 35 and 50 foot height limits of the PAMC. The proposed additional height is necessary to accommodate new roof elements only (no additional floors,, building bulk or massing). Furthermore, the site and improvements are exceptional in that the hotel parcel is unusually large and the existing hotel tower is substantially setback from. the public street and surrounding properties. Other commercial properties along this portion of E1 Camino Real do not have 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 15 o the amount of land area to accommodate the substantial building setbacks that are currently provided on the subject property. No changes are proposed to this substantial building setback as part of the building improvements. The addition of the new roof elements could not be accommodated without a major reconstruction of the building or removal of the upper portions of the tower, which would result in an unreasonable property loss and unnecessary hardship. Tree loss and replanting. The proposed reconfiguration of the eastern (front) hotel parking lot would result in the substantial loss of existing non-native trees. Specifically, the project would result in the removal of 31 large Italian Cypress and six mature Magnolia trees that are highly visible from E1 Camino Real. (Please note that the environmental assessment concludes that the project would result in the removal of upwards of 116 trees on the site, of which, 44 are to be transplanted. The assessment recommends a tree transplanting and replanting program. This program is reflected in the latest landscape plans, which have been distributed to the Commission). As explained in the attached Environment Assessment/MitigatedNegative Declaration, while these non-native trees do not provide a biotic resource, their loss would be noticeable from E1 Camino Real. The site, as viewed -from E1 Camino Real, contains three primary visual eleme.nts, a) the hotel tower, b) the parking lot landscaping, and c) landscaping along the border of the site and Adobe Creek (See Attachment #12 of Environmental Assessment, which shows/explains these threeelements). The project would result in the loss of one of the three primary visual elements (parking lot landscaping). However, staff f’mds that since the two other primary visual elements (hotel tower and landscaping along the site border and Adobe Creek) would be maintained and the parking lot would be re- landscaped, the potential visual impacts would be reduced to less-than- significant levels. The City’s Planning Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree loss and tree re-planting program. The Planning Arborist recommends a 2:1 tree replacement for every tree that is lost or removed. The Planning Arborist hadinitially recommended that a 36 inch box size tree be planted to mitigate the loss of the existing mature landscaping. However, following the recommendations of the ARB, the Planning Arborist has agreed that 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 16 a 50/50 mix of 24 inch box and 36 inch box size trees is reasonable and acceptable. A mix of tree species is also recommended. The Planning Arborist has also reviewed the specifications prepared for the transplanting of the six mature Magnolia trees (Attachment #8, memorandum from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey). Since the root systems of these trees have been confined to ~the area of a former concrete- lined reflecting pool, the Planning Arborist finds that the transplanting can be successfully accomplished. , Reduction in amount of on-site parking. The project would result in a significant reduction in the amount of existing, on-site hotel parking, causing the project to fall below the amount of parking ordinarily required by Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.83 (see Attachments 9A and 9B of Environmental Assessment for a charts describing the required and proposed parking). Under PAMC Section 18.68.090(h), special parking standards can be established for a PC District, where findings can be made to support an alternative standard. The attached Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration provides a detailed discussion of parking adequacy. DKS Associates, traffic engineers for the project sponsor, prepared a parking study and survey, which concludes that the proposed parking ratio of 1.25-1.44 spaces per hotel room is adequate to accommodate the hotel operation during peak periods of use (1.44 space/room ratio accounts for valet parking spaces). 4290ecr.sr3 As follow-up to the DKS study, staff conducted an independent survey of eight, local hotel facilities of similar size. The Survey is Summarized in Attachment #11 of the attached Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment #7). This survey was based on the business statement submitted by the project sponsor (market goal for "business/corporate" hotel), which is presented in Attachment #5A of the attached Environmental Assessment/MitigatedNegative Declaration. The survey of similar-sized hotels reviewed and considered the following: a. A review of hotel parking and interviewing hotel management on adequacy of parking during peak periods of hotel use; b. Obtaining information on hotel peak seasons and occupancy rates; c. Interviewing the Planning Department staff of the City’s where hotel -facilities have been surveyed. - These interviews were conducted to determine if there have been any documented parking problems with hotels or complaints on adequacy of parking; 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 17 d.Identifying available parking standards for mid-sized hotels with conference/meeting rooms, restaurant and bar/lounge; and e.Consulting with two additional, licensed traffic engineers for their opinion and input on the adequacy of parking and recommendations. The staff survey concludes that, while the proposed parking ratio of 1.25- 1.44 spaces per room is adequate to accommodate normal hotel parking demands for a business/corporate hotel of this size, a 1.5 space per hotel room ratio is recommended four the seasonal/peak period demand. In order, to ensure that parking demands are met during peak periods and overflow is minimized, staff recommends the development and implementation of a "parking performance plan". This plan would incorporate measures such as strategic scheduling of meetings and banquets during peak periods of hotel occupancy, prohibitions on hotel parking on adjacent residential streets, mandating valet parking, establishment of a hotel van!shuttle service, and development of contingency measures. It is recommended that the performance plan be incorporated into the conditions of the PC District and reviewed by the City (Chief Transportation Official and Planning Division) following occupancy and operation during the peak hotel season. DKS Associates has prepared a draft parking performance plan which is provided in Attachment #5 of this staff report. In response to the Planning Commission’s initial review of this project, the following parking and hotel employee information is provided: a. It is estimated that the hotel would employ a total of 80-90 persons. The hotel operators anticipate three daily work shifts. A total of 30 persons are expected to work during each shift. Employee transportation to and from work is expected to be by individual vehicle, car pool or drop off/pick-up, public transit (line #22 stop at entrance to hotel) and by bicycle. b. On-street parking in the immediate E1 Camino Real area has been surveyed by staff. Within a 200 foot radius of the hotel, there are approximately 65-75 on-street public parking spaces along E1 Camino Real and along Tamarack Court (Dinah’s Place). c.The commercial properties along E1 Camino Real, which are within 200 feet of the hotel facility, are all developed with on-site parking lots. When observed during a field visit on June 19, 1997, it appears :that these commercial parking lots are used by patrons; limited patron use of on-street parking was also observed. The commercial uses with parking lots that are most visible from the Cabana Hotel site are 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 18 Dinah’s (across E1 Camino Real) and IKON Office Solutions (south of hotel site). In response to the Planning Commission’s direction, the provisions of the draft PC District ordinance (Attachment #1C) have been expanded ,to address control and monitoring of hotel parking. The Commission requested that the PC District provisions be crafted so that the City would have the ability to re-open the zoning, in the event there are problems with overflow parking. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this request and recommends the following additional provisions for the PC District ordinance in response to the Commission’s comments: a. Additional performance standards to include specific requirements for 1) employee parking, 2) daily valet parking service during peak hours and 3) prohibiting hotel parking on adjacent commercial sites, unless authorized by the City and supported by the property owners of adjacent sites. b.A requirement that the project sponsor submit a formal parking performance plan to the City, which would specifically cite all of the required performance standards and contingency measures. c.Citation of potential contingency measures, which would include the purchase or lease of off-site parking and/or establishing additional controls or restrictions on the operation of the conference, meeting room and banquet facilities. d.The requirement that, use of the large banquet/conference facility (located on the first floor of the hotel, at the rear of the lobby) on or after March 1, 1999, would be a conditional use, requiring the approval of a conditional use permit. This permit would allow the City to exercise greater control over the use of the large banquet/conference facility to ensure that any parking problems can be adequately addressed. In response to the Architectural Review Board’s direction, the project sponsor is studying the concept of incorporating a centralized, pedestrian path through the main (eastern) hotel parking lot; this plan would include the preservation of a number of the existing Italian Cypress trees. A preliminary plan may be completed and available for the Planning Commission hearing. Regardless, the conditions of approval require that a centralized pedestrian path design through this lot be incorporated into the final parking plan and landscaping plan, which will require the approval of the ARB. 4290eer.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 19 Public access along Adobe Creek. As mentioned in the previous section of this staff report, the development plan for the project (both hotel and residential components) does not include provisions for public pedestrian and/or bicycle access along Adobe Creek. As discussed above, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages public access along creeks. However, the DEIR prepared for the previous Villages at Creekside project found that access along this portion of the creek had the potdntial to result in significant environmental effects if it was designed to compromise a) the security and liability responsibilities of private homes on the opposite side of the creek bank and b) riparian vegetation and wildlife values along the creek. The project sponsor is strongly opposed to providing any public pedestrian and bicycle access connecting Glenbrook Drive with E1 Camino Real. Although the primary concern is liability, the project sponsor has cited other numerous reasons why they do not support public access along the creek (See Attachment #12, letter from Stephen Player, attorney for project sponsor). Furthermore, the project sponsor has noted that there is no land available between the top .of the Adobe Creek bank and the hotel access road to accommodate an additional and separate path for pedestrian and bicycle use. In addition, neighboring residents and property owners of the contiguous Green Acres and Rancho Laureles (Los Altos) neighborhoods are opposed to a public access path due to potential traffic,-safety and security impacts (See attached correspondence from residents). At the request of City Staff, the project sponsor has prepared an alternative site plan (see Sheets A-3A and A-4A of the Application Submittal Materials), which includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connection between Glenbrook Drive and E1 Camino Real. This plan is not endorsed by the project sponsor. Under this alternative plan, the path would commence at the western property boundary of the 10.1 acre site with bicyclists and pedestrians util~ing the extension of Glenbrook Drive and the new sidewalk through the residential subdivision. A joint path would continue between proposed Lots #1 and # 14 and would enter the western portion of the hotel parcel at the southwest parking lot. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic would continue eastward, sharing the one-way vehicular driveway along the southern property boundary (Adobe Creek frontage), traversing through the front hotel parking lot and connecting with E1 Camino Real. 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 20 While the alternative site plan would address public access along the creek, the design does not provide acceptable public safety for pedestriam and bicyclists (as paved areas would be shared between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists). Following staff review of this plan, the Transportation Division studied a possible public access alternative. This alternative is depicted in a plan, provided as Attachment #10 of this staff report. The plan routing is described as follows: a. A two-way path would commence at the present terminus of Glenbrook Drive; b.Continue southward between residential lots #3 and #4 to the top of creek bank (12 foot wide, paved for pedestrians and bicyclists); c.Continue eastward along the rear of residential lots #1-3, crossing the eastern boundary of the residential subdivision and connecting with the rear, one-way vehicle access drive on the hotel parcel (12 foot wide, paved for pedestrians and bicyclists); d.Eastbound bicycle traffic would share use of the one-way vehicle access drive; for pedestrians, a 4 foot wide gravel path would run immediately parallel to and south of the one-way access drive and continuing eastward to connect with E1 Camino Real; e.Westbound bicycle traffic would enter at the northern, two-way hotel driveway at E1 Camino Real, share the paved driveway to the rear of the hotel parcel, would continue along the northern and western property boundaries (a new paved path utilizing the landscaped buffers along these boundaries) and would continue southward, connecting with the 12 foot wide path at the southwest end of the. hotel parcel. T.his akemative would address public access along the creek for pedestrians but would provide only partial public access to the creek for bicyclists (the Westbound bicycle path would not be along the creek). Furthermore, this alternative is problematic because a) it would require removal of the existing fence and landscaping located south of the one- way vehicle access drive, b) would result in the encroachment of improvements onto lands owned and controlled by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Adobe Creek right-of-way) and c) would require the realignment of the one-way vehicular service road in order to avoid encroachment within the banks of the creek. Furthermore, the westbound bicycle path would result in paving portions of the required 10 foot wide landscape setbacks along the northern and western property boundaries of the hotel parcel. These. landscape setbacks are required as buffers for the hotel site under PAMC Section 15.68.150c (PC District). 4290~cr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 21 The ARB and staff conclude that public access along this portion of the creek is not appropriate for the following reasons: a. Providing maximum, safe public access through the eastern 6.82 acres is not feasible without 1) resulting in major modifications to the existing improvements to the hotel site or 2) encroaching within the banks of the creek to accommodate a separate two-way pedestrian and bicycle path; b. Establishing a public access path through this site and connecting to the residential neighborhood to the west (Green Acres), has the potential to introduce overflow hotel parking access to Green Acres. As outlined in this staff report, overflow parking from the hotel use would result in significant environmental effects to neighboring residential streets and would be contrary to the parking "performance plan" that is recommended as a mitigation measure in the environmental assessment. While requiring public access easements over the proposed residential lots (e.g, through and over lots #1-4) for future path development has been considered, it cannot be required. The City cannot require an easement as part of subdivision approval for an improvement that may or may not occur in the future. Perimeter Landscaping and Fencing PAMC Section 18.68.150c requires that a 10 foot wide landscape screen be provided where a PC District abuts a residential district. In addition, a solid fence or wall, 5-8 feet in height is required. The project includes a 10 foot wide landscape buffer and fence along the western boundary of the hotel parcel, abutting the proposed residential subdivision. Likewise, a landscape screen would be maintained along the Adobe Creek frontage. 4290ecr.sr3 A ten foot wide landscape setback and solid fence are currently provided along the northern property boundary of the hotel site, abutting the Pal, Alto Redwoods Condominium development and the Suzanne Drive residents. This landscaping consists of mature trees that provide an excellent screen and buffer between the hotel and residential uses. This landscape screen would be maintained. The developer has worked with the residents of the Pal. Alto Redwoods Condominium development to ensure that resident concerns have been addressed. As a result, some of the existing fencing along the common property line would be replaced. These fencing improvements are not included on the proposed 96-CPA-4, 96oZC-13, 96°SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 22 plans/drawings. However, this resolution is addressed in the attached letter from B. B. Patel, Cabana - Palo Alto, to the City of Palo Alto, dated May 19, 1997 (See Attachment #11 of this staff report). The Palo Alto Redwoods Associationhas expressed concerns that the fencing details have not been graphically depicted (See Attachment # 13, letter dated June 16, 1997). Typically, the fencing details would be presented on the final landscaping plan. However, a preliminary fencing repair detail for this subject area has been prepared by the project sponsor. This preliminary detail is presented in Attachment #13A of this report. Staff continues to recommend that the final details for this agreed fence replacement be included in the final landscaping and irrigation plans that are required for ARB approval. 4290ecr.sr3 On-site Bicycle Parking In response to the Planning Commission’s initial review of this project, a preliminary plan for on-site bicycle parking has been prepared by the project sponsor. This preliminary plan is described in the Project Description section of this report. Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC requires that a hotel use provide on-site bicycle parking for 10% of the vehicle parking that is provided for the facility. Given that 284 on-site vehicle parking spaces are proposed, a total of 28 bicycle parking spaces must be provided to meet the code requirements. The project proposes to provide 20 bicycle parking spaces, which is 25 % less than what is required by code. This 25 % reduction is-authorized, when it is determined that the nature of the use does not generate a great demand for bicycle parking. The Transportation Division f’mds that the 25 % reduction is justified in that most of the bicycle parking is expected to be utilized by emploYees. Recommended conditions of approval require that the details for bicycle parking (including specifications for lockers and racks) be incorporated into the final landscaping and irrigation plans for the hotel facility. Single-family Residential Subdivision and Development Staff finds that the proposed 14 lot single-family subdivision of the western 3.42 acres to be appropriate for the site. Staff presents the following comments on this portion of the proposed project: 1. The property rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow a single-family residential development, which would be compatible with the property zoning and development pattern of the immediately adjacent residential neighborhoods. Likewise, the proposed subdivision presents lot sizes and shapes that are traditional for a single-family residential 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 23 o neighborhood. As mentioned in the Project Description section of the staff report, the project proposes an extension of Glenbrook Drive, a public street. The street extension is proposed with a 50 foot wide right-of-way, which would terminate in a cul-de-sac. Pal. Alto Municipal Code Section 21.20.240(b)(2) requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. Staff fmds that the approval of a conditional exception for the reduced road right-of-way width is justified and reasonable, given that the road extension would serve a small number of lots, and that, there would be no probable future traffic development (terminates in a cul-de-sac). The reduced width would not.be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the design provides adequate widths and radii for maneuvering emergency vehicles and equipment. Draft findings for the conditional exception are included in Attachment #1E of this staff report. The Glenbrook Drive extension is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Pal. Alto as a public street and right-of-way. This dedication is logical and appropriate given that Glenbrook Drive is a public street. However, the ability to dedicate this roadway will depend primarily upon the ultimate resolution of the dispute over a one-foot wide strip of land located at the existing terminus of Glenbrook Drive. Property owners in the neighboring Green Acres subdivision assert a continuing right of control over this one-foot wide strip of land, based upon the language in the original County subdivision map for Green Acres. The City Attorney’s office has concluded that Green Acres property owners have no control over the one-foot wide strip, and that a public right-of-way across that area has been dedicated. However, if Green Acres continues to assert control, the issue must be resolved prior to the development of the proposed project. The project sponsor has initiated a quiet title action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court to resolve this issue; this case is pending. 4290eer.sr3 The current status of this one-foot wide strip of land is problematic to the subdivision approval process for this project. All access and public utility connections for the 14 single-family residential lots are proposed over or through this one-foot wide strip and no alternatives (eg., private street, utility connections through the proposed hotel parcel) have been presented. Under typical processing circumstances, when access to or utilities for a subdivision cannot be provided/demonstrated, the City 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96.-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 24 would be required to deny the subdivision. However, since there has been significant progress made between the project sponsor and the neighboring property owners to resolve the status of the one-foot wide strip of land, the Commission can consider the following options: Option A: Deny the Tentative Subdivision Map and accompanying applications and direct the project sponsor to resolve the status of the one-foot wide strip. Direct the project sponsor to file new applications when access to and utilities for the proposed subdivision can be demonstrated; or 4290ecr.sr3 Option B: Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map and the accompanying applications with the condition that the status of the one-foot wide strip of land is resolved prior to City approval of a Final Map. This alternative would require that the project sponsor demonstrate, at the time of the Final Map, that access to and utilities for the proposed subdivision can be provided. Staff finds that Option B (project approval with conditions) is the more logical and practical approach for this project. As mentioned above, significant progress has been made to resolve access over the one-foot wide strip. This option provides .an incentive for resolving this issue. There is one disadvantage to pursuing Option B. Approval of a subdivision map that is subject-to a condition which requires the securing of access and utilities can be risky. If, by chance, a settlement of the dispute over the one-foot wide strip of land is not reached by the time a Final Map is submitted for approval, the City would be required to proceed (by either negotiation or condemnation) to acquire interest in the land that is necessary for the access and public utility connections. Per State Government Code Section 66462.5, the commencement of this acquisition must occur within 120 days of the filing of the Final Map. Therefore, City staff, after Planning Commission action on the applications, will not schedule this item for City Council review until either i) the applicant and the Greenacres Homeowners Association submit an agreement resolving the use of the one-foot strip in a manner that would preclude the need for future City action to secure the one-foot strip; or ii) time has passed and the applicants indicate that they are unable to resolve the issue. This approach is intended to allow the Planning Commission to take action on the project at the July 9 meeting but also 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 25 have the Council receive additional information on which to evaluate the potential for future City action (i.e. negotiation or condemnation) to secure the one-foot strip right-of-way prior to action on the project including the Tentative Subdivision Map. While the project proposes to preserve the existing trees along the northern, western and southern (Adobe Creek frontage) borders of the subdivision, there are no guararltees that these trees will be preserved and protected over time (the trees are not of a species that are subject to the PAMC Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). Recommended conditions of approval require that tree preservation easements be placed over portions of rear and/or side yard areas of lots # 1-10. The project sponsor continues to propose that control of tree removal along the borders of these residential lots be addressed in the subdivision CC & R’s. Draft CC & R’s language restricting tree removal on lots #1- 10 has been prepared and is attached (see Attachment #3A). Staff continues to recommend that tree preservation along the borders of these lots would be best addressed through the recordation of an easement over portions of lots # 1-10. Assessment of PC District and Public Benefit Statement As described in this staff report, the subject.L10.1 acre property is presently zoned PC (Planned Community) District, which is regulated by Ordinance 2006 (see Attachment #3 of Environmental Assessment). Ordinance 2006 permits the establishment, use and operation of a hotel complex. While the proposed subdivision would not result in a change in the basic land use of the eastern 6.82 acres of the site, rezoning is required for the following reasons: Ordinance 2006 ’is specific to the existing 10.1 acre hotel site. Any change in land area requires a rezoning. The land area of the hotel parcel would be reduced to 6.82 acres. Ordinance 2006 presents standards which are specific to the existing development plan for the hotel land use. These standards include minimum requirements for on- site parking and building height limits. Changes in these standards are needed to reflect the current project. The rezoning to PC District for the eastern 6.82 acre hotel site is justified and appropriate 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 26 4290ecr.sr3 in this case in that: The site has historically been zoned PC District and developed with a hotel complex. With the exception of a change in the amount of required on-site parking and minor changes in building height, the project proposes no changes in the currently permitted hotel land use, building square footage, or building footprint. Even though the hotel parcel size is proposed to be reduced to 6.82 acres, it is still larger that most developed, commercial parcels along E1 Camino Real. Furthermore, although the existing building height of the hotel tower exceeds current building height limits, it is substantially setback from the public street and from adjacent properties, which allow for project compliance with daylight plane. requirements. These factors make the property and improvements unique to the area. The subject property is located in an area where most commercial properties along E1 Camino Real are zoned CC (Community Commercial) and CS (Service Commercial),. In addition, the H (Hotel Overlay) District is adopted for several of the neighboring sites that are developed with hotel/motd land uses. A rezoning of the subject property to the CC or CS Districts, with an H District overlay, would require that the development comply with similar or less restrictive spatial standards required under the currently approved PC District (Ord. 2006). With the exception of a variance from the on-site parking requirements, the PC District for the presently developed site would offer no more benefits to the project than if the property were zoned CC-H or CS-H. The project sponsor has provided a Public Benefit Statement, which addresses the proposed PC District zoning for the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. The current Public Benefit Statement is provided in Attachment #4 of this staff report (please note that the statement dated 12/19/96, provided as an attachment to the Environmental Assessment has been superseded). The current Public Benefit Statement, which includes revisions to May 23, 1997, has been reviewed by staff. ARB and staff comments are as follows: Benefit 1: The project would reduce the amount of PC zoned land and increase the amount of R-1 Zoning. Response: The project would be consistent with Policy 7, Program 17 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element in that it would result in a rezoning of the western 3.25 acres to R-1 District. While this action would be beneficial by increasing land that would be available for housing, this is not considered a direct public benefit. 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 27 Benefit 2: The project would result in an aesthetic improvement of the existing roof line of the hotel structure by adding hip-roof forms and reducing the size of the equipment screen. Response: Aesthetic improvements to a building is not considered to be a public benefit. Any modifications to the building exterior would be subject to the standards of Chapter 16.48 (Architectural Review) of the Pal. Alto Municipal Code. In addition, application of the PC District is not necessary to accomplish aesthetic improvements to the existing bt~ilding. Benefit 3: The project would result in the removal of a large asphalt parking lot and replacement with open land for the R-1 District. Response: While the amount of paved, impervious areas would be reduced, the project would result in a redevelopment of the land with residential use. This redevelopment is not a public benefit. Regardless, this area would be rezoned to R-1 District so any benefits from this portion of the project Would not apply to the proposed PC District for the eastern 6.82 acres. o Benefit 4: The project would reduce existing negative impacts on Adobe Creek. Response: It is true that the project would reduce the amount of run-off entering Adobe Creek and, would therefore, reduce drainage and hydrologic impacts associated with potential flooding. However, any development of the site would be subject to environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act. Project impacts to the creek would need’to be assessed and mitigated regardless of property zoning. .. Benefit 5: The project would create "gateway" landscapin~ features for the southerly entrance to Pal. Alto. along E1 Camino Real. The improvements to this area would include a proposed monument-type entry, sign to Pal. Alto (See additional Benefit 9. Response: Policy 7, Program 23 of the Urban Design Element states’"Strengthen gateway identify. Plant groves of tall trees, and emphasize bridge structure and entrance at Pal. Alto’s south gateway on E1 Camino Real. ". While the Pal. Alto ComprehehnsivePlan policies address and encourage "gateway" planting at this site, the ARB and staff f’md that the proposed improvements, inclusive of the proposal for an monument-type entry sign to the City of Pal. Alto (See Benefit 9), would be considered a public benefit. Staff has consulted with Public Works Engineering regarding the sponsor’s initial proposal to fund a sign that would be constructed by the City. Public Works Engineering recommends-that, in-lieu of funding, the project sponsors should construct and install the sign as part of the gateway improvements. The sign should be designed in accordance with the specifications implemented by the City for other similar 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 28 monument-type public signs..The draft conditions of the PC District and the Tentative Map (Attachments #1C and #2A) address this recommendation. Benefit 6: The project would improve the relationship of the main site entrance driveway to Dinah’s Place (Tamarack Court) and to E1 Camino Real. Response: This improvement is not considered to be a public benefit. Since the project is subject to environmental review and the ARB standards , adequate circulation would be required for any similar development of the site. Furthermore, the proposed parking and circulation plan requires that the driveway entrance be re- configured. Benefit 7: The project sponsor proposes to either contribute funding ($20,000) for a street tree planting and pedestrian amenities design study for E1 Camino Real or to landscape a portion of the E1 Camino Real center median. Please note that this statementwas revised on April 8, 1997and on May 23, 1997. Response: Contribution of funds to a future design study for the south E1 Camino Real area would be considered a public benefit. However, the City’s completion of a design study for the south E1 Camino Real area is unscheduled, and does not have high priority status on the work program of planning projects. The planting of trees and shrubs, as well as the installation of or needed improvements to irrigation in the E1 Camino Real median would be a public benefit, which is preferred over the contribution of funds. The planting of trees and shrubs in the center median of E1 Camino Real would typically require the approval of Caltrans (encroachment permit) and the need for the City to enter into a maintenance agreement with Caltrans. According to Caltrans and Public Works Engineering staff, the City already has a right of encroachment over the E1 Camino Real median, along with an on-going agreement for landscape maintenance. The trees would be maintained by the City of Palo Alto. A proposed planting plan has been prepared and subsequently revised based on review and consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff, Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,-Parks Department and the Planning Arborist. The initial median planting plan proposed a row of trees, shrubs, decorative pavement and irrigation in the center median that is located between the project intersection sou~ over the Adobe Creek bridge (see benefit statement dated 4-8-97). However, there are several constraints/problems associated with this concept. These factors include the following: a. Fifty percent of this median is located outside of Palo Alto, and is within the Los Altos City limits. b.The Adobe Creek culvert, which crosses E1 Camino, creates a significant 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 29 constraint for tree planting. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) staff recommends that no trees be planted over the culvert and that a clearance zone/area on both sides of the culvert be reserved for construction andmaintenance. The SCVWD is planning flood control improvements to Adobe Creek. These improvements include the upsizing of this culvert, which will require significant street work within the E1 Camino Real right-of-way. This flood control project is not scheduled to occur for two-three years. ’SCVWD staff has advised that any improvements in the culvert zone be limited to shrubs, decorative pavement and irrigation, as these are improvements that are easy to move and replace. This median does not have direct access to irrigation or power. Because of the above constraints, the proposed.median planting and irrigation program has been modified. The most current program (see revised benefit statement dated 5-23-97, Attachment #4, page 4-4), proposes to install and improve the landscaping and irrigation within the center median that extends from the project intersection, northward to the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel driveway intersection with E1 Camino Real (See Attachment #4C, reduced map of center median). At present, this median strip is. vegetated with trees (primarily evergreen pines and some liquidambers), ground cover (gazania) and some shrubs. Although irrigation in this area exists, the system is in need of repair. Since the irrigation system is in need of repair, the present condition of the ground cover and shrubs is not good. Proposed improvements would include .the following: a. Installation of four, 24-inch box size trees within open areas of the median (areas where there are no trees). The specific species will be determined by the City’s Planning Arborist based on the constrained size of the planting area (see Attachment #4A, letter from AKA Landscape Architects); b.Planting of shrubs and ground cover in the open area and replacing plantings that are not in good condition; c.Design and repair the existing irrigation system, including the replacement of the backflow preventers and updating the control system. The project sponsor proposes to maintain the new plantings for a two-year period following installation. The project sponsor has indicated a desire and willingness to install planting within the center median that is located between the project intersection and the Adobe Creek bridge. However, this improvement would not occur unless a) irrigation and power is provided to the median and b) the planting is done after the SCVWD completes the Adobe Creek culvert improvements (2-3 years away). As the timing and desire to complete improvements to this median are 4290~cr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 30 speculative, this cannot be counted as a public benefit of the project. This revised proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Planning Arborist and the Parks Department. The ARB and staff have concluded that the improvements, particularly the repairing of the irrigation system, would be a benefit to the City. No plan/drawing has been prepared for improvements to this median. Therefore, recommended conditions of approval require that a plan be prepared as part of the f’mal landscaping and irrigation plan for,the hotel site improvements. This plan must be prepared in consultation with the City’s Planning .Arborist, Parks Department, Utilities, Planning Division and Public Works Engineering. Final plan approval is required by the Architectural Review Board. Benefit 8: The project sponsor proposes to add two, decorative, street light fixtur~ at the E1 Camino Real bridg.e crossing over Adobe Creek. Response: The addition of these fixtures would be a public benefit and would be considered a positive improvement to the appearance of the Adobe Creek Bridge structure. Initially, the project sponsor had proposed the installation of four pedestrian-scale light fixtures to be placed on the Adobe Creek Bridge structure. However, two of the fixtures were proposed on the portions of the bridge located within the Los Altos City limits. The location of the street light fixtures have been adjusted based on consultation with the Utilities Department and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A revised lighting standard specification-is presented in Attachment #4B of this staff report. This revised standard had been selected based on consultation with the City Utilities Engineering Department. While the standard offers a globe type and pole style that are identical to the street lighting standards that are along University Avenue, the proposed pole is four feet higher (14 foot pole) than the University Avenue standards (10 foot pole). In addition, the taller pole contains four brackets, which support the additional globes. The Utilities Department will not support or accept the taller’ pole and recommends installation of the stock, 10 foot high pole with a single-globe. The Utilities Department is concerned that they will have to "special order" the 14 foot high pole and the brackets, in the event the poles are damaged or destroyed. Use of the stock, 10 foot high, single globe fixture, as recommended by Utilities Engineering would not be consistent with the direction and recommendations of the ARB. In addition, the smaller, single-globe fixture would n_9_tt effectively provide a statement of entry at the City’s "gateway", The City can accept the proposed five-globe fixture with the requirement that the project, sponsor provide a 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 31 o replacement stock of the taller poles and brackets. Benefit 9: The project sponsor proposes to construct an entry_ sign ("Welcome to Palo Alto"), which would be installed in the ,gateway" planting area at the Southeast corner of the site. The construction and installation of an entry sign, in addition to the "gateway" planting, would be considered a public benefit. Conditions of approval require that the sign be designed in accordance with tile City’s specifications for public signs of this nature. The ARB and staff find that the project would provide public benefits as identified in statements #5, #7, #8 and #9. The additional landscaping and repair of irrigation in the center median of E1 Camino Real, as well as the installation of street light fixtures at the Adobe Creek bridge are physical improvements which could not typically be required by the City. As required for approval of a PC District, the Project sponsor has provided a construction schedule and phasing program for grading, subdivision improvements and hotel site and building improvements. The schedule proposes commencement of construction on June 1, 1998, with a construction period of approximately one year. Construction is scheduled to be completed by May 15, 1999. This schedule presents a reasonable time frame for hotel construction and site improvements. Separate from the PC District construction schedule for the hotel, the project sponsor proposes, that for the first year following commencement of construction, all construction vehicle access to the residential subdivision will be routed through the hotel site to E1 Camino Real. At the request of the Green Acres property owners, staff has recommended that this exclusive construction access be extended for the first ~ years following commencement of construction (recommended conditions for the Tentative Map). The Palo Alto Redwoods Association has expressed opposition to the routing of all construction traffic through the hotel site (See Attachment #13, letter from association dated June 16, 1997). The Palo Alto Redwoods notes that this routing would burden their residents, with all of the construction vehicle traffic and noise and suggests that Some of the construction routing for the residential subdivisionbe diverted westward, through the Green Acres neighborhood. The project sponsor is concurrently working with the residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods and the Green Acres property owners to determine if a compromise routing plan can be reached. Draft Findings and Conditions Draft findings and conditions have been prepared and are included as ~Attachments 1 and 2 of this staff report. As this is the initial project review by the Planning Commission, the 42~r.sr$ 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 32 findings and conditions are very preliminary and reflect the major issues of the project. Please note that the staff report does not include a draft PC Ordinance. A PC Ordinance will be drafted and presented to the Planning Commission at the second hearing. Furthermore, the staff report does not include draft conditions for the Architectural Review application 96-ARB- 168; draft conditions for this application will be presented to the ARB and will be included in the Planning Commission staff report for the second hearing. Public .Participation , Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a notice. In addition, the noticing included a list of specific property owners in the Green Acres neighborhood and Los Altos residents south of Adobe Creek. Property .owners were also mailed a notice informing them of the availability of the draft Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Numerous letters were received from neighboring residents and property owners. Copies of these letters are provided as attachments to this staff report. As discussed in this staff report, of primary concern to residents of the Green Acres neighborhood is the potential for a public pedestrian/bicycle path connecting E1 Camino Real with Glenbrook Drive. Based on a review of these letters, it appears that the residents are not opposed to the cul-de-sac extension of Glenbrook Drive for access to the proposed residential lots; however, there is opposition to any road access design which allows a vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connection to E1 Camino Real. Concerns expressed by the neighboring Palo Alto Redwoods Association are cited throughout this staff report. ALTERNATIVES The property is currently zoned PC (Planned Community) District, which authorizes continued use and operation of a 200-room hotel complex. Any change in land use requiresa property rezoning or an amendment to the present PC District. One alternative that can be considered is denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change applications, allowing the continued use and operation of the hotel complex on the entire 10.1 acre site. FISCAL IMPACT The project involves a subdivision of land for construction of 14, new single-family dwellings. These dwelling units would generate property taxes. The residential dwelling units would also be subject to school impact fees, as required by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The continued operation of the hotel facility would generate transient occupancy tax.. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California ~290eer.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 33 Environmental Quality Act. An Environmental Assessment (Mitigated Negative Declaration) has been prepared (96-EIA-32) and is attached to this staff report. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission for the second hearing.The major issues addressed in this assessment include the following: Water (Hydrology and Drainage) . The subject property is fairly level and is located adjacent to Adobe Creek, an open channel which carries run-off on a year-around basis. The proposed project would. result in the removal of the rear (western), paved parking lot, which would be replaced with a new cul-de-sac and single-family residential structures. The amount of impervious surfaces would be reduced from 81% to 63 % site coverage; proposed run-off is expected to be decreased by 12%. The Environmental Assessment recommends measures for proper storm water drainage design and implementation of biotechnical erosion control measures. 6 .Transportation/On-site Circulation and Parking The project would result in the development of 14 new single-family residential dwellings and the continued operation of an existing hotel facility. The new ¯ dwelling units would generate 140 average daily trips and approximately 14 new trips during the peak hour. This contribution of traffic to the local street network would not change the level of service at critical intersections during peak hour periods. A detailed analysis of on-site circulation and parking was prepared for the Environmental Assessment. The analysis of on-site hotel parking is presented in the Discussion section of this staff report. Public Services The Environmental Assessment reviews the project impacts to public services. While the project would increase the demand for public services that are provided (police, fire protection, water, waste water, and schools), the impact of the project would be less-than-significant. Aesthetics (Tree Removal) As presented in the Discussion section of this Staff Report, the project would result in the removal of a number of mature trees. Most of the tree removal would occur in the front (eastern) hotel parking lot. A discussion of tree removal is presented in the Discussion section of this staff report. 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 34 Given that permits and approvals are required by other responsible agencies, the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to these agencies for review. Consistent with Section 15073(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act, a 30 day public review period was observed; this review period closed on April 18, 1997. Written comments/correspondence on the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided as attachments to this staff report. Copies of all correspondence received to date are provided as attachments to this staff report. , STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL As discussed under the Project Description section of this Staff Report, the project involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, property zone changes, tentative subdivision map with conditional exception, variance application, and Architectural Review Board approval. The process for these "grouped" actions require 1) an initial review by the Planning Commission (occurred on June 11, 1997), 2) review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (occurred on June 19, 1997), 3) review and recommendation by the Planning Commission (second review), and 4) review and action by the City Council. Following approval of the above actions, the project sponsor would be required to secure City approvals for a Final Subdivision Map, building permits and grading permits. The permits/approvals may be required by other agencies prior to construction. Possible permits/approvals required by other agencies include the following: o o ° Santa Clara Valley Water District - permit to construct proposed out-falls into Adobe Creek and other proposed improvements within the District right-of-way. California Department of Fish and Game - Streambed Alteration Agreement for construction of drainage outfalls into Adobe Creek. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - permits/approvals required for all construction work within areas of Adobe Creek, subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. California Department ~f Transportation (CALTRANS) - encroachment permits for alterations and improvements of driveway entrance intersection with E1 Camino Real (SR82). Regional Water Quality_ Control Board - possible permits or waivers required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for construction of drainage out-falls and discharge of run-off into a Adobe Creek. ATTAC!!MENTS/EXI-IIBITS: Attachment #1A: Draft Resolution amending Comprehensive Plan land use designation 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 35 Attachment #1B: Attachment # 1C: Attachment # 1D: Attachment # 1 E: Attachment # 1F: Attachment #2A: Attachment #2B: Attachment #3: Attachment #3A: Attachment #4: Attachment #4A: Attachment #4B: Attachment #4C: Attachment #5: Attachment #6: Attachment #6A: Attachment #7: Attachment #7A: Attachment #8: Attachment #9: Attachment #10: Attachment # 11: Attachment # 12: Draft Ordinance rezoning western 3.24 acres from PC to R-1 District Draft PC District Ordinance Draft findings for approval of a variance from 50 foot building height limit Draft findings for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Exception for 50 foot wide road right-of-way width Draft Findings for Architectural Review Draft Conditions for Tentative Subdivision Map Draft Standard Conditions of Approval for hotel site and building renovations Residential Lot Inventory Amended language for draft CC & R’s addressing tree preservation/removal for residential lots #1-10 Draft Public Benefit Statement & Schedule (revisions to 5-23-97), letter from Stephen Player, dated May 13, 1997 Letter from AKA Landscape Architects to Carrasco and Associates regarding tree planting along E1 Camino Real center median; May 21, ,1997 Sample of decorative street light standard proposed at the northern edge of the Adobe Creek Bridge Reduced, schematic plan of E1 Camino Real center median (landscaping and irrigation) Draft Parking Performance Plan, DKS Associates; April 9, 1997 Draft BMR Statement, letter from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto to Carrasco and Associates; May 15, 1997. Response to Draft BMR Statement, letter from Carrasco and Associates; May 23, 1997. EIA/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Memorandum from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey, landscape architects, to Carrasco & Associates summarizing tree removal and transplanting measures; March 26, 1997 Memorandum from Jose Jovel, Utilities Engineering to Joe Colonna, Planning Division; October 25, 1996. Reduced plan of Transportation Division alternative study of potential public access along Adobe Creek, May 1997. Letter from B. B. Patel, Cabana - Palo Alto to City of Palo Alto -regarding fencing improvements along the northern property boundary; May 19, 1997 Letter from Stephen W. Player, attorney for project sponsor, to City 429(~cr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 36 of Palo Alto regarding public access along Adobe Creek; May 12, 1997 Attachment #13:Letter from Palo Alto Redwoods Association to Kemaeth Schreiber, dated June 16, 1997 Attachment #13A: Preliminary fencing repair detail for northern property boundary of hotel parcel Attachment #14: Preliminary plan for on-site bicycle parking Correspondence (written comments, letters, etc.) from agencies, organizations and neighboring residents/property owners Plans and Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions [Commission members only] 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 37 COURTESY COPIES: Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Steve Player, Attorney at Law, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 410, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Kent Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Mitchell and Herzog, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 236, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Gloria Kreitman, Green Acres Improvement Association, 4216 Los Palos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Larry Tong, Planning Director, City of Los Al[os, One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA. 94022-3088 Griffen Derryberry, President, Palo Alto Redwoods; c/o: PML Management, 655 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 101, San Mateo, CA. 94404 Richard Bartlett, Rancho Laureles Preservation Association, 1138 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Marsha Penn, Rancho Laureles Preservation Association, 1176 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA~ 94022 COURTESY COPIES WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS; Ross Pont, 1184 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Sue Calm, Vice President, 4250 E1 Camino Real C-325, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Angel Rocha, Secretary/Treasurer, 4250 E1 Camino Real D337, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Elaine Findlay, at large, 4250 E1 Camino Real C226, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Jo Shuster, at large, 4250 E1 Camino Real B402, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Green Acres property owners Prepared by:Paul A. Jemen, Contract Planner Project Planner:Paul A. Jensen, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: J~E. Gilliland, Acting Chief Planning Official 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 38 ATTACHMENT #2D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING June 19, 1997 4290 El Camino Real 96-ARB-85 Request for rezoning of a proposed 6.82-acre parcel to a PC (Planned Community) District for continued hotel use, site and building improvements and variance application to permit additional building height to the existing Cabafia Hotel tower. .Chairman Ross: Are there any questions for staff?. Mr. Alfonso: Does this imply that one of these units for structures is a designated BMR? Mr. Jensen: The below-market-rate agreement that is proposed is an in-lieu fee that would be paid based on the proportion of what is required for the single-family subdivision. The in-lieu fee was worked out between the city’s housing staff and the applicant. So there are no construction of on-site units for below-market-rate. Chairman Ross: Paul, just to clarify for us and for the audience, as I tmderstand it, the tentative map subdivision portion of this application is not an item on which we will be making a motion. In other words, it does not require an ARB approval. Mr. Jensen: Correct. The application package includes a tentative map for a subdivision of the western portion of the 14 lots, as well as a rezoning of that portion in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for that portion of the property. These applications have all been packaged as one primarily to assess environmental issues. Chairman Ross: The tentative map approval is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission? Mr. Jensen: And the City Council. That is correct. Chairman Ross: So for those present who want to comment on or state a position on the tentative map approval at this meeting, I would suggest that they also attend the Planning Commission or City Council meetings, since they might not be relevant to our motion. Any other questions for staff?. Mr. Peterson: Are the public benefits something we need to approve? Mr. Jensen:. Absolutely. You need to comment on the public benefits that are outlined in the A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 1 06-19-97 staff report, given that the ARB has the authority to review this and determine whether or not the PC zoning is acceptable. It relates to site improvements and site usage, so you do have that authority. Chairman Ross: Thank you, Paul. This is a major item, and there is a 10-minute presentation period. T~ny Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates: Good moming, members 0fthe board. I am going to go through some basic, overall circulation issues, and then turn this over to Linda Poncini to go over the different items that make up the entire PC. As you can see before you, we are asking for your recommendation to council to approve a decrease in the PC lot size. In that regard, what we are doing is looking at splitting the site for R-1 at the back and a PC in the front. The circulation plan has changed from where it was previously. As you will recall, it used to be that you came in there at an angle with a double row of cypress trees lining that street. If you look at this site from above, it gives the illusion that there is an access that continues along that whole length. In fact, that access does not exist. You come in at an angle here between the two rows of cypress trees, causing you to not fully understand the axial nature of this property. We have changed that axial orientation, believing .that the space there should feel like an orchard, recognizing that you come in at an angle and off center, in any event. We have improved the intersection by turning it into a 90 ° intersection. The trees that we plan on putting in there are sycamores. In the first few years, they will create a canopy, above which the 8-story tower will rise. As the years pass, the trees will grow up and the view of the building will be hidden by these trees, creating a dense canopy of sycamores. Most likely, you will not see the tall building from the street by then. When you approach that building, you will see these towers that happen in those locations, plus giving the building some validity to touch the sky better than the box-like image that it has right now. :~o~: One other aspect I wanted to cover is that our circulation has decreased along that line, thus decreasing the amount of traffic noise that would have affected the residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods. As we progressed along, we have discovered other issues. For instance, we have now discovered that putting a little wall there (points to the drawing) is going to decrease the noise from a door that is opened every so often for exiting. It keeps that noise from traveling out horizontally, so we ask your permission to put in that wall. I will now ask Linda to continue with the presentation.. Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates: I will briefly go through the changes. Tony has touched upon some of those, one being the adding of these roof elements to the top of the existing building and reducing the size of these existing penthouses so that there is less impact from that, allowing the building to touch the sky better. Also, a couple of items came up at the Planning A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 2 06-19-97 Commission and we want to bring those to your attention at this time. One was the need for bicycle parking. Currently, there is no bicycle parking on the site, and we are adding eight bicycle spaces, four here and four here, for public and guests, and 12 secured bicycle parking spaces, a Class 1 enclosure for employees. This plan has been discussed with Gail Likens of the Transportation Department, and she is in support of that mixture for a total of 20 bicycle parking spaces for the site. The details of that can be brought back when the final landscaping plan is brought back. This is preliminary at this point. Also, in terms of the public benefit, I will briefly go over those. One is to create a grove of trees, a gateway grove of redwoods and large trees to announce the entrance to Palo Alto. There will also be a "Welcome to Palo Alto" sign which will be placed near that grove. We are also going to be doing some planting in the median, infill planting, and redoing the irrigation and controls for that irrigation in this median that starts at the intersection and goes up towards Rickey’s. The original plan was to work on the median that is immediately in front of the hotel, but we ran into some difficulties with the property. A lot of that median is in Los Altos, and there are restrictions from the water district in terms of being able to plant over the site of the large culvert that is going to be going under E1 Camino during the rework of Adobe Creek. So in working with staff, we modified that public benefit to work on the median farther to the north. There was a plan that should be included in your packet showing the landscaping proposed for that. The fourth item is that at the bridge overcrossing, there is an existing railing. We are proposing light fixtures on either side of E1 Camino, again to announce the entry into Palo Alto. We had proposed a multi-armed fixture, but one of the concerns that came out in the staff report was that it would not be the standard fixture that Public Works typically installs. So we have modified the design and checked with Sternberg, the manufacturer of the poles, to use the globes that the Public Works Department has, so that we can use the same globes. The post would be’ different, and it is a more attractive fixture than the single post. If that is not acceptable to Public Works, we can go back to just the single pole with the standard fixture that they have. I can give you a sketch of.both. We would prefer to do the multi-arm fixtttre, so we would like some encouragement from the ARB, if possible, for the more attractive fixture. That essentially covers the work that is being done. There is not much being done to the building itself. The other aspects of the project have previously been approved. The landscape architect is here if you have questions regarding landscaping on any of the species and the moving of trees. Mr. Carrasco: One other point. As we discover issues on this property, we find that some of the trees that we earlier thought to be sick are recovering. We are going to retain those and will show up. in your final plan. Mr. Patel, who is present, has made every attempt to rejuvenate them, and they are responding. In addition, I would like to introduce Mike Higgins from Crown Plaza, who is also present to answer questions related to the use of this property. A: [ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 3 06-19-97 Chairman Ross: Thank you. I am sure there are board member questions. Mr. Peterson: The first is is related to the use of the hotel and the parking numbers. Can somebody address how the reduced numbers are going to function for this use? Mr. Carrasco: We have used DKS, who did a survey of four hotels, looking at actual use during high peak times and low peak times. He came up with a figure of 0.98 which, as it turns out, was during a season when there was low occupancy, so his report states that a 1.25 ratio should work. He recommends valet parking, which brings it up to 1.44. He also suggests that a 1.5 ratio should work better, depending on how this parking would be managed. The difference between 1.44, the ratio that we have with valet parking, and 1.5 is 12 cars. In addition to that, it seemed to us that this is a ratio that will work. We have consulted several times with Crown Plaza. Paul Jensen has done a survey of eight other hotels, and they also agreed with the 1.25 ratio. Now I’ll turn this over to Mike Higgins. Mike Higgins. Crown Plaza Hotels and Resorts: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will be involved with Mr. Patel in the operation of this hotel. We currently operate in the Americas, North, Central and South, approximately 20 hotels. Our standard, in terms of our own hotels, is that we have a parking ratio of 1.15. If you take a look at a Crown Plaza Hotel, the type of hotel Mr. Patel is developing, our business is not freeway-oriented. Ours is an upscale commercial hotel, and our primary .target market is the corporate traveler, therefore, not depending upon people driving down the highway. The usage of an automobile or some sort of vehicle per guest room would be lower than that than the highway type of hotel. Also, with the meeting space that we will have at the hotel, that meeting space is primarily designed to fill the guest rooms with, once again, corporate meetings, association meetings, so the people that would primarily be using the meeting rooms would also be the guests who are using the hotel rooms, as well. At the ratio thatwe have, our hotels run from suburban locations to downtown locations; and the ratio that we have followed within our own properties seems to work out fine for us. As Tony mentioned, we do provide valet parking. That is a service standard at our hotels, so in the event that there is some sort of event in one of the meeting rooms that might be more locally oriented, we do make that provision for valet parking as well, in terms of the staffing that we have at the hotel. Mr. Peterson: Let me continue that question. If you have valet parking and you’stop to park the cars, if you have a flood of cars, where do they go? Mr. Hi.ggk~: When there is valet parking, we can afford to park the cars a little closer together. It provides a little more work for the valet people, but rather than having the guest or visitor park their car and needing to have their own ingress and egress, we can allow for that by parking them closer together. A: [ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 4 06-19-97 Mr. Peterson: In a semi-urban area like this, there are still a lot business customers who rent a car. So it would seem like there would not be a large reduction here. Mr. Higgins: If you take into consideration the amount of group meetings that we do, there would be some arriving, depending upon who they are doing business with, such as someone in the Stanford Research Park, or with the university, would be arriving in groups or vans, but yes, you are correct, for business people from either the San Francisco or San Jose airports, they are still going to have rental cars. Mr. Peterson: I guess the bottom line is that from your experience, this ratio works. Mr. Higgins: Absolutely. If our orientation was different, we would have a higher ratio, but once again, based upon who we are marketing our hotels to, this ratio works fine for us. Mr. Peterson: Then a followup question is, if this does not work in this location, what do you do then? Mr. Higgins: Obviously, you have to have a contingency plan. There could be that event at some point during floe year where you would need additional space. I believe Tony and Mr. Patel have told me that they would negotiate with some of the surrounding properties for a contingency plan in the event that additional parking was necessary. Mr. Peterson: I was more concerned not with an event overload but With a continuing need. Mr. Higgins: Once again, with just 200 rooms, it has been our experience that the number of spaces they have allotted would be adequate. The company has been in business -for over 40 years. The only time I could see the contingency plan coming into effect would be if there were some social function held in the meeting room. Mr. Jensen: I do have some things to add that might help Boardmember Peterson. Staffwas somewhat leery of the conclusions of the original DKS parking survey. That is why we performed our own survey. We consulted with two additional, independent traffic engineers on the parking issue. There is a performance plan that is recommended that needs to be implemented, regardless of contingency measures. We found that at least in our review of comments from staff of other similar size hotels if there is a parking problem, it is generally due to an overlap in the peak usage of the various uses. For example, the high occupancy of the hotel rooms with a high usage period for the conference or meeting room facilities. That is where staff is primarily concerned. The Planning Commission had commented on this issue at their last meeting and wanted staff to look into some additional measures to build into the zoning which could include revisiting the zoning and the provisions of the zoning in the event that there are problems. Restrictions could include either (1) fully restrict the meeting room usage or overlap periods, or (2) look at remote areas for parking for the operator to secure. So those are things A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 5 06-19-97 that we are looking into to, to include into the PC zoning, It is not reflected in the draft that you got, but that is what was requested by the Planning Commission. Chairman Ross: But in terms of the normal operation of a 200-room hotel, does the amount of parking seem adequate, based on your study of additional hotels? Mr. Jensen: That is correct. The higher ratio demand was based on the overlapping peaks, and that is why we feel that the contingency measures are definitely needed. Mr. Peterson: I have a question for staff, to some degree. Does the public benefit apply to the PC zoning normally, not to the residential? Mr. Jensen: That is correct. Mr. Peterson: Tony, based on the staff recommendations, have you considered additional public benefits? I am trying to lead you down a path here. Have you considered incorporating art as a public benefit? Mr. Carrasco: I believe there was one member of the Planning Commission who suggested that we look at an artist who might design a fence that divides the property from the Santa Clara Valley Water District property. We have not discussed that in detail, as yet. Mr., Peterson: Are there any additional public benefits other than the ones you have proposed? Staff has shot down a few. Mr. Carrasco: We still believe that the public benefits that we have proposed are public benefits. Mr. Peterson: Okay. Then switching to the residential proposal, could either you or staff indicate existing bicycle and pedestrian access from that residential area? There was some allusion that there already was access provided, and the one that staff suggested was unnecessary. Mr. Carrasco: There is a 12-foot emergency access road. There is no bike or pedestrian access from the site into the adjacent neighborhood. The water district property line exists along that northern red line. The top of bank between the curb and the water district property varies from four feet to zero. So there did not seem to be room enough to be able to put a bike path in at that location. Steve has something in addition to add. Steve Player: I would like to clarify your question. Your concem was not so much what is being proposed by staffbut rather, what is the present existing access route to that neighborhood. There are bike lanes along Arastradero Road which run right by that particular neighborhood. There is access in and out of the Terman site, so you can ride bikes through or walk through into A: I ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 6 06-19-97 the back portion of that neighborhood. There is also one on Los Altos Avenue, so you can ride up and down the bike path between Los Altos and Palo Alto near the Alta Mesa Cemetery and come in the back way into that entire neighborhood. So at the present time, there are several access routes, pedestrianwise and bieyclewise for people to get in and out of that neighborhood, rather than going over this particular site. Mr. Carrasco: To add a comment, this is the densest, bike path system in Palo Alto, other than Stanford University. If you look at the bike path map, the network of existing bike paths here is denser than anywhere else except for Stanford. Chairman Ross: As a practical matter, does anyone from the neighborhood now either walk or ride a bicycle through the property to the street? Mr. Player: No, there is a fence there that blocks access. So as far as I am aware, no one is using that to cross at this point now. Ms. Piha: One thing you mentioned was that all other aspects of the project have been previously approved. Could you expand upon that? Ms. Poncini: Yes. The facelift to the building, the seismic upgrade, and the. work that is under construction now has been approved by the ARB. The final plan check is going on now on the exterior construction changes to the building. So the only aspects of the building that are being reviewed for the PC zone is a separate application (and staff has wanted it to be kept very separate) for these additional roofs to the building and the changes to the landscaping and the parking, also this little wall that we would like to add at the back to help mitigate the sound. Ms. Piha.: I also have a question about the paving materials. What are you proposing for that? Ms. Poncini: In the new parking lot area, it is just asphalt paving. Ms. Poncini: Yes, in terms of the PC zone part of it. Those cross-hatched areas that Tony is pointing out have been approved under the Phase 1. That is those areas of colored concrete paving. Chairman Ross: In the final approval of the non’PC ARB submission, it seemed that a determination had not been made about the final paving material, so we deleted that from that package. Now we are waiting to see what the final proposal is for the paving material in that front cross-hatched area. Ms. Poncini: Okay. iapologize for that. I was out of town during that ARB meeting. Yes, the intention is to use colored textured concrete in that front oval area. That color is going to need to blend with the slate paving that is coming out from the entrance and with the existing steps that ’ A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 7 06-19-97 are there in that area. So it must blend with those, and I think we can bring in those color chips when we get to that point. Ms. Piha: Regarding the R-1 development in the back, is it being proposed just as lots? No structures? Ms. Ponci.n_i: Correct. ~: Will they be sold as individual lots? (Yes) That completes my questions. Mr. Alfonso: With respect to the hotel portion of the project, I noticed in our packet that there was a lighting plan for this general area. Can you describe what is intended to happen here with respect to lighting? I did not see that there were lights proposed here at the front. Mr. Carrasco: Frank, there are existing lights in that location, and we do not intend changing them. Mr. Alfonso: So you are going to keep what is there now. (Yes) Can you describe a little bit about this jointing of the zones? As you conceive it to be right now, I see that there is a pedestrian and bicycle pathway, and somehow this is also the effluent point for runoff into the street, as well as the creek. Then there is some parking and some trees. -Can you describe this whole link a little bit? Mr. Carrasco: In fact, there is no link there. Staff had asked us to provide you with two plans,. one plan that shows the pedestrian and bicycle path connection, and after studying it, as I indicated earlier, staff had recommended against that connection. So at this point, there’will be an eight-foot-high wall that separates the Cabafia property from the single-family houses. Mr.Alfonso:’ With a utility easement? Mr.Carrasco: Yes, with. a utility easement. Mr.Alfonso: Then I would have to direct a question to staff. Why was that decided? Ms. Grote: No pedestrian link? (Yes) There is no connection at this point. In a previous proposal when it was the Creekside Apartments and condominiums, there were many people that would be living on the front part of the site, and we felt that they did need some connection back into the neighborhood, but that is no longer the case with this proposal. In the previous proposal, people would have children who needed to get into the residential neighborhood. In this proposal, children would have that access from Glenbrook Court. Access is not needed it from the hotel site. So there is no bike/pedestrian connection. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 8 06-19-97 Mr. Jensen: Can I expand on that as well? When we took a look at this, we acknowledged that the Comprehensive Plan policies encourage public access along creeks, particularly for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Transportation Division completed a field review, and they determined that in order to make a connection between E1 Camino Real and this new subdivision along the creek front, they would have to share that one-way vehicle access drive which runs along the southern boundary of the hotel facilities with bicycle use and vehicle traffic. In order to create a separate path for pedestrians, you are encroaching over the pr.operty line and/or possibly encroaching in the top of bank along the creek. So because the hotel facilities and the improvements that are out there are proposed to remain, it makes it very difficult to create a safe access. So we had recommended that not be included. You had one comment about the interface between the two properties. Given that the hotel is proposed to continue as a PC district, it must maintain at least a 10-foot setback along that western boundary for landscaping. It is also required that a solid wall or fence be installed to separate the property from the adjacent residential properties. This is a code requirement. Mr. Alfonso: I notice, in looking at the plant list and what is being proposed for the front, are there other alternatives to sycamores that have been proposed in this general area? Are there other species that are perhaps being considered along the boundaries as opposed to the center? Mr. Carrasco: Frank, since some of the trees that we thought were sick and thought they would have to be removed but will not, and they happened primarily at this location and that one, siiace retaining those trees changes the form a little bit, we are looking at perhaps lining that street with a different species than the rest. That will come in with your final landscape plan when we determine which trees survive. Mr. Alfonso: Whai are you going to do with all those cypresses? Mr. Carrasco: Mr. Patel has asked if someone w~_nts them by putting a notice in the newspaper. We have trimmed and pruned them and are readying them for moving to a location where someone might want cypress. Mr. Alfonso: Was any consideration given to what happens to the runoff waters from Glenbrook Drive as far as impact on the creek? I realize that you have reduced the paving tremendously, which will be a huge benefit to the creek. Has any of that been considered? Mr. Carrasco: No, we have not considered that. At this point, I understand from our civil engineers, Brian Kangas Foulk, that the amount of water decreases about 40% or somewhere around that number. Mr. Alfonso: There is a median in this area here. Can you describe in a little more detail how this is going to be designed. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page.9 06-19-97 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. That median right now is paved over with asphalt. It tums out that the property line between Palo Alto and Los Altos goes right across there. In fact, the bridge is half in Los Altos and half in Palo Alto. It becomes a complicated jurisdictional problem to be able to landscape that island. We attempted to do it, as Paul may be able to add to. We tried to accomplish landscaping on that island, however, the logistics of getting Los Altos’ approval and whether that is a public benefit to this project because it is in a different city got so complicated that we moved onto the island north of that locatiom In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is going to tear up that area in the foreseeable future, just a year or two away. Planting something at that location at this point is a waste, it would seem. Mr. Jensen: First of all, I believe that the median is not paved, but is a crushed rock or something like a lava rock surfaced over the top. Mr. Carrasco is right in his comments on the water district. One further constraint is that a good majority of that island is over a culvert. The water district would like a clearance zone in order to replace that culvert in the future. They want no trees above that area. Unfortunately, that was a constraint that we had to deal with, and that is why they looked at landscaping north of the intersection. That would have been a nice solution. Chairman Ross: I notice in the parking study that there are 19 spaces designated for employee parking. What is the ratio of employee parking to employees, approximately? Are people expected to do serious carpooling or a lot of bicycle riding? Nineteen seems like a relatively small number for a hotel of .this size. Mr. Carrasco: I do not have an answer to that, but in general, Mr. Patel owns several hotels, one at the south end of th’e city border and one at the north end. What I have noticed (and Mr. Patel can explain in more detail) is that they do carpool between these hotels. The same crew seems to be working both sites. - Chairman Ross: I notice that in the bicycle parking arrangements, the~e are a dozen employee bicycle parking spots, so it would appear that it is anticipated that there will be nearly as many employees arriving on bikes as in cars. Ms. Poncini: Yes, I was going to add to that comment. With the 19 spaces for employees and an additional 12 secure bicycle spaces, that gives us a total of 31 spaces for employees. It is anticipated that a lot of the employees would be arriving either by public transit or by bicycle. I think this will be a case where the bicycle racks will get well used by the employees. Also, in general, Mr. Patel and I have discussed the approximate number of employees that might be on site at any one time, and it would be around 30, based on how he perceives it. If there were a total of 30 employees on site at any time, there would be between bicycle and vehicle spaces an ample amount. It is anticipated that people will also arrive by public transit. .Chairman Ross: I can imagine that the most intensive parking needs are going to be daytime, A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 10 06-19-97 perhaps breakfast type social events or fundraising events where it is likely that thehotel itself will be full. We do have those in our community, so the hotel is full and fairly well parked up. There may even be extra staff involved because of the size of a banquet taking place, and of course, the guests attending such an event. I would classify that as the type of thing where a contingency plan is going to be needed. Do you have a sense of about how often that is going to happen?. Do you have any idea, in terms of operating this, whether it is going to be a once a month event or a once a week frequency? Mr. Higgins: Let me try to answer your question and also the one previous. I provided to Mr. Patel and to Tony back in February some information that I was able to acquire from a study that was performed by an accounting firm and the Urban Land Institute. I do not have it with me, but I want to say that the recommended parking ratio per employee was 0.3, because once again, considering the number of entry level positions that you have at a hotel, a good number of the employees do arriye by public transportation or by bicycles. You would primarily be looking at the senior staff members providing their own vehicles. In terms of looking at planning for how many events you might have at the hotel that would utilize the entire conference center, in the budgeting that we were doing in putting together the projections for the hotel, we were looking at, on average, one event per month that would use the entire ballroom. Then we broke it down further than that, but I do not have it with me. In terms of breaking down the meeting space among the board rooms, the breakout rooms that we have and even the conference room which is dividable into subsections, in terms of budgeting and preparing our projections, we were looking at only one event per month that would utilize the entire ballroom. There were X number of events per month per meeting room and per board room. So we have gone through that planning process, and I would foresee and agree with their projections that we would be looking at that one full event per month. As you said, that could be a fundraiser, or it could be a wedding reception, something of that nature, where you would be involving the local community in addition to the people who would be using the hotel. Chairman Ross: Can you speak a little to contingency planning? Has someone given some thought to that? If you have valets available, obviously there is a lot of parking availablewithin the distance that a valet can travel. Mr. Player: We have not formalized any contingency plan at this point, but we will be looking at that. Part of what is required is that in this Parking Performance Plan that is already in there, there is strategic scheduling of these events, so we are minimizing the time at which there might be a peak overlap. This is all part of what we will be looking at if this is, in fact, going to be a problem. There is also in the parking plan a requirement that we have at least two studies that we present back to the city to see how, in fact, the parking is working. So there are some built-in requirements that will require us to be in contact with the appropriate city department to see how we are doing and how we are meeting those particular concerns that you have. They are legitimate concerns that we are going to be addressing. A: [ ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.619 Page 11 06-19-97 Chairman Ross: I can never find a parking space at Tall Trees! Mr. Player: That’s right, but they have do have a contingency plan from cooperating businesses around when they have particular events. So that is something that we have looked at and are going to be studying more. At this point, it is not finalized. Ms. Piha: You have mentioned your responsibility to report back to the city. You are not leaving space available on your site for parking. Is there any undeveloped space that you could utilize for parking? Mr. Player: That is correct. There may be an opportunity to reconfigure some of the back space and expand the valet parking, although I do not wish to speak for Tony or Mr. PateL There may be some ratios that could change if, in fact, this becomes a problem. Mr. Carrasco: We have thought that out, and we do not think it will be necessary. But in the event that it is necessary, we are planning on developing a performance plan for parking. Chairman Ross: From,the design of this parking lot and kind of a zero access from the residential areas, it does not look likely to me that there will be spillover parking in the neighborhoods for big events. Does it look that way to you, also? Mr. Carraseo: We do not think that is going to happen, in fact, this site is isolated. If we had more sites like this, the limited parking would force the management to make the most efficient use of parking spaces, and therefore, decrease traffic on the streets without impacting neighborhoods. This is an ideal sort of situation where self-interest will govern and self-regulate the kind of operation. If people complain about not having a parking space, this operation will not work well, so it is in the interest of the operator to ensure that the parking works. 2hairman Ross: Can you describe a little bit about the existing fence between the Redwoods project and the site and what the plans are for that fence? Mr. Carrasco: Some parts of that fence are dilapidated, and some parts are repairable. I think there are two panels that cannot be fixed. We plan on replacing that fence in partnership with the Redwoods in a 50/50 share. For every other panel the post needs to be reinforced, and there are three or four panels where they want an additional lattice on top of it to gain privacy. Chairman Ross: I would like to speak a little about signage. In previous applications, we approved a temporary sign. I think that expires in October sometime, and I do not see that as being resolved yet. Mr. Carrasco: It has not been resolved yet. As staff has mentioned, it will become before you with the final iandscape plan. I think that was your last condition. Whether that final landscape A: ] ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 12 06-19-97 plan will come in before October, I do not know, but we are hoping it will. Mr. Jensen: At ~he last meeting, there was a concern about potential fragmentation of this project and what had been reviewed before. What we have tried to do in this large packet is to put together some of the elements of what had been approved so that it would be a part of this application as well. One is the location of the free-standing sign along E1 Camino Real. You had requested that the sign be lowered. In fact, there ,were even some comments on the appropriateness of the sign and the detail of the sign. What we have done is to incorporate an additional condition in this approval that requires, as part of the final landscape plan, that they lower the sign and that they improve some of the details based on some of the comments made at your last meeting. Presumably between now and then, they will have worked out any face information that was outstanding having to do with the future tenant. In this case, it looks like it is Crown Plaza that is proposing that. So that, in part, has been incorporated into this larger package. Chairman Ross: So we are free to discuss it. Mr. Jensen: You got it. Chairman Ross: That completes my questions. Mr. Carrasco: I have one more comment. While we intend to have a good amount of tree canopy, staff is recommending that we use a 34-inch box tree. In our discussions with the landscape architect and our arborist, we believe that a 24-inch box is the better way to go. In two years, that 24-inch box grows healthier and stronger and better than a 34-inch box. So in two years, a 24-inch box outgrows a 34-inch-box. So we would like to have your agreement on that. We would get a better tree canopy. Chairman Ross: Are there any oth’er staff conditions that you care to comment on? (No) Mr. Alfonso: I am wondering if we could have some description of the landscape proposal from the landscape architect. Mr. Patel: The main feature of the front landscape is that it basically saves the existing magnolias. They are presently growing in what was originally a grove. For all purposes, they are already boxed and easy to transport. I am trying to find someone to take the cypress. We are going to strategically locate the magnolias and also add the 24oinch boxed trees along in the parking lot. Closer to the magnolias will be the larger trees to blend in, and maybe we will have smaller ones also. We _really feel that we want to go with the smallest size possible. We are not going to use five gallons, but we really do not want to use larger trees either, because eventually, the trees become taller and stronger and outgrow larger trees very quickly. So putting !n the smaller size is like adopting a smaller child rather than a teenager. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 13 06-19-97 That will provide a very large canopy very soon. They are large trees that like smog and work well in parking lots: We want to use a tree that is suitable for that parking lot condition, and not necessarily some ornate tree that does not work. We want to provide maximum shade coverage, as well. It is a good tree for that reason. Mr. Alfonso: Has there been any proposal for the type of paving material that would occur in different parts of this area? ¯ Mr.Patel: I think it is all asphalt paving. Mr.Alfonso: Has there been anything else considered? Mr.Patel: Not that I am aware of. Mr. Alfonso: Can you describe to us in a little more detail the concept of this grove of redwoods as a gateway? Mr. Patel: We had a concept of redwoods there to signify that when you cross the bridge, you are telling the public that there is a creek there and that you are crossing the creek. It is really a gateway that announces the creek to a good degree, and also the City of Palo Alto. We have some cottonwoods there, as well, which the city arborist has recommended against our using, and that is fine with us. He is recommending a cedar, and we can use that. He has recommended that we use a 48-inch boxed redwood there, which again we really do not think is a good idea. Redwoods grow very fast, and the smaller the tree you plant, the better. It is by a creek, and those trees are going to grow two feet a year, so we would like to stick to a 24-inch box, if that is . okay. But we will eliminate the poplars and have some native shrubs in front, as well. Mr. Alfonso: Are you proposing to plant any poplars? Mr. Patel: No, I don’t think so, since that is not recommended. Mr. Peterson: I have a question related to that, and that is in regard to the proposal for a screening between the tower and the residential area. Mr. Patel: I will have to go over to the plans to answer you. Mr. Jensen: While he is doing that, I would like to let you know that Dave Docktor, the City’s Planning Arborist, is present this morning to respond to his recommendations on the tree sizes and also on the gateway planting issues. Mr. Patel: It is an Australian willow that we are planting along that edge. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 14 06-19-97 Mr. Alfonso: Are there other configurations to this frontage that were considered besides what we see before us? Mr. Patel: To tell you the truth, I do not know. Ms. Poncini: I could comment on the configuration. There are several aspects to it. One is to get a driveway pattern that echoes the sweep of the wings and the curved shape of the hotel, so that as you come up to drop off the car to the valet or to unload, you would make a nice sweep around through the parking lot so that the circulation pattem is improved. Also, in terms of the parking layout (and we are using all uni-stalls, by the way, to increase the number of parking spaces), the configuration is a combination of trying to keep a good circulation pattern through that parking lot and to maximize the number of cars. Also, with the patterning of trees, we are trying to create a sense of an orchard, trying to keep a grid of the trees as much as possible and have that work with the parking and have a nice planting screen at E1 Camino, and then a large green area back by the entrance to the hotel so that there is a softening between the hotel where you are walking out as a pedestrian and the parking areas. So it has been an evolutionary design at this point. Chairman Ross: Let me ask you one mundane question. Is there going to be a new electrical transformer for the project? Ms. Poncini: I don’t think so. Mr. Carrasco: They have a three single-phase transformer, and they are going to put one three- phase transformer there. That is the only thing I talked to the utility department, and they have fight now a three single phase transformer. Instead of that, they will be replacing it with one three-phase transformer in the same location. Chairman Ross: Since we do have Dave Docktor here, perhaps we can get a response to this question of tree box size. We encounter this frequently. City staff usually recommends the larger ones, and we get valid sounding arguments from applicants for smaller boxes. - David Docktor: I am Dave Docktor, and I am the Planning Arborist, and maybe I’ll have an answer. The trees that are installed will adapt to any planting area size that you create for them. If it is a 24-inch box, or a 36 or 48 or a 15-gallon, it is still going to put out the same amount of shoot growth. Nine inches for a healthy root environment will produce nine inches of foliage. The thing you get from a larger tree is an initial larger start and larger massing. A younger tree will not grow faster than an older tree. It is going to put out the same amount of shoot growth if the soil area is prepared properly. If you get above a 48-inch box tree, then you are getting into large transplant material, usually field grown, and that has a high mortality rate. It is generally unsuccessful, so the ISA and ASKA have determined that the most easily transplantable trees are from 15 gallon to a 48-inch box. That is why nurseries are starting to do quite a bit of stocking A: [ ARBVerbMin14290ECR.619 Page 15 06.19-97 of that size. So the key issue is whether the planting pit area is prepared well enough to accept the size tree. My original intent to have 36-inch box trees installed on site was to replace the loss of the big rows of Italian cypress, which to me are really substantial. You do not find them in the valley of that size any more. To me, that was a sad loss. A two-to-one replacement is like removing a big oak tree and putting in a two-to-one replacement with 15-gallon trees. It just doesn’t equate. The intent of 36-inch box trees is to properly place them around the site, not doing all parking lots with large trees. That was not my intent, but creating a variety of different size trees would be the proper way to go on this site. The magnolia trees almost have to go in that large front landscaped area. That is the only space available for. those trees. Those are fransplantable trees, but it will take considerable care to do that effectively. The comment to make all of the rest of the trees on site smaller than 24-inch box trees I think would be very much a mismatch of the site. The E1 Camino experience, if I may address that, is London plane trees up and down E1 Camino. Those are deciduous, and behind that, it would be nice to see a row of evergreens. I think the proposal is to have London plane out front, London plane all in the front center area, and a lot of deciduous canopy. It might be nice to mix that up with a little more variety. Again, maybe in some comer islands, some different sizes. Some could be 36-inch box trees, and the rest could be 24-inch. There are a lot of opportunities here. It is an exciting project. I like the orchard effect. That is nice. It would be nice to experience different seasons and different colors in different lots. You could do that with a Chinese Pistache. I agree with Frank that it would be nice to see some different types of~trees in the plant palette. There is a good opportunity to create different seasonal moods throughout the project. Chairman Ross; Thank you very much. Mr. Peterson: I have one more question related to the land, that is, the existing planting in the proposed new residential area adjacent to the existing single-family housing. Is there any protection intended for that existing planting? On this drawing, there appears to be a fair amount of growth. Mr. Jensen: Actually, in the part of the project that is being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, there is a whole section of review on the need to preserve those trees as a border. They provide a good buffer and backdrop. In fact, we are somewhat at odds with the applicant on this, because basically, the recommendation is to create some tree preservation easements along the back of those lots. They are concerned about the level of restriction on that. The city’s tree protection ordinance does not apply to any of the trees along there because they are not oaks. They are non-natives, but what we are recommending are tree protection easements. A: I ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 16 06-19-97 Mr. Peterson: Is that in here? Mr. Jensen: No, it is not in this report to you, because that portion of the project is not subject to ARB review at this time. Mr. Peterson: Because it is R-1. Mr. Jensen: That is correct. But it is part of the recommendation to the Planning Commission. In fact, on Page 8 of your report, which is part of the summary of the Planning Commission’s initial review, there is reference to the Planning Commission’s support for a tree protection easement along the borders. They did offer the project sponsor to look at other options, but they did support the staff’s suggestion. Mr. Peterson: But the landscape buffer adjacent to the tower on the opposite side is a part of this. Mr. Jensen: That is correct. What is required by the PC district is a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape strip and a solid fence five to eight feet in height. Mr. Peterson: Then let me direct a question to the landscape architect. He did. tell me what those trees are. My concern there is one of softening the sense of privacy. That is a large tower, and these are R-1 properties that probably going to have private development in the back. Will these trees provide any significant screening and privacy for those R-1 sites, in your opinion? Mr. Patel: I think they might not, and we can look into some other tree that might do that. ? Mr. Peterson: Is there any precedent for looking at a tree protection easement as a public benefit? Ms. Grote: Not as a public benefit. We have had tree protection easements such as at 315 Everett, but that was considered to preserve natural landscape features. That was before the tree protection ordinance, and. was not considered-a public benefit. Mr. Jensen: It was not considered a public benefit, but it was Something we would look at as a part of the environmental review, process. Ms. Grote: Tree preservation easements can be considered to help a project meet the ARB review standards of preserving natural landscaping features. Chairman Ross: I guess this particular one is not within our jurisdiction. If we are finished with questions, I will open the public heating. Seeing no one who wishes to speak, I Will retum this to the board for our discussion. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 17 06-19-97 Mr. Alfonso: I have to say, first and foremost, that I am quite sad that the cypress are being removed. I concur with the arborist and the fact that they are quite rare and unique in this area. But having said that, I have always interpreted that row of cypress really as an access toward the building as opposed to an access out of the building. In fact, I had always interpreted it as’ something that presented the tower and the entry, etc., which is a different concept from what is being proposed here, not a linear concept, but rather one of a grid which essentially homogenizes the forecourt of the building. ¯ The other issue is that what has happened is that in an attempt to articulate a circulation diagram with this notion of the orchard laid over it, I don’t think one needs to give total precedence to vehicles in the way that this is worked out. I think, for example, that this access could remain as a visual access in some respects, perhaps with planting materials, perhaps with pedestrian links so that people can get to their cars, rather than pedestrians having to loop around the vehicles. Maybe there are alternative routes that could be defined with paving, with planting, and perhaps, some of the cypress could remain in part, if possible. The appropriate use of evergreens and deciduous trees are relevant in terms of marking pathways, as well. Each time I have seen this project, what I see is less and less specific to this building and more of a generic parking program. I realizethat the designers are faced with the dilemma of fitting all these cars into a small lot with the franchise program that is put in place here. The spirit I am interpreting here is a fairly generic proposal. I cannot help but react negatively to that from the standpoint that this place has been here for a significant amount of time, and I would like it to be very specific to this location. The notion of the paving material and how that is executed and the species of trees and the way the pedestrian circulation works is really critical in making this place feel unique. I am looking for more than the standard shopping center parking lot, which is what I am seeing here. The concept of a gateway is a very nice one, and I. am really happy to see that. The issue that the arborist raised regarding the frontage to allow the color and have a greener backdrop is a very relevant and important thing so that in the winter months, you do not look at just tree trunks. Sycamores have a bad habit of folding their leaves so that you get a lot of brown foliage in the wintertime. It would be nice to have that mitigated with some other verdant areas. This is a very nice thing to be able to plant in those medians. I have always wanted to see more of that on E1 Camino. The number of parking spaces and the issue with regard to that, I think the Planning Commission’s concern and the proposal in the staff report I would agree with, .and to look at this in the longer term and see how it really works, just for fear of having this problem of not enough parking spaces. With respect to this border here, I don’t think that the Australian willows are going to work to mitigate the sides of the tower. You are going to need something much more substantial in mass A: [ ARBVerbMin14290ECR.619 Page 18 06-19-97 and height to do that, although the laciness of that plant material would be nice if it were interspersed. Again, here is the issue of becoming more specific to the areas, because this is quite a different character than that will be, so there does not need to be this kind of blanket palette throughout. In general, I understand what is being done in front, although I would encourage the designers to be less generic and more expressive. There are some,opportunities here besides just a blanket parking lot. I would encourage you to look at that more carefully. It is a good diagram, and the vehicular circulation certainly works, but right now, it is reading too much like a shopping center parking lot to me. That is troublesome. I do not have any particular problem with the roof proposal. I know we looked at that previously, and there were changes, and it has come back and forth. I feel it is appropriate, as shown in your diagrams, and I do not have any trouble with them, nor do I have trouble with the proposed small wall at the comer. Certainly protecting as much as possible any sound from getting through to the side yard is appropriate. If that will do the trick, then by all means, I have no trouble with that. I am glad to see this project at this stage and to be able to comment on it. This is a very critical part of the project. Thank you for bringing it before us for our comments. Ms. Piha: To expand upon some of Frank’s comments, I think that what I am troubled wi.’th here in the application is that the PC benefits are inadequate. The inadequacy-stems from an inadequate landscape plan and also an inadequate parking solution. I think the benefits that are you have identified are very insignificant in contrast to the gain you are getting as the developer of this property. The benefits are summarized to a welcome sign and two light posts. I cannot deal with that as being sufficient in terms of what you are asking for in this application. I feel what we are getting is that we are losing landscaped areas on E1 Camino and we are getting a big parking lot with asphalt paving material. That has been developed very inadequately, and will not suffice for the needs you are going to have at your hotel. I think your budget and financial projections that you are have evaluated for the use of the hotel are break-even projections, not actual usage projections. I think they are conservative estimates. This area is a very high demand area for hotel occupancy and meeting room space. I am sure you have studied that and are aware of that. It is obviously one of the reasons that has attracted you to this site. I don’t think you are being realistic about the parking requirements. Every body that has reviewed this has raised this as a concern. There is not anything provided here as a mitigation on your own property to solve that problem. So I am very concerned about that. I will not repeat the landscape concems, but they are numerous, and Frank has expanded upon them, as well as Dave Docktor. Frank hit upon something that is important. What you are trading off here is that you did have a very formal, axial entry that related to the building. Your A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 19 06-19-97 solution here has no relationship to the building. As Frank said, it is genetic. It is a shopping center solution. I am very troubled by that. So I am having a lot of difficulty in supporting what has been presented today. Mr. Peterson: Let me begin with the parking. It seems to me that what you are proposing for the parking appears to be a workable situation. I would encourage you to do what you are doing, because it ends up going in what I think is a direction, in which you are obviously going, that is, a better utilization of public property. I would much rather see housing, which we need badly, put in here in lieu of parking, so if the parking can work both for you and from the city’s point of view, I think you are going in the tight direction. My qualms here are that if a few years down the road, we find that it does not work, then you are in a position where you cannot do anything about it. So some sort of contingency plan, both short- and long-term, seems appropriate here. So I would like to see that established here. I do think the change in use from an asphalt parking lot to housing is the direction in which we need to be going. We have a limited amount of space, and the population is increasing. We would rather have housing than parking, so I think you are going the tight way, and I support what you are doing. On the parking and traffic scheme in the front, I agree that Frank has put his finger on something here. It seems to me that your solution for the automobile is a good one, but it does look like you have an opporttmity to create an access which could be the pedestrian access. Once they get out of the car, they have to get to the lobby somehow. That would be an opportunity to create a nice access, maybe one coming into the lobby area. That is something that needs to be worked on. The public benefits in the area that I think we ought to encourage you to take advantage of with what you have here -- this is a public building. You are going to have a lot of guests from out of town. It is a perfect opportunity to provide an art program. There is a lot of lip service for art programs. I would like to see an art program here that isn’t a wall or a fence or some individual item, but an art program that really integrates art with the whole design concept. You could look at such things as they have at the San Francisco Airport where they have an ongoing, revolving art program. You will have hundreds of people coming in here all the time from out of town, and it would be a wonderful oppommity to make an impact on those visitors. I like the idea that there is art available in the public spaces, in the landscaping, and in the building itself. That obviously relates to the public benefits that you are proposing at the entryway to Palo Alto with the redwoods growth there. I think that is a very nice idea. I am ~oncemed about the lighting fixture. Cheryl is tight that a single lamp there would be less than significant. I am not sure whether the one you are proposing in that situation on El Camino will even register. They could just speed tight by it. A light sentinel of some sort there is desirable, but I think it needs to be even more than your proposal. That could relate to an art program concept. On the residential, I think the area on which it would have any impact is that screen between the A: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 619 Page 20 06-19-97 tower and the proposed residential sites. That really needs to be significant, because that tower is going to be looming over those buildings, so some sort of stepped screen there, perhaps. Maybe you could provide more area than ten feet. That is not very much for the scale of this building. So I would encourage you to look at more width and a stepped landscape screen of some sort. I am certainly in support of this project. I am delighted to see it. Chairman Ross: I will throw in my support of this prpject also. I think it does have a number of areas that could be improved. Frank and Bob both touched upon the lack of an axial entry feature that could provide a lot of visual interest and would also recognize the pedestrian a little bit. I don’t know ira great number of people are going to be coming to the hotel from E1 Camino and back again, but I think that even visually, it would be nice to introduce some kind of element that allows that and allows people to travel to their cars. It is always one of those difficult things in large shopping center parking lots, particularly when there is a large landscape plan in the parking islands. The question is, how do you actually walk around it? Do you have to follow the same path as the cars, or can you cut through somewhere? This oval shaped entry is the perfect place to put an access for pedestrians that would get them very efficiently to their cars, and maybe give an opportunity for allowing some continued reference to the relationship of the site d~sign to the building. : I very much like the orchard idea, and I agree with Frank and the planning arborist that a variety. of trees can provide a little bit more of a varied experience, particularly through the different seasons, and not just different trees in different locations for different purposes, but a little bit of ¯ mixing of trees. I also agree with Frank that the willows give a nice, lacy feeling, but they probably will not solve the screening problem. So a combination of willows and something else that is a better screen would be wonderful back there. It sounds to me like this is a plan that has a lot of room to develop, and it will do that before we see it the next time. I expect that when it comes back again, we will have the planning arborist and the applicants all on the same page about tree sizes, etc. It sounds like there is a lot of flexibility there instead of just a blanket 36-inch box or 48-inch box, but a variety of sizes and species that are appropriate for the locations. I do think that the site plan is a large improvement over the existing site plan, so I want to make sure that you know my feelings about that, except that I feel it can improve further. On the parking issues, I am very confident that this has been analyzed well. Staff has put in quite a bit of effort, in addition to the studies provided by the applicant. So I am comfortable with sUpporting the staff recommendations and conditions here. I am not as concerned as I would have been if there were easy access to the neighborhoods. As the applicant has pointed out, since there is no access to the neighborhoods, there is a very strong self-interest here that will push them hard to provide extra parking somewhere through some mechanism, whether through valet parking or a second level in some spot that they would not otherwise have as a motivation if A: I ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 619 Page 21 06-19-97 there were spillover parking available nearby. If there is a problem here, it will not be pushed off into the neighborhoods. So that is a good thing for both sides. On the architectural side, I am glad to finally see the revised roof screen and peak roofs. We have been waiting for that for awhile, and I know that it had to be a part of this application rather than the previous applications. I am glad that they are before us now and can be incorporated into the project. I have no problem at all with the w~rll. It serves a good function, and it is incidental to the design. On the building sign, I want to make sure that it is well understood by everyone that regarding the sign that exists now, we on the board feel it is a compromise and a temporary reuse of an existing frame that is both oversized and not as well designed as it could be if you were starting from scratch. We all anticipate here that the existing sign frame, even if it is lowered, is not going to be reused and simply have a new sign face applied for the new affiliation so that the plastic comes off and a Crown Plaza plastic face goes on. What we are going to be 1oo .king for when that signage comes through is a complete redesign that relates well to the building and to the E1 Camino Design Guidelines and the site improvements that you are putting through here. That existing sign would not serve well as a permanent sign, so I want to reinforce that. We have been allowing it to continue, but it will ultimately need to change. If I had any concerns-at all about parking, I would say it relates to employee parking. I did not see that called out as a specific item in the performance plan for par’king. It would be useful to include a review in that plan as to whether the employee parking that is provided is adequate when those reports are made, or if, in fact, a lot of the potential guest parking is being used by employees. I am ready to believe that they have this question solved, but I think it should be reported on. Regarding the public benefit issues, I have never quite figured out how to calculate what level of public benefits are appropriate. My sense usually is that if someone is getting extraordinary relief from standard requirements or if they are putting extraordinary stress on the local environment, there should be extraordinary public benefits provided to mitigate those, tn my view, this is not an extraordinary situation, so it comes down to the more technical requirement that any public Planned Community zone change has a requirement for public art. So rather than commenting on the adequacy of the specific public benefits, I just want to say that I don’t think the entitlement, if you will, to continue using the site as a hotel is such a great stress on the system that it requires tremendously expensive public benefits. This site is in a great location to provide an opportunity for some gateway features to the city. I very much appreciate the comments that Bob made about art. There is nothing like an art program to improve a public setting. My personal opinion is that the project itself, by its very nature, does not demand a great number of benefits. So I support this project overall. There are a lot of conditions associated with it, the greatest of A: [ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 22 06-19-97 which is a completed landscaping plan, but I would be prepared to support a motion to approve the project with those conditions, most of which have been anticipated by staff. We have a number of issues here about which I would like to ask my colleagues. On the issue of the variance findings for exceeding the height limit, does anyone have a problem with those variance findings? The building already exceeds the height limit. The question is whether it can further exceed it in the provision of these peaks. It is, necessary to include in our motion the approval and adoption of those findings. MOTION: Chairman Ross: I move the staff recommendation, which is that we recommend to the City Council approval of the attached environmental assessment, the mitigated negative declaration, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Technically, is that where the parking performance plan falls, or is that a separate item? Mr. Jensen: That is actually under the PC district, but it is all pretty much the same. Chairman Ross: And also to include the approval of the PC district rezoning. This is currently the PC size, so we are not changing the size of it. Also the variance findings for exceeding the height limit, approval of the site and building improvements, and attachment of the staff conditions. I would note that we had quite a bit of discussion about tree box size for plantings, which seemed to be the major issue that the applicant has with the staff conditions. Since that is coming back before us any rate, I suggest that that be worked out between the planning arborist and the applicant so that we are not asked to rule on box size when we make the final motion. One very minor change to the staff condition in the parking performance plan is to include a report on whether the employee parking is adequate. Mr. Peterson: How do we dealing with the public benefits? Chairman Ross: I think what we do is to incorporate our comments on them. Ms. Grote: Right, you will incorporate your comments on them. If you are recommending approval of the PC district rezoning, it does list those public benefits in that PC ordinance. You would be commenting on those benefits. Mr. Jensen: Attachment 1 (a), the PC findings and the conditions, lists what were found to be public benefits under Pages l(a)-I and l(a)-2. Primarily, the street lighting, the center median landscaping and the gateway landscaping are improvements. Mr. Peterson: The reason I raise that question is that I would like to see some consideration by the applicant for inclusion of an art program. Chairman Ross: That will be included in the verbatim minutes-which I assume will be prepared. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 23 06-19-97 When it comes to public benefits, I don’t know that we actually have the authority to compel a public benefit that has not been offered. I think we can suggest it as an idea, and it is something that probably would be approved if it were offered. I don’t know that we can tell someone that they have to provide a particular public benefit. Ms. Grote: That is correct. You cannot tell them to provide it, but you can suggest or recommend that they consider it. ¯ Chairman Ross: I am happy to include that in my motion as a strong recommendation. Have I missed anything? Ms. Piha: You mentioned tree size and species, but what about a pedestrian linkage? Chairman Ross: I would include paving materials, particularly in the front oval-shaped parking lot and consideration of pedestrian access. Mr. Peterson: And the landscaping screen adjacent to the proposed residential area. SECOND: By Boardmember Peterson. Chairman Ross: All those in favor? Opposed? That passes on a vote of 3-1, with Ms. Piha voting no. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing a landscaping plan. A: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.619 Page 24 06-19-97 ATTACHMENT #3 GLENBROOK COURT LOT AREAS Total Site Area Lo_._~t Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Dimensions 52 x 117 x 53 x 149 x 60x 136 x 55 x 106 x 66x117x .60 x 124 x 60 x 122 x 56x117x 42 x 115 x 39 x 66 x 1 57 x 115 x 60x119x 61 x120x 55 x 120 x 141,123 -Ft.Area-Sq0Ft. 88 x 33 x 149 10,906 96 x 136 10,333 84 x 106 7,666 104 x 104 ’,’8,008 97 x 124 9,593 60 x 122 7,393 60 x 117 7,266 69 x 115 7,256 66 x 143 x 66 9,963 43 x 69 x 115 10,166 70 x 119 7,391 61 x 120 7,296 61 x 120 7,295 83 x 117 7,969 Public Street R/W 12/19/96 Acreage 0.250 0.237 0.176 0.184 0.220 0.170 0.167 0.167 0.229 0.233 0.170 0.167 0.167 0.183 TOTAL R-1 118,501 2.720 22,622 0.519 TOTAL SITE 141,123 3.240 ATTACHMENT #3A Sectilon 3,03. A[[Ir~atlve Covenant Each Owner of Lots I through incluslve shall preserve, protect, and maintain any and all existing trees his or he~ Lot along the Western property llne to the satisf~tlon of the ArChitectural Committee of the Association. All site landscaping shall be designed to pres~rv~ and protect said trees. Notwithstanding the above, any t:e@s that are not healthy may be removed ~pon the approval of an arboris~’s report by said Architectural Committee. Any trees that are remove~ shall be rep~a~ed ~ith trees approved by sai~ Architectural Committee so as to imsure privacy between the residents of th~ subdivision known as Tract 792~ Green Acres, referred to herein and Lots ~ thrOUgh ~0, inclusive., Equitable So~vi tudes Section 3,04. The covenants and restrictions set forth ~n this Declara%~n shall be enforceable ~quitable servitudes and shall inure to ~he benefit of a~d bind all Owners. These Servitudes mayDe e~forc~d by ~ny Owner. ATTACHMENT #4 Proposed Public Benefit Statement for PC District (12-19-96, revised 3-25-97, 4-8-97 and 5-23-97) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings .required by this Section, the Planning Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the Planned Community District’. Benefit I; Reduce amount of PC zoned land; increase amount of R-I zoned land in City of Palo Alto. The major public benefit is to subdivide off 3.24 acres of asphalt parking lot to create 14 single-family residential lots. This benefit results from actually reducing the amount of area dedicated to a PC Zone (underlying CS zone) in Palo Alto and to create MORE R-I Zone area, thus bringing more land into conformance with established zoning districts. Benefit 2: Aesthetic improvement of the existing roofline by adding hip roof forms to.stair towers and equipment screen. Reduce size of equipment screen. Public benefit is also realized when the flat roofs on the stair towers and the elevator equipment enclosure are replaced with hip roof coverings. These hip roofs will provide an aesthetic benefit to the public by allowing the building to touch the sky in a more gracious manner, as well as completing the aestheticstatement which relates to traditional roof forms in Palo Alto and at Stanford University. Benefit 7: Remov~l of large ~sphalt harking lot and replacementwith open land for R-I residential use. The community is aesthetically benefitted.by removing over 3 acres of parking Which is essentially an existing "sea of asphalt" with no interior landscaping. In its pl~ce will (ultimately) be 14 single family homes with’individually landscaped yards. The increased amount and variety of landscaping will create a cooler environment, improve the appearance of the area, and establish a more inviting habitat for birds, butterflies, bees and other wildlife. By replacing an existing parking lot with landscaped single-family properties, there will be a decrease in the amount of traffic noise, dust, car headlights, and other commercial-related activities of that parking lot which would otherwise impact adjacent existing residents. Benefit 4: Reduce existing negativ~ effects on creek. Removal of the parking lot also reduces the potential of pollutants flowing to the creek, which is a~benefit not only to the immediate community, but to the overall health of the creek itself. The portion of the creek presently bordered by parking wi%l be bordered by residential backyards. At the Caba~a property, new plantings will be 12/19/96 PCZ compatible with the existing riparian habitat at the Creek. Benefit 5: Creation o~ ,qat~way" landscape feature for so~th~rl~ entrance to Palo Altomn E1 ~amino Real. An additional benefit to the City of Palo Alto is the~creation of a "gateway" landscape feature at the Southeasterly corner of the site. A feature grove of trees will be planted between Adobe Creek and the front parking lot near the E1 Camino Real undercrossing of the creek. This "gateway" will serve to announce arrival into Palo Alto, and help to differentiate Palo Alto from other cities as one moves along E1 Camino, where all cities tend to run together. This meets city objectives to improve the visual character of South E1 Camino Real. It also furthers the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan gateway concept for the E1 Camino Real crossing of Adobe Creek. Benefit6: Improve relationship of main site entrance driveway to Dinah’s Court and to E1 Camino Real. By realigning the main driveway into the Caba~a site, a better relationship ~will .be created with Dinah’s Court across E1 Camino Real. As stated in the DKS Parking Study-, the 90 degree intersection of the new entry drive with E1 Camino Real ±mproves traffic flow to and from E1 Camino. ~ ~enefit-7:’ C0ntribu£e fundihg for a street planting and pedestrian amenities design study for both sides of E1 Camino Real from Adob~ Creek to Arastradero Road. ~ The area of E1 Camino Real between Adobe Creek and Arastradero Road is essentially "hotel row" and needs a cohesive design plan to encourage pedestrians to walk between hotels, restaurantsand related services in this zone. E1 Camino continues to be a pedestrian-hostile environment which needs thoughtful planning to improve its potential as a "promenade" A street planting and pedestrian amenities design study by the City Planning Department could provide a design concept plan to create a substantially enhanced entry into Palo Alto. This design study could illustrate a vision for the "hotel row" segment of E1 Camino Real, where pedestrians could feel comfortable -- perhaps walking through a double row of trees on each side of the street. Such a "promenade" could announce entrance to Palo Alto as well as improving the image for all businesses along this stretch of E1 Camino. As public benefit, the applicant proposes to donate $20,000 to fund such a design plan (to be prepared by the City). This will accelerate the process of improving E1 Camino more quickly than would otherwise Occur. REVISIONS TO PUBLIC BENEFITS PROPOSED3/26/97 A. Based upon discussions with City staff, an alternate Public Benefit Number 7, as described below,would be acceptable to the Applicant: Alternate Benefit7~ Add trees. ~nting and irriga~io~umo the ~Zamino Real in froE~t of the Caba~a propert~_~ In lieu of donating $20,000 to fund a design plan for the stretch of E1Camino between Adobe Creek and Arastradero Road, the Applicant would plant the E1Camino median strip with trees and ground cover, and irrigate the median. A planted median will soften the impression of E1Camino and would help to announce entrance to Palo Alto. By planting the median, particularly with trees, the visual scale of E1 Camino’s broad width would be reduced. This would also improve the image for all businesses on either side of E1Camino. If one portion of E1 Camino is actually planted as part of the PC Zone improvements, it wil! encourage other developers to do similar planting, as well as set a positive direction for enhancing E1Camino Real through Palo Alto. Planting of the median would be dependent upon the City’s assisting in getting approvals from CalTrans and upon the Utilities Department’s beins able to provide water service to the median. It would be very important that planting of the median would not delay the P C Zone chan~e p~oject in any way; thus, the Applicant ~ould want to work c~osely with the City to determine all the parameters for accomplishing the median planting. B. Additional information regardi~blic Benefit #8: (Add light fixtures to each end of the E1Camino Real overcrossin~ of Adobe Creek.) The Applicant will coordinate with the Utilities Department (Mr. Taha Fattah) for the types of lighting fixtures which are available through the City’s stock of acceptable fixtures. In conjunction with meeting with UDilities, the Applicant could also coordinate with the City Architect, for style and type of fixture desired. It would be assumed that the C~y would bring the power to the bridge ends, then the Applicant would purchase the fixtures and have them installed. It is also assu~ed that the City would be responsible for maintenance of the ££xtures as well as the monthly utility cost for the power. Jun-O5-97 O9:2OA P.O2 PiaS~O i~LTO C~ -_....P C ZONE CHANCRE PJ~VISIONS & ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC BENEFITS PROPOSED 4/8/97 512319? 1 A. Based upon constr~iIlts related to the median in front of the Caba~a, revisions will be required to Public Benefit Number 7, as described below: Alternate Benefit 7: Ad~.infill trees~.~ rejuvenat~ild repai~ 9~~i//i~gation in the E1 Camino Real median betwe@n the Cab@~a intersection and Ricky’s driy@way. Background: The Applicant previously proposed to plant trees and shz~bs in the median immediately in front of the Caba~a (from the Caba~a intersection South into LOS Altos). Subsequent research has revealed several conflicts with being able to plant this medlan. The conflicts are: Most of the median is in LOS Altos; thus, that area cannot be landscaped as part of Public Benefit to Palo Alto. There is no existing irrigation nor power in the median. Santa Clara Valley Water District will not currently allow any planting except shrubs in areas over their proposed culvert under E1 Camino Real. This median has a substantial area over the culvert. Any planting which might be added to the median at this time would be destroyed when SCVWD constructs the culvert. Solution: The Applicant proposes to upgrade the landscaping in ~he longer median which runs from the Caba~a intersection north to Ricky’s driveway. This median currently has quite a bit of landscape, includin~ trees and shrubs; however, there are some gaps and some of the shrubs need improving and replacing. It is understood that there is existing irrigation in this median, but it needs repair. The Applicant proposes to design and repair t~e irrigation system, replace the backflow preventers~ update the control system and add 4 new 24" box trees in the "spaces"~in the existing planting. The trees proposed are Pines, of the same species as existing, to blend wi~h the existi~ng planting ±n the median. The shrubs would be selected from the City’s approved list of plant materials for El Camino Real. All plans would be subject to approval by the City Architect, City Arborist and Public Works. The Applicant would agree to maintain the new plantings for a two-year period; at that time, the City would be responsible for on-go!ngmaintenance of the plantings. Benefits of the median upgrades are as follows: An improved median will soften the impression of E1Camino and would help to announce entrance to Palo Alto. By improving the planting i~l themedian, particularly with trees, the visual scale of El Camino’s broad width would be reduced. This would also improve ~|le image for all businesses on either side o~ E1 Camino. If a portion of E1 Camino is upgraded as Dart of the PC Zone improvements, it will encourage other developers to do similar planting, as well as S~t a positive direction for enhancing E1 Camino Real through Palo Alto. :U~I-~-97 THU 10:43 AM Jun-OS-97 Og:20A P.03 Future: The Applicant would like to plant Sycamore trees and appropriate shrubs in the median immediately in front of the Caba~a, if that becomes feasible in future due to changes in policy from SCVWD. This planting would only be done if irrigation and power lines could be installed during construction of the SCVWD culvert and only AFTER the SCVWD has 9_Qm_Dleted their new culvert construction under E10amino Real. Note: Planting of the media~s would be dependent upon the City’s assisting in getting any required approvals from CalTrans and upon the Utilities Department’s being able to provide water and power service to the "future" median. The Applicant would want to work closely with the City to determine all the parameters for accomplishing the median planting. B. Due to the physical location of the bridge rails in both Palo Alto and Los Altos, it is necessary to revise Public Benefit #8 (Add light fixtures to each end of the E1 Camino Real overcrossing of Adobe Creek) to keep the light fixtures JJl Palo Alto only. Revision to Public Benefit #8: Place two decorat.~ve street light fixtur@s near the bridgg_~nd8 at the E1Camino overcrossing of Adobe Cree_k~. As the bridge rails at the overcrossing are staggered across E1 Camino Real, the end of one side is in Palo Alto and the end of the other side is in Los Altos. In addition, there is an existing mature tree on the southeast corner of the eastern bridge rail. This presents difficulties in adding light fixtures to both ends of each bridge railing, as previously proposed. The Applicant proposes to place a large~, more decorative light fixture at one end of each bridge rail such that the light £ixtures are across from each other on either side of E1 Camino Real and both are located in Palo Alto. This solution is illustrated on the attached plan and sketch. By making the fixtures, more decorative and larger, they will have more presence and announce the entrance to Palo Alto in a more positive manner. The Applicant has met with the Utilities Department (Mr. Taha Fattah) to review the types of lighting fixtures which are available through the City’s stock of fixtures. As a larger, more decorative fixture is not in the City’s stock, the proposed.fixtures will need to be approved by Utilities as to maintenance, etc. The Applicant will also coordi~ate with the City Architect, for design acceptability for E1Camino Real. If the proposed decorative fixture is not acceptable to Utilities, the fixtures will be changed to the City standard, single globe light fixture. It would be assumed that the City would bring the power to the bridge ends, then the Applicant.would purchase the fixtures and have them installed. It is also assumed that the City would be responsible for on-going maintenance of the fixtures as well as the monthly utility cost for the power. JUN-5-97 THU 10’43 C.Additional Public Benefit: Public Benefit #9: Constr~ct a new Palo Alto city limits/w@icome sign and place it near the gateway grove of redwood trees on the Caba~a site. The Applicant proposes to provide a "welcome to Palo Alto" sign and install it at the gateway grove of redwood trees being planted at the southeast corner of the Cabana site. The sign would be of the City standard design and materials and would be installed in accordance with the City’s requirements. It is felt that the effort of creating a "gateway" grove of trees would be enhanced by placing a Palo Alto sign at the point on E1 Camino Real where the City actually begins. Present signage on E1 Camino Real is located further North on the street, not actually at the City limit. In summary, the Applicant feels that Public Benefits No. 7, 8 and 9 will create a southern gateway to Palo Alto at El’Camino Real. This gateway will begin to define Palo Alto as distinctive from neighboring cities along E1 Camino Real, as well as enhance the street itself. 4290 ELCAMINO REAL - PC ZONE CHANGE Palo Alto Cabana and Glenbrook Court DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE RECEIVED JUN ~ ?397 Rew 6/3/97 TASK ’ Submit Application, including Subdivision (includes Tentative Map) Received Notice of Incomplete Resubmit additional documentation per NOI City -- Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review period Draft Staff Report for Planning Commission Change by Planning Director Planning Commission Hearing ARB Hearing Planning Commission 2nd Hearing City Council Hearing Second Reading Effective Date of PC Zone Change Submit Landscape & minor arch’l drawings .~ (to Building Dept. outside plan check) Submit Civil Drawings for Plan Check (to Public Works & CalTrans) Receive Plan Check comments Plan Check/Backcheck documents to Bldg. Dept. Obtain City approval of Final Subdivision Map Record Final Subdivision Map and Obtain Building Permit(s) DATE 9/30/96 done 10/31/96 done 12/19/96 done 3/19/97 done 3/20-4/30/97 4/10/97 done 4/30 (orig) to 6/11 6/11/97 6/19/97 7/9/97 8/11/97 9/i/97 lO/1/97 12/3/97 12/3/97 3/3/98 4/1/98 5/1/98 5/15/98 Construction of Glenbrook Court and Reconstruction of Caba~a parking and landscape 6/1/98 start 5/15/99 complete STEPHEN W. PLAYER May 13, 1997 Mr. Paul Jensen 55 Mitchell Boulevard, Suite 16 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re:4290 E1 Camino Real (Cabana Hotel} Public Bct~C_fits Dear Paul: In order to assist in reaching final resolution on the Cabana Project at the May 14 staff meeting, on behalf of the applicant, I am submitting herewith the following related to the public benefit portion of the Planned Community application. As you and I have discussed, this is somewhat of a unique situation in that the renovation of the Hotel and its upgrade and restoration to a productive asset has been considered as part of the Planned Community Zone Minor Amendment; and, therefore, many of the benefits which would normally accrue from such an upgrade, such as the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the voluntary seismic upgrade and full sprinklering have not been and will not be credited as part of the applicant’s public benefit package. However, e~,en though technically in staff’s opinion the foregoing does not count, the fact remains that a valuable asset which was nonproductive for City purposes will now be completely restored and be a positive benefit and addition to the South Palo Alto area. It will provide badly needed hotel rooms to this community, and will be seismically upgraded at the voluntary election of the applicant. Be that as it may, I have taken an opportunity to review the public benefit package proposed by the applicant and your responses thereto as contained in your draft Staff Report of April 9, 1997, as required by the amendment to the PC Zone. As you know, this application is for the operation of a hotel complex, and but for the fact that the land area of the hotel parcel will be reduced, the present existing PC, Ordinance 2006, providing for the establishment, use and operation of a hotel complex could be maintained. However, there will also be changes in standards as to on site parking, signage and building height, and these changes will be reflected in the new PC Zone. Nevertheless, when determining what is an appropriate public benefit for such changes, it is my understanding that a rezoning of the subject property to CC or CS District would require less restrictive spatial standards than what is being required under the existing PC. The adoption of a Hotel overlay, combined with a zone of CC or CS, would actually permit a more intense development and greater site coverage than is contemplated by the present development. I believe that the amount of public benefit required should be considered in view of the previous context. 2600 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 410 PALO ALTO, CA 94306 415 494-9102 FAX: 415 856-8448 Mr. Paul Jensen May 13, 1997 Page 2 It is the opinion of the applicant that the public’benefit package proposed is fair and i:easonable in that it is comparable to public benefit packages which have been allowed in similar developments of this type, and that the project proposes a parking ratio of 1.25, reduction of rooms, and contains the project within the CS(H) FAR. Your staff report reviews each of the benefits proposed by the applicant and finds that although the hotel is aesthetically improved and contains certain improvements which, hopefully, will benefit the area as a whole, the benefits are not strictly public benefits within the meaning and application of the Code. You and I might debate this conclusion, but I do think there is agreement that what will be constructed is an improvement over what is there at the present time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, discussions have been ongoing with staff which have resulted in additional benefits being provided over those which were originally proposed in the submittal by the applicant dated 12/19/96. These specific improvements provide for street tree planting and irrigating of a portion of the E1 Camino Real center median. The applicant will also add four street light fixtures along the El Camino Real Bridge crossing over Adobe Creek as a public benefit. The applicant will work-closely with the City in constructing such lighting in accordance with all applicable City codes and standards to make the bridge more pedestrian friendly. - In addition, I have been authorized by the applicant to propose as an added public benefit the funding of the construction by the City of a sign welcoming people to Palo Alto. The nature of such sign design can be worked out in accordance with City standards and in a manner that will be most pleasing and enhance the character of the southern entry to the City on E1 Camino Real. It is my opinion that combining all of the above specific benefits which the applicant is offering, in addition to the project as a whole, that staff can recommend that there is adequate public benefit for this project. If you wish additional information, please feel free to let me know. Thank you for your consideration to this request. SWP:pw ec: B.B. Patel Tony Carraseo STEPHEN W. PLAYER ATTACHMENT #4A 21 May, 1997 Tony Carrasco Carrasco and Assoc, Architects 120 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, Calif. 94301 Re: Street Tree Types E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto Dear Tony: As per our telephone conversation of Tuesday, May 20, 1997, I am writing to offer my input regarding street tree plantings on E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto. As you know, my interest in this matter goes back to the late 70’s, early 80’s when, as a member of the Barron Park Association, we. sub- mittedlrecommendations to the Palo Alto ARB regarding tree varieties for the street. At that time, our first choice was the London Plane Tree(Platanus acerifolia), but an inferior variety, Liquidambar styraciflua, was agreed upon. Thank goodness Dave Sandage, the City Arborist, came along and subsequently it was pointed out that due to shallow roots and heaving sidewalks, the Liquidambar was not the proper choice. Fortunately, Dave was able to use ~the London Plane Tree as the primary tree in plantings at the south end of E1 Camino Real in Town and as you can see, it has done quite well in a somewhat hostile urban en- vironment. No heaving sidewalks and shallow root problems even though the tree is planted in pockets as small as 2 ft. by 3 ft. If one has traveled in Europe or in other areas of similar climate in the world, he or she would soon realize that the Plane Tree is the most common street tree used. From Paris, France to Erevan, Armenia, this is the tree that persists and does very well with few pests and minimum maintenance. As a Landscape Architect with over 30 years experience in specifying trees, I cannot think of a better variety to use on the E1 Camino, either in the median where there is ample space for the tree to grow, or on the sidewalk as previously planted. Its’ ease of maintenance and pruning in particular, would make it easy to avoid conflicts be- tween traffic and branches. I strongly recommend its’ use in the me- dian and encourage one to visualize the positive impact of this succes- ful urban tree in a triple row setting on the E1 Camino: Sincerely, 922 MATADERO AVENUE PALOALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 415-493-0664 FAX 415-493-0639 ATTACHMENT #4B (5) Hadco #S5381 globes Sternberg Milford #650 pole 14’ high, tapered, and fluted Sterbergbrackets L ~IVED 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ¯ TAX 415 322 2316 ATTACHMENT #5 PARKING CABANA PERFORMANCE PLAN HOTEL, PALO ALTO FOR prepared for Carrasco and Associates DKS A~-~ociates April 9, 1997 DKS Associates PARKING PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR CABANA HOT’F~I, This Parking Performance Pl~u) has be.¢t) pre[’~ared by DKS Associates as par~ of the conditions of approval for a Plenn~ Community District Amendment for the Cabana Hotel Subdivision project, locat~ a~ 4290 El Camino R~] in Pale Alto, California. ~s~ on the Tr~c and Parking St~ for Cab~ ~o~1 (D~ Ass~iates, December 17, 1996) ~d subsequent su~eys ~nduct~ by the City of Pale Alto, the pro~s~ p~ng supply of 284 st~lls would b~ ~dequate m a~mm~at~ hotel and se~ice facilities paring during non-pc~k and normal bu~ncss ~dods. The City of Pale Alto has c~om=n¢nd~ a p~hng ratio of ~r~ng spa~s ~r hotel guest room ~o accommodate ~R s~son conditions. The paring ratio of 1.5 spac~ ~r room would r~uire 296 paring spa~s, or 12 n~otc titan the pressed 284 parking spaces. The Cabana Hotel wo=J]d he, marketed as an up-scale business/corporate c~nter. Pt~t~k meeting occupancy times wo~zld he 8:~ ,~.M. m 5:~ p.M. from Monday to "J’h~=rsday, w~th ~,~tings organized tv accommodate hotel guests, S~ial events at the Cabana Hotel would be accommodated dunng off-~ak m~ing hours on Fridays and Saturdays. There would bc a~ ~ticipated ~svnal variation at the Cabana 8ot¢1, wi~h Decem~r as the ~k month. In order to accommodate 284 parked vehicles on-site, this Parking Performance P/an has been developed fo~ those peak tirn~g when a ~te~ti~l parking shorthli may be r~ii~d. The elements of this plan ~nsist of th~ following measures: 1.Valet Parking There are 37 tandem parking spaces pcop~s~ as part of the project, In the event of particularly heavy parking demand, valet parking could be us~ as a way of offsetting a potential parking supply deficit. ~xtend~ hours of valet parking operation shall be imp|emended during the Cabana Hotel’s peak season. Scheduling of Events In order to avoid parking overlap, Ihe management of the Cabana t.lotel shall schedu|e mec6ngs, events and activities at staggered intervals. This would erasure that parking turnover is maximizeO, and patrons and guests have awilab~t~ p~ging a~ all times duciag periods oi" peak hotel gust room occupancy. BKS Associates 3,On Demand Shuttle Service The Cabana hotel shall operate a year-round van’/shutde service for hotel guests, The shuttle, service shall provide service to major hcilities in the area, including airport.s, the Santa Clam Cot,nty Convention Center and other meeting facilitie.s. If possible, patrons should be made aware or this service before arriving at the hotel. 4.’On-Site Parking Restrictions No parking shut| be permitted in any of the fire and travel lanes at any time. This measure would maintain proper on-site circulation for a]} vehicles, and ensure emergency vehicles would have continuous access throughout the site. 5.Off-Site Parking Rest fictions No hotel parking shall be permitted on neighboring residential streets at any time, inclt~ding Glenbrook Drive, Los Palos Avenue and Pomona Avenue. 6,Submission (.)f Hotel Schedule For Review Upon request by City of Pain Alto staff, the Cabana Hotel sh&I! submit a schedule of events and activities for city review. This mea.~ure is designed to e~sure that any overlap in peak periods at the hotel is minimized. 7.Status Reports on Parking Performance Plan The Cabana Hotel shall have a traffic engine.or prepare two status reports on how successful the Parking Performance Plan has been. The lirst report shall be submitt~ to the City of Palo Alto for staff review l’ollowing the first full peak ,season of operation, or within seven months of PC District adoption, whichever is first, The second status report shall be submitted within 18 montl~s of PC District adoption. DKS Associates If the two status reports find that during peak periods of hotel operation, a parking overflow ~nditi.on is experienced, City of Pale Alto staff would refer the matter to the Planning Commission along with recommended contingency measures (for example, securi~8 additional rear, me/off-site parking spaces) and/or recommended amendments to the PC Di~tri¢~. ~onclusion The measuzes of this Parking Performanc~ Plan would alleviate adverse parking and on-site traffic and circulation impacts. These measures are spe.c[fieally recommended for the Cabana Hotel Subdivision project so that large meetings oa~d full occupancy o~ guest rooms would not result in a parking Ocficit, or traffic overflowing onto local streets. -Cityof PaloAlto Depa~nent of Plq.nning and Com~nunihy Environnwzt May 15, 1997 ATTACHMENT #6 Planning Division Tony Carrasco Carrasco & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Below Market Rate (BMR)’ Agreement for Glenbrook Court Dear Tony: You have proposed an in-lieu fee agreement for the fourteen lot Glenbrook Court subdivision at 4290 E1 Camino Real in satisfaction of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) are in agreement that in-lieu fees are appropriate rather than the provision of a lot within the subdivision. This letter describes the BMR Agreement for housing mitigation in-lieu fees as discussed in our meeting of April 3, 1997:and detailed in my letter dated April 16, 1997. The total housing mitigation fee will be collected in two stages based on: a.) the appraised value of the vacant lots, and b.) the estimated value of the improvements to be constructed. 2. The housing mitigation fee on the vacant lots shall be equal to 5 % (five percent) of the sum of the appraised value of each of the 14 tots as determined in item 3, below. 3. The total appraised value shall be determined based on the fair market value of each lot, as a fully improved and ready to build residential lot, as determined by an independent appraiser selected by the City. The City shall be given at least 60 days notice prior to the date the appraisal information is required. The cost of the appraisal will be paid by the applicant. 250HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA94303 415.329. 2441 415.329.2240Fax Page 2 4. The housing mitigation fee on all fourteen vacant lots must be paid to the City prior tO City Council approval of the final subdivision map. 5. A further mitigation fee based on the estimated value of the proposed improvements shall be paid at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each lot. This fee shall be equal to 5 % (five percent) of the value of the improvements as determined using the most recent International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Building Standards, "Building Valuation Data" in effect as of the date of the building permit application. The calculation shall use the "good" cost per square foot figure and the San Francisco area regional modifier (currently 1.13) applied to the greater of 1,750 square feet or the actual total square footage of improvements shown on the plans submitted to the City for the building permit. The total square footage of improvements shall include basement space unless the basements are semi-finished or unfinished, in which case the lower basement rates specified in the ICBO data shall be used. Square footage in garages shall be calculated using the ICBO rate for wood frame garages. 6. The mitigation fee described under item 5 above shall be increased by an additional amount equal to 40% (forty percent) of the ICBO valuation, in order to account for estimated soft costs, fixtures, finishing details, appliances and floor coverings, etc. that are not included in the "Building Valuation Data." The purpose of this is to utilize an estimated value of the improvements comparable to actual developers costs for a completed home. For example, using the current, August, 1996, ICBO Building Valuation Data (copy attached), the in-lieu fee on each home would be calculated using an estimated value of construction as follows: $80.60 x 1.13 = $91.08 per square foot + $36.43 ($91.08 x 40%) = $127.51 per square foot The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the conditions of the Tentative Map and the Subdivision Agreement. The Subdivision Agreement must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. S:\plan\pladiv\share\glnbrkbr.ltr Page 3 Thank you .for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree with this revised proposal, please sign this letter indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR component for, your project. Sincerely, KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment: Building Valuation Data, August 1996 CO:Linda Ludden Poncini, 120 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 400, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Grace Wu, c/o A. Pinel Realtors, 578 University .Ave., Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator Paul Jensen, Contract Planner I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at Glenbrook Court (part of 4290 E1 Camino Real) as described in this letter dated May 15, 1997. Tony Carrasco Date S :\plan\pladiv\share\glnbrkbr.ltr BUILDING VALUATION DATA At the request of numerous IguiId,ng o.~ficia[s, Bu;Idlng Standards o,q’ers lhe follo,,vlng building valuation data tepresenling a~erage costs for mos~ buP, din~s. £ecause residential buil~ngl are Ihe mcsl common [or many ci[ies, t,~o general classes are considered fol [hose, one f~r "average" consuucdon and lhe o~her for "g~d." Adjustmen[s should be made ~or special archhectural or s~ruclural ~eatures ar.d the IocaHon of the project. Higher or lower unit cos:s may often resuh. ~he uni~ costs are in:ended ~o comply v. kh Ihe definhlon of ~ion" in Sec~ ~he 1994 Uniform Buflding Code’~ and ~hus include_~’~hib~ctur~l, s:ruc. ~ral ebc~rlcal plumhlng and mechanical ~or~, e~cept as s~ec fca~ y s:ed be ow. The un t cos ~ a~so nclu~ the comrac~or’s nroM v..~ ch shouM no~ L~omh:~ The de~ermmahon cf plan check Ices fl~r pro~ecb r~vme.~ed hy Ih~ In~rnahona! Con(ur~nce o~ Budd,ng O:hc~als wdl ke based cn va.uahon computed horn fl~ese EgureS, ~hich v, cre estabhshed in April 1996, Cod FCr Square"IOccupan~ and T~,~¢F~’I, A.Q:a~ Occupancy and T:pe 1. APARTMENT HOUSES:Type I or II F.R.° ...............577.20 (Good) $94.80 T,~pe V--t,.’~a sonry (or Type III) ................63.20 (Good) $77.30 T’~pe V--Wood Frame .....55.50 (Good) 571.30 %’peI--BasementGarage 32.50 2, AUDITORIUMS: Type I or II F.R .................91.40Type I1--1-Hour ..............~.6.00 Type II--=N .......................62.60Type II1--1-Hour .............69.60 Type I!l--N ......................66.00 Type \’--1 -Hour ..............66.50Type V--N ......................62.00 3, BANKS:Type I or II F.R.° ...............129.00 Type II--l-Hour ..............95.00 Type II--N .......................92.60 Type Ill--l-Hour .............10-1.80 Type III--N ......................101.20 Type V--1-Hour ..............95.00Type V--N ......................91.00 4. BOWLING ALLEYS: Type 11--I-Hour ..............44.40 Type II--N .......................41.50 Type 111--I-Hour .............48.30 Type III--N ........" ..............45.20 Type Vml-Hour ..............32,60 S. CHURCHES: Type I or II F.R .................86.S0 Type ll--l-Hour ..............64.80 Type II--N .......................61.60Type II1--1-Hour .............70.60Type III--N ......................67.S0Type V--1-Hour ..............66.00Type V--N ......................62.00 6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS:Type I or II F.R." ...............121,20 Type II~I-Hour ..............84.00 Type 111--I-Hour .............86,20Type V--I-Flour ..............81.30 Co~l per Square 7. DWELLINGS: Type V--Ma’.,onry ............$66.00 _ (Good~ S84 an 1 Type \<--b.o~., 58.70 ~’~J-’~~ hed ..........~Se.<~i:Einished .............17.50C(Coodk$ 2 0.2 o_0..~F_.Fff’G’~ s k.ecl ..................12.60 (Goodl $15.40 .,, 8. FIRE STATIONS:Type I or II F.R .................99.80Type 11--I-Hour ..............65.40"I’~ pe II--N .......................61.80Type 111--I .Hour .............71.80Type III--N ......................68,80Type V--I-Hour ..............67.30Type V--N ......................64.00 9. HOMES FOR THE ELDFRLY:Type I or II F.R .................90.50Type 11--I-Flour ...........i.,73.50Type II--N .......................70.20Type 111--I-Hour .............76.40Type lit--iN ......................73.30Type V--1--Hou~ ..............74.00Type V--N ......................71.20 10, HOSPITALS: Type I or II F.R." ...............142.30 Type III~I -Hour .............I | 7.80 \ ~I -Hour ..............I ~ 2.30Type " 11. HOTELS AND MOTELS: Type I or II F.R." ...............8,8.00 Type III~I-Hour .............76,20 Type III--N ......................72.70 Type V--I-Hour ..............68.20Type V~N ......................65.00 12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:. Type I or II F,R .................49.60Type 11--I-Hour ..............34.50Type II--N .......................31.60Type 111--I-Hour .............38.00Type.lll--N ......................35.80Tilt-up ..........v .................26,00Type V--I-Hour ..............35,70Type V--N ......................32.80 O,,:cupancy and T~,pe 13, JAILS:Type I or II F.R ................$138,60Type 111--I-Hour .............126.6.0Type \"--I-Flour ..............95.00 14, LIBRARIES: %’pc I or II F.R .................101.40Type 11--I-Hour ..............74.20Type --N ..............70,~0%’pc III--1-Hour .............78.30Type --N .......74.40Type V--I-Flour ..............73.70Type V--N ......................70.60 15. MEDICAL OFFICES: Type I or II F.R ................104.00Type II--I-Hour ..............80,30Type I--,"4 .....................76.40Type 111--I-Hour .............84.50Type ~IN .................81.00Type V--I-Hour ..............78.60%’pc V--N ......................73.80 16. OFFICES":Type I or II F.R ................93.00Type I1--1-Flour ..............62.20Type II--N .......................59.40Type I11--1-Hour .............67.40Type ItI--N ......................64.20Type V--1-Flour ..............63.00~... 59.40 Open Carports .................14.40 18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS: Type I or I1 F.R." ...............107.50Type I1--1-Hour ..............87.00Type II--N .......................83.30Type III--I-Hour .............90.40Type III--N ......................87.30Type \"~I-Hour ..............82.80Type V--N ......................79.B0 19. PUBLIC GARAGES: Type I or II F,R.° ...............42,40Type I or II Open Parking" 32.00 Type II--N .......................25.00Type II1--1-Hour .............32.20T’~p. III-N ........................28.50Type V--1 -Hour ..............29.39 "Add 0.5 percent |:~ to’.al cost for each Co~.l Occupant"/ and T)?e Fo,al. 20. RESTAURANTS:Type II1--I-Hour .............$Type III--N ......................82.00 Type V~I-Hour ..............77.80 Ty ~,e V--N ......................74.70 21. SCHOOLS: Type I or 11 F.R .................97,00 Type I1--1-Hour ..............~6.00 T)’pe III--N ......................67.30 Type V--t-Hour ..............66.20 Type V--N ......................63.20 22. SERVICE STATIONS: Type II--N .......................58.60 Type Ill--I-Hour .............61.00Type \"--1 -Hou r ..............52.00,Canopies .........................2-t.40 23. STORES:Type I or II F.R." ...............71.80 Type It--l-Hour ..............4.1,00 %’pc II--N .......................4 2.80 Type lll--l-klour .............53..;0 Type III--N ......................50.20Type \--I-Hour ..............45,00 Type V--N ......................41.50 24. THEATERS: Type I or I1 F.R .................95.70 Type II1--1-Hour .............69.70 Type III--N ......................66.30 Type \’--1 ,Hour ..............65.60 Type V--N ......................62.00 25. \VAREHOUSES’": %’pe I or II F,R .................43,00 Type II or V--I .Hour .......25,50 %’pe II or V--N ...............2-I.00 Type 111--I-Hour .............29,00 Type 111--,"4 ......................27.70 EQUIPMENT AI~ CONDITIONhNG: Commercial ................3.60 Residential .................3.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ......1.12,0 Mot" over three.¯ ’O~Muc120 percenl lot shell-on!y buTtd:ngs.¯ ’ ’ Dc..duct 11 pe:cenl l’or min]-’,varehou s<’;. REGIONAL MODIFIERS The i’ollov, in~ m.=.d,fiers are recommended l’or use in coniunclion v,,i’.h the building valuation data. in addi:ion, certain local conditions may requi.e fur:her modifications. To use lhese modifiers, me,’ely multiply lhe l;sted cost per square 1ooi by the appropriate regional modifier. For example, to adlusl lhe cost oi’ a Type Ill One.-heur hotel building average ¢onstrUCl~on tot IF, e lov.,a area, se[=-x:t Regional/’,;odlfier 0,80 and Unil ¢osl from valuation data. $76.’20: 0.,50 x 76.20 =- $51.00 (adjusted cost per square foot) Eastern U.S.Modifier Conneclicut .....................0.95Delaware........................0.8-I District of Columb!a ........0.87Florida.............................0.74Georgia ............................. Maine ..............................0.81 Maryland .........................0,79 Massachusetls ..................0.94New Hampshire ..............0.82New Jersey ......................0.9 New York New York City. ...........1 .I 6 O~b, er ..........................0.87North Carolina .................0,70 Eastern U,S, (coat,)Modifier Pennsylvania Philadelphia ................0.96Other ..........................0,83 Rhode Island ....................0.94 South Carolina .................0.70 Vermont ...........................0.80Virginia ............................0.73\Vest Virginia ...................0.82 Cenlral U.S. Alabama ..~ ........................0,72Arkansas ..........................0,70lllinois ..............................0,87Indiana ............................0.82 Iowa ................................0,80 Kansas .............................0.74 Central U.S. (con!,)ModifierKentucky. .........................0.77Louisiana .........................0,78Michigan .........................0.84Minnesola ........................0,8’3Mississippi .......................0.71Missouri...........................0.78Nebraska .........................0.75North Dakota ...................0.&0 Ohio .............................L.0.B0 Oklahoma ........................0,71South Dakota ...................0.78Tennessee ........................0.72Texas ................................0.7.1 Wisconsin ........................0.85 \Vestern U.5.Alaska .............................. Arizona ............................0.8.- ’ Califomia __l ~s An~-,~.,’e~ ..... .....__1...0-0~ -L.~r..~.; r.i,: c o ..............1.13.~,,, Other .........................."O.V4 Colorado ..........................0.8 Hawaii .............................1.14 Idaho ...............................0.80 /,Aontanr, ..........................0.79 Nevada ............................0.89 New Mexico ....................0.76 Ore,Boa ............................0.83 Utah ................................0.75 V,.’ashinglon ......................0.88 0.80Wyoming ........................._--------- 38 BUILDING SFANDARDS/IuIy-August 199 GLENBROOK COURT LLC 120 Hamilton Avenbe, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT #6A May 23, 1997 Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Subject: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Glenbrook Court Dear Ken: Glenbrook Court LLC are in agreement with your "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Agreement for Glenbrook Court as outlined in your letter of May 15, 1997 except for paragraph #4 which deals with the timing of the payments. As you know from our meeting on May 14th there are many scenarios regarding timing and who lots will be sold to. Below is a summary of the most likely sales scenarios. All of the sales occur after approval of the Final Map and most likely after the infrastructure improvements have been built. ao To the investors at preferred prices (3-6 lots) To the managing members: at cost (2 lots) To the present owner: at cost (1 lot) To the public at market prices (5-8 lots) While we will make every effort to modify our invested cash flow to accommodate payments before the Final map approval, we will probably not have the money to pay the BMR fee before the Final map. We hope that condition #4 can be modified to give us the flexibility to pay the BMR fee at any of three times: Before Final Map At transfer of Title of each lot At the time a Building Permit is applied for on each lot We hope giving the LLC the fle;~ibilit)’ ~ Ny th.~ BM~ ~:e at m,,- of these t~ee times ~-,,-es the city adequate controls and a~nar-~nce ~ the ,~sesseA, _~e w2i ~ paid_ Ptease let me know if our cash r_’o’a sc~a~ can ~e ac.~off,.t~ witlm ci~" processes. Sincerely, Tony Member Wu Member cc: \wlxtocs\admins\glenbmo ATTACHMENT #7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM = Project Title:Cabana Hotel Site Improvements and Residential Subdivision (Phase III) Comprehensive Plan (96-CPA-4) and PC (Planned Community) Zoning (96-ZC-13), Tentative Map (96-SUB-5), Architectural Review Board approval for hotel site plan and exterior building modifications (96-ARB-168) and variance approval for increase in building height (97-V-3) Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, California 94301 415-329-2441 Contact Person and Phone .Number:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner 415=479-9438 = Project Location:.4290 El Camino Real and Glenbrook Court, south of Arastradero Road; AP # 167-09-004 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:B.B. Patel c/o: Carrasco and Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 415-322-2288 General Plan Designation: Zoning: Service Commercial (maximum FAR- 0.40:1) PC (Planned Community- Ordinance #2006) District a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM = Description of the Project: A. Existing Conditions/Site Characteristics & History- The subject property consists of 10.1 acres of level land. The property is developed with a 177,399 square foot hotel complex, originally designed and operated as a "resort" hotel. The hotel complex includes a total of 197 guest rooms, a restaurant and bar, and banquet rooms. The complex includes an eight- story hotel structure, a two-story entrance lobby, lounge and restaurant structure and two-story hotel room and support structures. Ancillary uses include a swimming pool located at the center of the complex and two tennis courts located at the northeast end of the site, facing El Camino Real. The existing building floor area to land area ratio (FAR) is 0.398:1 (based on total building area of 177,399 square feet). The following provides the square footage amounts for each of the hotel use areas: 197 hotel rooms Conference/meeting rooms/banquet Lobby (main and pre-meeting) : Dining Room/restaurant Bar/lounge Exercise Room Kitchen Office Storage TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 134,386sq.ft. 11,027 7,310 3,661 2,432 1,392 1,800 3,729 ¯ 11,632 177,399 sq.ft. The current hotel use and facilities are zoned PC (Planned Community). This si~e- specific zoning is described in Ordinance 2006, which was adopted in 1961.. Ordinance #2006 references approval of the original Development Plan for hotel development and presents provisions which include, but are not limited to the following: 1) 2) 3) A required minimum of 575 permanent off-street parking stalls. Landscaped and screened property setbacks of 10 feet (northern) and 30 feet (rear and south). No signs shall be permitted on the top of the hotel structure. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 4)Height limit of eight stories~ not to exceed 85 feet, plus necessary machinery penthouse structure. The hotel structures and facilities are surrounded by paved parking for 520 vehicles and a series of driveways. Main access to the site is provided by an entrance driveway to El Camino Real, located at the.center of the site. This entrance driveway aligns with Dinah’s Court at a signalized intersection. A second, two-way driveway is located along the northern property boundary, which provides both automobile and delivery vehicle access to the hotel and rear parking area¯ A one-way, eastbound driveway is located along, the southern property boundary, bordering Adobe Creek. No direct access to the 10.1 acre site is provided from City streets to the west. While Glenbrook Drive (local residential street serving the contiguous Greenacres neighborhood) ~stubs" at the western property boundary of the site, this City street is currently limited to providing emergency vehicle access to the hotel site. The property slopes at an approximately 2% grade toward Adobe Creek (south). Site elevations range from a low point.of 56 MSL, near the front of the site at El Camino Real to 70 MSL at the rear. Approximately 62% of the site is currently paved, 18% is covered with building footprints and 20% is landscaped. Site vegetation consists of generally disturbed, native riparian vegetation along Adobe Creek (mostly off-site) and a variety of. mature, non-native trees and landscaping. Based on a survey prepared for a previous project, the site and immediate area contains a total of 293 trees (trunk diameter of six inches or greater). In 1995, a developer proposed to demolish the hotel facilities and redevelop the site with 93 single-family and multiple-family residential units. The project proposed an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning. Following the publication of a draft environmental impact report (~ ¯ " , Wagstaff and Associates, January 1996), the project was withdrawn. The information and studies in this DEIR have been used and/or referenced in the preParation of this assessment. Land Division a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (96-SUB-5) The project proposes the subdivision of the 10.1 acre parcel into 15 lots/parcels for single-family residential development and continued Operation of a hotel facility (See Attachment #2 for Vesting Tentative Map). The proposed hotel parcel would encompass the front (eastern). 6.82 acre portion of the site for the existing hotel facilities and parking. The remaining, rear (western) 3.24 acre portion of the site would be divided into 14 single-family residential lots. Modifications and Improvements to Cabana Hotel Facility and Site (96-ZC-13, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) The proposed subdivision-of the front (eastern)parcel is accompanied by a number" of modifications to the site plan (parking and circulation), modifications to-the building facilities (exterior elevations) and changes in the operation of the current hotel land use. These modifications are described as follows: 1) Redesign and modifications to on-site parking, circulation, landscaping and parking lot lighting. - The parking lot would be redesigned to accommodate 284 "uniclass" parking spaces ~a reduction from the current 520 spaces). This redesign includes the demolition of the two tennis courts located at the front of the hotel site and redesigning the main driveway entrance from El Camino Real. The main driveway entrance would be narrowed at the signalized intersection of El Camino Real so as to establish a.better, 90 degree alignment with the intersection and Dinah’s Place (east of El Camino Real). This improvement requires coordination with and approval from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). - The hotel operators would, introduce a "valet" parking system, whereas Visitors/patrons of the hotel would have the ability to drop- off/pick-up their vehicles at the front of the lobby entrance to the hotel. (The current on-site parking is designed so that hotel patrons have direct access to the on-site parking from the hotel facilities). Of the total proposed 284 spaces, 207 self=park spaces are provided, along with 58 valet spaces and 19 employee spaces. = The new parking and circulation would result in the removal of a number of existing, mature trees located on the eastern lot, facing El a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Camino Real. This landscai~ing would be replaced with new landscaping, including the planting of a grove of redwood trees at the southeast corner of the site (along El Camino Real and Adobe Creek frontages, the southern "gateway" to the City of Palo Alto). - The improvements include the installation of new, parking lot lighting utilizing three standards: a) Kastrup (F-can style ballast 120/277 volt, mercury vapor, copper patina metal finish, 20 feet in height), b) Nyhavn Post (F-can ballast 12/277 volt, mercury vapor, 15’8" in height) and c) CL-4 Bronze (ground mounted fixture, 75-100 watt). 2)Modifications to approved, exterior building renovations. - The City recently approved modifications to the exterior surface of the hotel building. The current proposal involves the addition of several, roof elements that were not included in the recently approved renovation. The new roof elements appear as hip roof forms applied to the existing stair towers. Portions of the existing, rooftop mechanical equipment screen would be removed and replaced with a hip roof element. These features would extend the height of the building to a maximum of 100 feet. 3) The existing, freestanding, pole-mounted sign located in the landscaping island along the El Camino Real frontage would be replaced with a new, freestanding monument sign. The modification to the complex reflects a change in the marketing of this hotel from the former ~resort-type" facility to a "corporate/business" hotel. A description of the "corporate/businessn hotel facility is presented in Attachment #5A of this document. Although the proposed improvements to the hotel facilities would not result in new floor area/square footage, the land division would result in a change in the floor area ratio. The creation of a 6.82 acre hotel parcel results in an increase to the building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) from 0.398:1 to 0.597:1. Single-Family Residential Subdivision & Development (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC- 13, 96-SUB-5) The proposed subdivision of the rear (western) parcel Would create 14 single- a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM family residential lots. This subdivision is described as follows: 1) The proposed lots would range in size from 7,069 to 10,906 square feet. An inventory of the proposed single-family residential lots (lot size, width, depth) is provided in Attachment #4 of this document. 2)Lots are arranged with frontage along an extension of Glenbrook Drive. Glenbrook Drive is proposed as a 50 foot public right-of-way with a paved, curb-to-curb width of 30 feet. The proposed roadway would end in a cul-de-sac for a total road length of approximately 400 feet. 3)Construction of required infrastructure, including a new drainage line and outfall into Adobe Creek (drainage line easement proposed between lots #1 and #14. 4)The project would result in the export of all asphalt in the rear parking area to the front of the hotel parking lot. The asphalt would be used as base fill to convert the existing tennis courts into surface parking for the hotel. As part of the grading program for the single- family residential subdivision, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported in the area where the asphalt is being removed. A logistics (staging) plan is proposed so that all movement of asphalt or fill material is transported utilizing the hotel parcel for access to El Camino Real (easement over the northern, two-way driveway.). The logistic plan and transport easement over the hotel parcel proposes to be in-place for up to one year following the recordation of the final map so that this access can be utilized for home construction on the lots.. 5)Draft conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC & Rs) have been prepared (draft 10-2-96), which are intended to be recorded with the final map for the residential subdivision. These draft CC & Rs propose general restrictions on use of the land, as well as restrictions on animals and parking. These CC & Rs also establish a 3-5 member. Architectural Committee that would oversee development and design on each single-family residential lot. Consistent with City policy, a program is proposed for project compliance with the below market rate housing requirements. This program, which is outlined in Attachment #6 of this assessment, proposes that the project sponsor pay in-lieu a:\4290ecr.eia [3197]96-EIAo32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3| 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM = fees to comply with the BMR requirement. A draft agreement has been prepared and is currently being negoti.ated between the project sponsor and the Palo Alto Housing Authority. C. Proposed Planning Applications/Permits - The proposed project involves City action on several planning applications/permits. The applications that have been filed are as follows: a. Amendments to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, - amendment to land use designation for the rear 3.24 acre portion of the site from Service Commercial to Single-Family Residential b.Zone Change ’ - zone change to PC (Planned Community District) for front 6.82 acres (hotel land use and improvements). Zone change is required to reflect the new hotel parcel size, address specific parking for the hotel project (reduction to 284 parking spaces) and to address specific building height for the hotel (increase height limit from 85 ft. To 100 ft.). The proposed public benefit package being presented as part of the PC District zoning is summarized in Attachment #5B of this assessment. - zone change of the rear 3.24 acre portion of the site from PC (Planned Community) District to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District c.Subdivision - Tentative Subdivision Map approval for 14, new single-family residential lots and one 6.82 acre parcel for commercial (hotel)use ,- Request for a Conditional Exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), which would permit the proposed 50 foot Glenbrook Court right-of-way in-lieu of the required 60 foot wide right-of-way for a 400 foot long cul-de-sac. d.Architectural Review Board approval of modifications to the site plan (parking, circulation and access) for the proposed Cabana Hotel parcel and elevation modifications to the hotel structure. e.Variance approval for increase in permitted building height from 85 feet to lO0-feet (maximum 50 foot height under PAMC Section 18.68.110(c)). Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96=CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96oARB-168, 97-V-3) .7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM The property is bounded by El Camino Real, a six-lane arterial roadway, on the east, and by Adobe Creek and the Los Altos city limit on the south. Arastradero Road-West Charleston Road crosses El Camino Real approximately 1/4 mile to the north and San Antonio Road is located approximately ½ mile to the south. Adjacent land uses along El Camino Real between Arastradero Road-West Charleston Road and San Antonio Road include one condominium complex (the adjacent Palo Alto Redwood development at 4250 El Camino Real) and extensive ~strip" commercial development (restaurants, auto-oriented retail and services, commercial lodging and limited office). In addition to the Palo Alto Redwood condominium complex immediately to the north, other adjacent land uses include single-family residential subdivisions to the west (UGreenacres I") and northwest (Suzanne Drive) and another single-family residential subdivision on the south side of Adobe Creek (Laureles Drive/Aptos Avenue, Los Altos). a:\429Oecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 |96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-16B, 97-V-3) 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IST FORM 10.Other public agencies whose approval is’required: - a. Santa Clara Valley Water District - permit to construct proposed outfalls into Adobe Creek and other proposed improvements within the District right-of- way. b.California Department of Fish and Game - Streambed Alteration Agreement for construction of drainage outfalis into Abobe Creek. c.US Army Corps of Engineers - permits/approvals required for all construction work within areas of Adobe Creek subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. d.California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - encroachment permits for alteration and improvements of driveway entrance intersection with El Camino Real (SR 82). e.Regional Water Quality Control Board - possible permits or waivers required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for construction of drainage outfalls and discharge of runoff into Adobe Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by .this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. . Lend use and Planning Population and Housing Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Cultural Resources Geological Problems Water Air Quality Hazards Noise Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 9 !Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have s significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed .in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must .analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. X Paul Jensen ~ Project Planner"Date KennethR. Schreiber Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a:\4290ecr.eia [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 10 issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Leas Than Significant Impact Impact I. ,LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) e) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)7 Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including e low-income or minority community)? 2i, 3a, 5, 11, 12, 14, 22 2c, 2h 11, 12, 14° 1, 2a, 3a, 14 1, 2a, 3a 1, 2a, 2f, 3a, 18 X X X 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? 2b, 14 "2b, 14. 1, 2b, 14 " Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 2d, 3f, 4a a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 196oCPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V°3) 11 ; X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Leas Than Significant Irapact c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? I) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 14, 16 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 2d, 3f, 4a X Would the proposal result in: X X X X X X a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ~ rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of.people or property to water related hazards c) such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1, 3g, 16, 20 1, 3g, 14, 16, 20 1, 16 X X X d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 1, 16 1, 14, 16, 20 1,14 X X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARBo168, 97oV-3) 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significent Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1, 14, 16, 20 1,14 1,14 X X X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute to an 2d,¯ X exiting or.projected air quality violation?3e, 4b, 16 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2d, 4b, 16 2d, 4b, .16 2d, 3e, 4b, 16 X c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?2e;. 3b, 8, 9, 14, 19 I, 6, 14, 16, ¯ 19 1, 5c X b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ,1, 5b, 5d, 16, 19, 21 1, 2e, 3j, 19 1, 2e, 3j, e 1, 2e, 14, 16 X X X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 1, 3k,(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,14b, animals or birds)?14c, 14d X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?1, 10, 11, 13 14c, 15 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?1, 10, 13, 14, 14c, 15 X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?1, 3k, 14, 14c e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?1, 16 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?2d b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1, 16 inefficient manner? X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97=V-3) 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous b) 1, 2d, ’ 3f, 31, 4a substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3h 3h 3h 3h 1, 16 X X X X X 11.PUBLIC SERVICES. government services in any of the following areas: 2d, 3d, 4c, 16 2d, 3d, 4c, 16 X X a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in e need for new or altered 6, 16, !7 1.6, 2h, 2i, 7, 17 1, 17 X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless MitigstJon Incorporated Significant act impact 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?I, 16, 17 b) Communications systems?1, 16,X 17 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 1, 16,X facilities?17 d) Sewer or septic tanks?1,’ 16,X 17 e) Storm water drainage?1, 16,X 17 f) Solid waste disposal?1, 16,X 17 g) Local or regional water supplies?:1, 16,X 17 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: e) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?X Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? ,2c, 11, 12, 14, 15 1, 2c, 11, 12, 14, 16 1, 2C, 11, 12, 14, 16 X CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a) Disturb paleontological resources? 14, 16 X b) Disturb archaeological resources? 14, 16 X c) Affect historical resources? 3m, 14, 16 d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 1, 31, 3m, 14, 16 X e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ’ b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 1, 31, 3m, 14, 16 1, 3h, 6, 14 23 23 X X X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EiA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 17 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 23 23 X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where~ pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Eadier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier doc~Jment and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 I Field Investigations/Site Visits on December 19, 1996 end January 2, 1997 a:\4290ecr.eia [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 18 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 2 3 4 6 7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1981-1995; a. Land Use Map (1981-1995) b. Land Use Element- 1981 c. Urban Design Element- 1981 d. Environmental Resources Element- 1981 e. Transportation Element- 1981 f. Housing Element- 1990 g. Employment Element- 1981 h. Schools and Parks Element- 1981 I.¯ City of Palo Alto Resolution 7151 (Non-Residential Land Use Intensity Limits), adopted April 1992. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum (1994) a. Map B-l, Existing Land Use Plan b. Map c. Map d. Map e. Map f. Map g. Map h. Map I. Map j. Map k. Map I. B-2, PM Peak Hour Level of Service B-3, Palo Alto Bicycle System B-4, Noise Exposure Contours B-5, Air Quality Contours and Sources B-6, Consolidated Geotechnicsl Constraints B-7, Flood Hazards B-9, Hazardous Materials Holders B-IO, Public Schools B-11, Open Space and Recreation Facilities B-12, Sensitive Biological Resources : Map B-13, Historic Resources Map B-14, Archaeological Sensitivity Areas Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (1994) a. Geology and Seismic Technical Report, 1994 b. Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 c. Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code - Title 18 (Zoning) a. Chapter 18.12- R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District b. Chapter 18.68- PC (Planned Community) District c. Ordinance #2006- Existing PC District Ordinance for Cabana Hyatt Hotel d. Chapter 18.83- Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations e. Chapter 18.48- H (Hotel Combining) District f. Ordinance #3890 (Establishment of H Combining District) g. Ordinance #3892(Rezoning of properties to CC-H and CS-H District) City of Palo Alto Municipal Code - Title 21 (Subdivisions) Title 16, Chapter 16.48 (Architectural Review) Memorandum from Fred Herman, Chief Building Official to City Staff, June 4, 1996; School Impact Fees a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 19 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, A Summary, City of Palo Alto; March 1990. Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology, Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency; January 7, 1993. Ordinance #4356 (Prohibitions and Regulations on Tree Removal); July 22, 1996. Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto; September 1991. El Camino Real Design Guidelines; November 1979. Tree Inventory for Glenbrook Court Residential Lots, September 30, 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Villages at Creekside, Wagstaff and Associates; January 1996 (published and circulated for public review) a. Traffic Impact Study Requirements for Arastradero/EI Camino Real, City of Palo Alto; January 17, 1996 b. List of Special Status Species that occur in or near the City of Palo Alto, Hartesveldt Ecological Consulting Services; January 17, 1996 c. Vascular Plants of the Study Area, Hartesveldt Ecological Consulting Services, H.T. Harvey and Associates and Ray Morneau, arborist; August 6, 1995 d. Terrestrial Vertebrate Species that potentially occur in the study area, Hartesveldt Ecological Consulting Services; January 1996. 15 Tree Inventory, Golden State Developers, Inc., prepared by Ray Morneau, Arborist; 1994 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 Application materials (plans, drawings and reports) submitted to City of Palo Alto on December 19, 1997. Materials include the following: a. Drawings, plans, tentative map, grading and drainage plan, preliminary landscaping plan, tree inventory and tree removal plan b. Preliminary Title Report, North American Title Company; issued May 7, 1996 c. Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (draft dated 10-2-96, for discussion only) d. Subdivider’s Statement e. Public Benefit Statement for PC District rezoning Comments from City of Palo Alto Departments .on applications for Comprehensive Plan and PC Zoning amendments, Tentative Subdivision Map and ARB. Letter from City of Palo Alto to project sponsor (BMR Agreement) Traffic and Parking Study for Cabana Hotel, Palo Alto, DKS Associates; December 17, 1996 Letter to Carrasco & Associates from Brian, Kangas .and Foulk, engineers, regarding grading and drainage =ssues; October 30, 1996; Letter to Carrasco & Associates from Brian, Kangas and Foulk, engineers, regarding site runoff and hydrological impacts to Adobe Creek; February 4, 1997 City of Palo Alto Planning Division memorandum to Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote, from Paul Jansen, Contract Planner summarizing survey of hotel facilities and parking, February 11, 1997 GIS Mapping of existing floor area ratios for developed, non-residential parcels - South El Camino .Real area; February 1997. 23 Answers substantiated through the responses I~rovided in items #1 - #22 a:\4290ecr.aia [3197] 96oEIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUBo5, 96-ARB-168, 97=V=3) 2O 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES la, lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING la - Would the proposal conflict with the general plan designation or zoning ? l b - Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? l e - Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Setting: ’ The 10.1 acre site is presently developed with a 177,399 square foot hotel complex. The complex includes a sedes of two-stow building elements, which contain guest rooms, dining, conference and accessory facilities. One, eight story portion of the complex houses guest rooms. The subject property is located with frontage along El Camino Real (SR82) and is bordered on the south, west and north by existing residential development. The subject property is located within the PC (Planned Community) District, which was adopted by Ordinance 2006 in 1961. The Development Plan approved with the PC zoning authorized the size, building area and height of the present hotel complex. Current height limits under the PC Distdct are 85 feet. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element designates this site as Service Commercial. This land use designation, by Resolution 7151, establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.4:1. While the present building to site floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.398:1, Resolution 7151 acknowledges that floor area ratios vary from site to site in the community. The overall average floor area ratio of the commercially developed lands in the South El Camino Real ares (Los Robles Avenue southward to the Adobe Creek/city limits) is 0.28:1, which is far below the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land use designations adopted for this area. In addition to required compliance with current zoning and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, any development, and/or redevelopment of the 10.1 acre site requires e review for compliance with the,following: a. PAMC Section 16.48 (Architectural Review) b. El Caminb Real Design Guidelines; November 1979 c. Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines; September 1991 Impact: The individual components of the project would result in the following: a.The project would result in e new hotel (eastern) parcel of 6.82 acres, establishing new building to site floor area ratio of 0.597:1. The project would result in a slight increase in the overall, average FAR for the South El Camirm Real area (from 0.28:1 to 0.285:1). The 6.82 acre hotel parcel would continue to be zoned PC (Planned Community) District. However, the Pc zone change is required to allow for 1 ) an increase in building height, 2) changes in the required landscape setbacks along the rear and south property boundaries and 3) permit reductions in the amount of required on-site parking. The proposed project would be consistent with thePC zoning provided that the zoning is amended to =tailor" the project. Furthermore, the hotel site improvements would be consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1979), with the exception of the proposal to locate a new wall sign above the roof line of the hotel building. Co The project would creates new 3,24 acre parcel (westem) for a single-family subdivision of 14 lots, The project would result in a r.ezoning of this 3,24 acres to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District end a re-designation of this area for Single-Family Residential in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The resulting residential lots would be appropriately sized and configured to comply with the standards of the R-1 Distdct and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Likewise, the subdivision design is consistent with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (1991 ), in that it provides lot sizes that are adequate to accommodate a home design that would be in keeping with the scale and size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. a:\4290ecr.eia [3197]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZCol 3, 96-SUB-5, 96=ARB-168, 97-V-3) 21 lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impact - Continued d. From a land use standpoint, the continuation of the hotel use on the eastern parcel would be consistent with the property frontage along El Csmino Real and contiguous, non-residential uses to the east and southeast. The proposed single-family residential use of the rear 3.24 acres would be compatible with the immediately surrounding residential uses. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the pertinent policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. A summary of this review is provided as follows: Land Use Designation: - Service Commercial for eastern 6.82 acres Response: Consistent. While the proposed subdivision would create a new building-to-site FAR of 0.597:1, the approval of the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Resolution 7151 (non-residential land use intensities/FAR limits) acknowledges that FARs vary from parcel to parcel. Since the overall, average developed FAR for the South El Camino Real area is and would continue to be well below the 0.4:1 maximum FAR, the City’s approval of this subdivision would not effect the FARs for the general area and would therefore be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. - Single-Family Residential for western 3,24 acres Response: Consistent. The 3.24 acre parcel, which proposes to accommodate 14 single-family residential lots, would result in a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. The maximum permitted density under the Single-Family Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan is 7 dwelling units per acre. Policy I Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas. Response: Consistent. The subdivision design proposed for the single-family residential lots would be consistent with the lot sizes and configurationsof contiguous single-family residential neighborhoods. : Policy 3 Protect and enhance those qualities that make Palo AIto’s neighborhoods especially desirable. Response: Consistent. The subdivision design proposed for the single-family residential lots would result in the development of a public cul-de-sac, with access from an extension of Glenbrook Ddve. This design would protect the quality of the neighborhood by precluding future "through traffic" roadway connections to El Camino Real. Program 13: In housing developments of three or more units, not less than 10% of the units should be provided at below-market rates to low and moderate income families. Response: Consistent. The project sponsor proposes the payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the projects required contribution for below market rate housing. See Attachment #6 for BMR proposal. Policy 7, Program 17: Evaluate commercial and industrial properties with the intention of rezoning ~o housing where appropriate. Response: Consistent. A portion of this sit~ would be rezoned to R-1 District. PoliCy 13 Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing, Response: Consistent. The project sponsor proposes the payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the projects required contribution for below market rate housing, See Attachment #6 for BMR proposal. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 22 lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impact - Continued HO~Jsina Element (continue~Policy 14 Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas. Response:Consistent. The project would result in a project that provides both single-family residential and commercial uses. Policy 2 Encourage the construction of more housing p#ma#ly on or near industrial and commercial sites. Response:Consistent. The project proposes that a portion of a 10.1 acre site zoned for commercial use be fez,ned to accommodate additional housing. Policy 3 Coordinate transportation planning including public and private roadways, transit, paratransit and bikeways. Response:Partially consistent. The project is well-planned, as it proposes separate and exclusive access for the two proposed land use components. No ’through’ connection is proposed from the Greenacres neighborhood to El Camino Real. However, the project proposes no paths or trails for public use along Adobe Creek (see response to Policy 10 of Open Space Element). Policy 4 Reduce through traffic on residential streets. Response: Consistent. The project proposes that the residential subdivision receive access from Glenbrook Drive. The extended City street would terminate in a cul-de-sac, which would preclude access to existing residential streets from El Csmino Real. Policy 8, Program 17 Make operational and intersection improvements to ease traffic flow. Response:Consistent. The project would propose an improvement to the alignment of the hotelentrance ddveway at El Camino Real. Policy 4 Provide park sites of different sizes and types to respond to the needs of a diverse population, includingpark-like natural areas, linear trails, and creekside systems. Response: Partially consistent. Provisions for ¯ park site within this development are not required. However, given that the property is contiguous to Adobe Creek, a linear trail and/or path system along the creek is encouraged. This project does not propose any treil/path for public, pedestrian or bicycle use along the creek. An alternative site plan, which proposes a pedestdanlbicycle trail connection between the residential subdivision and El Camino Real, is presented for study purposes. This alternative plan is not proposed or supported by the project sponsor. The path design presented in this alternative provides only partial access along the creek. Furthermore, the alternative designdoes not present safe access for pedestrians and cyclists as is it shares paved ares with a narrow, one-way vehicular .driveway. a:\4290ecr.eia [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 23 181 lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impacts (continued): Policy 1 Maintain the present scale of the City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable. Response: Consistent. The existing hotel structure is approximately 85 feet high, which represents the tallest structure at the southwest end of the City. The project would authorize an additional 15 feet of building height. While the height of the building could be considered "overwhelming", the structure is significantly set back from El Camino Real and the additional height would not increase the structures "massiveness". In fact, the proposed design changes to the building elevations would reduce the massiveness of the building. Policy 3 Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets. Response: Partially consistent. The proposed project would result in the planting of new trees and landscaped areas and proposes to preserve the mature tree growth along the western, southern and northern borders of site. However, the project would also result the removal of existing trees within the front (eastern) parking lot of the hotel parcel. Tree removal in this area would be highly visible along El Camino Real, a major City street. (See Aesthetics .section for an assessment of tree removal) Policy Program 23 Strengthen gateway identity. Plant groves of taft trees and emphasize bridge structure and entrance at Palo AIto’s south gateway on el Camino Real. Response: Consistent. The project proposes "gateway" planting at the southeast end of the site, facing El Camino Real and Adobe Creek. Proposed landscaping includes the planting of redwoods, poplars and dperian low shrubs and groundcover. Environmental Resources Element Policy 4, Program 2 Reduce the negative impacts of human activities on plant and animal life. Require replanting where vegetation has been removed. Response: Partially consistent. A reconfiguration of the front (eastern) hotel parking lot would result in a substantial amount of tree removal. The project sponsor is proposing a replanting program, which includes the possible preservation end replanting/transplanting of existing trees. However, no details have bean submitted on which, how and where existing trees will be replanted/transplanted. Policy 4, Program 3 Response: Regulate land uses near water courses to reduce siltation and provide open, natural areas. Consistent. The project proposes no encroachment within or impacts to the Adobe Creek. Adequate setbacks have been respected to ensure that impacts, particularly tree removal, are minimized in and around the creak. Policy 10 Utilize ripaffan lands along streams, ponds, creeks and lakes, wherever possible for paths and trails, as links in the City-wide and subregional open space systems. Response: Inconsistent. The project proposes no paths or trails through the development and elong the Adobe Creek. The project sponsor has presented an alternative site plan which includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connection between the residential development and El Camino Real; however, this plan is not endorsed or proposed by the sponsor. Furthermore, this alternative plan calls for the joint use of a paved, narrow, one-way vehicular ddveway with pedestrians and bicyclists. This joint use does not provide a safe design. The location of this bicycle path, as presented in this alternative, has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects. a:\4290ecr.eJa [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 24 la, lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING (CONTINUED) Impacts (continued) h0 Open Soace Element (continued) Policy 1 1 Provide maximum open space in residential developments consistent with residents" needs and economic feasibility. Response:Partially consistent. The project proposes to protect Adobe Creek as an open space corridor. However, the project proposes no access for public use along Adobe Creek (see response to Policy 10 of the Open Space Element). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. The project would not be consistent with Policy 10 of the Open Space Element and would be partially consistent with Policy 4 of the Schools and Parks Element (policies encouraging paths, trails and public access along creeks). However, inconsistency with public plans (e.g., adopted Comprehensive Plan policy consistency) would create significant impacts under CEQA only when an adverse physical effect would result from the inconsistency. In this case, the proposal to not include a public path/trail along the Adobe Creek would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 25 3b & 3f GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS 3b - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving Seismic ground shaking? 3f - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Setting: The subject property is fairly level, with much of the earth surface either paved, developed with structures or landscaped. According to the City of Palo Alto resource maps (technical and background reports prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update), the property is characterized, by the following:°Seismic area of moderate risk subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake.~Class.I geotechnical constraints (range of !-4, with 1 being the least constrained and 4 being the most constrained. The subject property is located contiguous to the Adobe Creek, an area of fresh water inundation with the potential for a .100-year flood contained within the channel. impact: The project would result in the following activities, which could result in potential impacts related to seismic risk, erosion and earth movement: a.The project would result in the subdivision of land for development of 14 new single-family residential dwellings. These dwellings would be subject to moderate risk from groundshaking during an earthquake event. The City of Palo Alto construction regulations require compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. Application of UBC standards to construction design requires measures to minimize seismic risk, thus reducing impacts to less- than-significant levels. b. The project would not result in changes in site topography. However, the project would would involve the excavation of asphalt and soil, as well as import of fill for 1) parking lot construction, 2) construction of subdivision improvements, 3) lot leveling and 4) drainage out/all construction in the Adobe Creek. This activity has the potential to result in erosion of soils along the contiguous Adobe Creek. A requirement to implement an erosion and sediment control plan/program.would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. c. The project would result in approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and fill for construction of the single-family residential subdivision and the improvements to the front (cestem) parking lot for the hotel facility. The pdmery grading activity involves the removal of the asphalt parking lot surface in the area of the proposed residential subdivision. The asphalt would be removed, crushed and used for base fill in the area of the existing tennis courts. The asphalt is proposed to be used to raise the elevation of the tennis court area for new parking lot construction. Approximately 4,000-5,000 cubic yards of new top soil would be imported to create finished grades for the residential subdivision. The import of top soil for the single-family residential subdivision is necessary to establish proper grades for the cul-de-sac:and for lot drainage. The grading, as designed, would minimize potential erosion impacts to Adobe Creek to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-signifi~ant levels: 3.1 All construction shall comply with the standards and regulations of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for minimizing seismic risk. 3.2 3.3 The detailed grading plan shall be required for the issuance of a building permit for the hotel fscilitylpercel of the recordation of a Final Subdivision Map .for the land division. This detailed plan shall include the submittal and implementation of a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. The detailed grading plan, as required by mitigation measure 3.2, shall include a specific plan for the removal, transport and crushing of the existing asphalt in the rear (western) parking lot. If the crushed asphalt is used as base matadal for the from (eastam) hotel perking lot, it shall be placed only in areas that are proposed to be paved for parking. No crushed asphalt shall be used in areas proposed for landscaping or planting. Following installation of the base material, the project sponsor shall contact the City Planning Division for a site inspection. The City staff shall inspect the area to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96oZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 26 4b,WATER (DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY) 4b - Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4c - Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water qualiW? 4d - Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Setting: The subject property is faidy level and is located adjacent to Adobe Creek, an open channel which carries runoff on a year-round basis. In addition, approximately 81% of the site is covered with impervious surfaces (See Attachment #8, letter from Brian, Kangas and Foulk, engineers). Given the amount of site pavement, most runoff from rain water either =sheet-flows" over the site or is collected in a closed drainage system and ultimately deposited into Adobe Creek. According to City of Pale Alto resource maps (technical and background reports prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update), the subject property is located contiguous to the Adobe Creek, an area of fresh water inundation with the potential for a lO0-year flood contained within the channel. Brian, Kangas and Foulk (BKF), engineers, has provided the following information on Adobe Creek (reference source #20, and Attachment #7, letter to Carrasco and Associates, October 30, 1996): a.The current peak flow rate of Adobe Creek is 2,700 cfs (100-year event). This rate is based on existing development within the watershed. b. BKF confirms that a 100 year flood event in the area would be contained within the channel of Adobe Creek. BKF had performed .an analysis of the channel as part of the study of the previous Villages at Creekside project. This analysis found that, during a lO0-year flood event, the creek overtops its banks for a distance of 230 feet upstream (west) of El Camino Real (front parking lot of hotel). Dudng peak conditions (100-year event), about 130 cfs of the total 2,700 cfs flow leaves the creek, crosses/flows through the project site (front parking lot) and "sheet-flows" onto El Camino Real. Spillage onto the subject property (front parking lot) is due to the fact that a portion of the lot is approximately 4 feat below the adjacent top of creek bank. Independent from previous studies prepared for this subject property, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has studied the Adobe Creek watershed. The Adobe Creek Watershed Prelect proposes two channel modifications and several culvert replacements. One of the recommended culvert replacements is the Adobe Creek crossing with El Camino Real (extend the existing, concrete-lined channel westward by a distance of 200 feet). A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project. The DEIR discloses that this new culvert will eliminate the current peak overflows, which as noted above, causes inundation of the front hotel parking 10t and "sheet-flow" spillage onto El Camino Real. The DEIR further notes that the culvert design will be e cooperative effort between’ the City of Pale Alto and the SCVWD, given the City’s "gateway" location. At present, there is no scheduled date for the completion of the Final EIR, or for the approval of the watershed project and the installation of the improvements. Impact: The proposed project would result in the development of 14 new single-family residential lots and a resurfecing of the existing hotel facilities parking lot. According to BKF, engineers (See Attachment #8) the project would result in the following: e.A reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces to 63% site coverage. Specifically, the rear, paved parking lot would be removed and replaced with a new cul-de-sac and single-family residential structures. Landscaped areas are expected to increase from 19% to 37% coverage. b, Proposed runoff is expected to decrease by 12%. The majodty of runoff from the site will continue to drain to Adobe Creek via a sedes of separate outlet pipes which discharge between the top and toe of the bank. A narrow strip of land adjacent to the creek will not be disturbed and will continue to drain via ovedand flow, directly to the creek. The proposed condition does not concentrate the runoff any more than the existing condition. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96=SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 27 4b, 4c, 4d WATER (HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE) - CONTINUED Impacts (Continued): The following improvement measures are recommended by Brian, Kangas and Foulk, project engineers, regarding site drainage and hydrology: ao Runoff from the extension of Glenbrook Court would be collected in a closed system, transported through a new subsurface stormdrain and deposited into Adobe Creek (construction of new outfall). This improvement would eliminate the current =sheet-flow" runoff to the creek from the existing paved parking lot, which would reduce the potential for erosion along the creek banks. BKF proposes that the site be graded in a manner that maintains the effective flow path for spills from the channel dudng a 100-year flood event. Specifically, minor grading modifications are proposed to the front (eastern) parking lot of the hotel site, which would set the low point elevation of the parking lot approximately 3.9 feet below the top of creek bank. Furthermore, the existing stormdrain outlet would be replaced with a new outlet. These modifications would effectively allow water levels in the parking lot to raise simultaneously with the creek. While the overall amount of site runoff would be decreased (at the rear of the 10.1 acre site), the construction and operation of a new stormwater drainage outfall (for the residential subdivision) could effectively increase erosion along the creek. Concentrating runoff into the new stormwater drain and releasing it at one point into the creek could increase erosion alongthe creek banks of the adjacent parcels. As noted above, BKF has concluded that the proposed conditions do not concentrate runoff any more than the existing condition. Regardless, BKF recommends that for all three outfalls, use of rock dp-rap, rather than sacked concrete dp-rap, is recommended at the storrnwater drainage ouffalls to protect the creek slopes and to prevent potential erosion along the creek banks, The use of either a rock or sacked concrete dp-rep is not acceptable to the City. A more suitable biotechnical measure (e.g., planting matedals),is recommended for controlling erosion. Site grading and tree removal necessary for project construction has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the Adobe Creek. Specifically, exposed soils could cause sediment to enter the creek. This impact has the potential to be significant but can be mitigated by implementing erosion and sediment control measures. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce Impacts to lees-than.significant levels: 4.1 .Require that the project sponsor design the residential subdivision improvements with a closed, stormwater drainage _~system. This system shall be designed so that all runoff is collected and deposited into Adobe Creek at one ouffallIocation~Residential subdivision grading shall be designed so that all lot runoff is directed into the closed drainage system. -- 4.2 Require that the final improvement plans for the front (eastern) hotel parking lot be designed, as proposed by Bdan, Kangas and Foulk, project engineers. Improvements presented in these plans shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. Detailed drainage calculations shall be submitted with the filing of e final subdivision map to demonstrate that the project will result in no net increase in runoff to the Adobe Creek. 4.3 Require implementation of and compliance with erosion and sediment control measures, as specified in the City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval. The final design of the three stormwater drainage ouffalls shall include the installation of an acceptable, biotechnical erosion control measure (e.g., techniques such as a mixture of local rock, woody matedal and native planting). Use of sacked concrete or rock dprap for erosion control shall not be permitted. Ultimate design and materials for outrall erosion control shall be determined based on consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. a:\4290acr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96=ZC-13, 96-SUB.5, 96=ARB-168, 97oVo3| 28 5d AIR QUALITY5d - Would the proposal create objectionable odors: Setting: The subject property is located in an area of both residential and commercial development, According to the Air Quality Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), the site is located within an area that contains uses and activities that are air pollutant emitters. These activities/areas include the following: a. Intersection of W. Chadeston-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real = carbon monoxide intersection hotspot b. Intersection of San Antonio Rd./EI Camino Real = carbon’monoxide intersection hotspot c. Area of carbon monoxide concentration of 4 parts per million (based on eight hour interval) Impact: The project proposes to subdivide the property for continued operation of the existing 197 room hotel and development of up to 14 new single-family residential units. Based on the nature of the uses, no new, significant air quali~ impacts are expected. VVhile the hotel facilities (guest rooms, conference facilities, restaurant) would generate vehicle tdps/traffc, this traffic has historically been generated from this site. Therefore, no new air pollutant emitters are expected. Furthermore, given the size of the project and the nature of the proposed uses, the project would not meet the threshold for review by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The project would result in dust emissions end other temporary odors dudng grading and construction. These impacts would be. pdmadly associated with the movement of dirt dudng site grading and construction preparation. Incorporation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 5.1 Dust control measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure that temporary air impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Measures shall include the following: a. Watedog areas of exposed earth surfaces during the construction and grading process (eady morning and early evening). b. Avoiding overspilling of trucks so that potential spillage in the public right-of-way.is minimized. The contractor shall be required to clean up all spillage inthe public right-of-way. c. Require that the project sponsor submit a logistics plan that identifies the routing of all transported earth material. The logistics plan shall require that all routing of material be tmnsperted via El Camino Real; no muting of material is permitted through the contiguous, residential neighborhood to the west. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96=CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 29 6a, 6b, 6d, 6e & 6f TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION 6a - Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 6b - Would the proposal result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ? 6d " Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site ? 6e - Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 6f - Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Setting: .Street Network and Access The subject. 10.1 acres is located at the southern limits of the City of Palo Alto. The local roadway system sewing the project site includes El Camino Real (SR82), Arastradero Road/West Charleston Road, Dinah’s Court and Glenbrook Ddve. A bdef summary of each roadway is provided as follows: a.El Carnino Real (SR82)- provides direct access to the project site from the east; a six-lane adedal road with separate left-turn lanes on the approaches to major intersections. The closest signalized intersections to the site are Dinah’s Place/El Camino Real and Arastradero Rd.-W. Charleston Rd./EI Camino Real intersection. Arastradero Road-West Charleston Roa.~- located approximately 1/4 mile north of the site; an east-west, four-lane artedal extending from Highway 280 to US101. This road contains Class I bicycle lanes. The signalized intersection of Arastradero Rd.-West Charleston Road/El Camino Real operates at level of service (LOS) D intersection during the PM peak hour. c.~- located immediately east of the main hotel driveway; a local two-lane roadway serving a series of properties. The signalized intersection of Dinah’s Court and El Camino Real currently operates at level of service A dudng the AM peak hour and LOS B dudng the PM peak hour. So .~ located immediately west of the subject property; a two-lane local residential street extending westward to Pomona Avenue. Glenbrook Ddve connects to Amstradero Road via Pomona Drive and Los Palos Avenue. ~an Antonio Road (Mountain View) - located approximately ’A mile south of the site; an arterial. The intersection of San Antonio Road and El Camino Real currently operates at level of service D dudng the PM peak hour. Existino On-site Circulation and Parkina Existing access to the site is from El Camino Real. This access is provided by two ddveway connections with El Camino Real. The main access driveway is located along the central frontage of the eastern property boundary, aligning, at an angle with the intersection of Dinah’ Court and El Camino Real. The northern access driveway is located at the northeast corner of the site and provides two-way access to/from El Camino Real. The northern driveway has histodcelly served as access for all delivery vehicles. No access to the site is provided from the west, north or south (Adobe Creek frontage). Glenbrook Court "stubs" at the westem property boundary of the subject property; however, an existing, one foot wide non- access strip prohibits public, vehicular access. Emergency vehicle access is permitted over this strip of land. Vehicle access through the property is provided by a ddveway system that circulates around the site. A one-way driveway provides egress from the rear parking lot to the front lot. This ddveway borders the Adobe Creek and has a minimum width of approximately 15 feet. The existing hotel facility is developed with 520 on-site perking spaces. The existing perking meets the minimum parking requirements of Chapter 18.68 of the PAMC (499 parking spaces required). a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 |96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 30 6b, 6d, 6e, & 6f TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - CONTINUED Impacts: Project Traffic - trio aeneration and distribution The project would result in the development of 14 new single-family residential dwelling units and the continued operation of an existing hotel facility. The hotel facility would not generate any new or additional traffic/trips than what has been historically generated and distributed through the local intersections. Hotel traffic would continue to enter/exit the hotel parcel from two driveway access points to El Camino Real. Existing traffic from the hotel facility was assessed and assumed in the Citvw~de Land Use and Circulation Studv. A ~ummarv; City of Palo Alto (1990). Continued operation of the hotel would not result in operational changes to the service levels at immediate intersections (Dinah’s Court/El Camino Real intersection, Arastradero Road-West Charleston Road/El Camino Real intersection or San Antonio Road/El Camino Real intersection). The 14 new single-family residential dwelling units would generate 140 new average daily tdps and approximately 14 new tdps dudng the peak hour. The subdivision is designed as an extension of Glenbrook Ddve. New residential traffic would be added to Glenbrook Ddve, and would then be distributed to Los Palos Avenue, Pomona Avenue, Arastradero Road, El Camino Real and West Charleston Road. The residential traffic contribution to the Arastradero Road-West Charleston Road/El Camino Real intersection is approxirnetely seven tdps in the AM peak hour and seven tdps in the PM peak hour. This contribution would not change the level of service at this intersection dudng these peak hour pedods. Therefore, no mitigation is required. With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, the project has been analyzed for impacts to anticipated 2010 cumulative treffic volumes. The additional traffic from the residential development represents a very small percentage of the traffic anticipated under cumulative conditions. This percentage is negligible and would not impact long-term level of service conditions at effected intersections. Therefore, no mitigation is required. The project would result in a subdivision of land creating two land use components. The commercial (hotel) land use component would be appropriately served by El Camino Real, while the residential component would be served by Glenbrook Ddve, an existing, local residential street. Access to each of these uses is separate and would not result in a ~through" vehicle connection of traffic from the Greenacres neighborhood to El Camino Real. The project would result in the following circulation improvements: .- ao Realignment of the existing, main access ddveway to El Camino Real. This realignment proposes to create e 90 degree ddveway intersection with El Camino Real, which would require modifications and an extension to the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. The design of this ddveway access has been reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Transportation Division. These improvements would be subject to the approval of an encroachment from the State Department of Transportation (Caitrans). bo Glenbrook Drive is proposed to be extended for a distance of 400 feet, terminating in a cul-de-sac bulb. The roadway extension is proposed to be sized with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, a curb-to-curb roadway width of 30 feet, five foot wide sidewalks and on-street parking on one side of the street. "Idle 21 (Subdivisions) of the PAMC requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet and a curb-to-curb width of 36 feet for local streets; therefore, a conditional exception from the minimum width is being requested by the project sponsor. The Fire Department and Public Works Engineering have reviewed this cul-de-sac design finding it to be acceptable and maneuverable for emergency vehicles. A conditional exception is justified as the cul-de-sac serves a minimal number of residential lots and is adequately sized to provide for emergency vehicle maneuvering. The Fire Department recommends that the proposed street name of "Glenbrook Court" be denied. The Fire Department recommends that the cul-de-sac be recorded as "Glenbrook Drive" as it is an extension of the existing street. The cul-de-sac is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Palo Alto as a public street and right-of-way. This dedication is logical and appropriate given that Glenbrook Ddve is e public street. The ability to dedicate this roadway will depend pdmadly upon the ultimate resolution and action involving the one foot wide non-access strip, presently recorded at the existing terminus of Glenbrook Ddve. Pendinglitigation between the subject property owner (project sponsor) end’ the Greenacres homeowners may result in a pdvate ownership of the non-access strip. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-Vo3) 31 6a, 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (CONTINUED) Impacts (continued): Should it be determined that the non-access strip be maintained in private ownership, it would not be appropriate to dedicate the cul-de-sac as a public street. If private, the cul-de-sac will have to be owned and maintained by the 14 property owners within the proposed residential development. n~3~te Parkinq for Hotel I~ ¯ As explained in the project description, the current hotel complex is designed with 520 on-site parking spaces. The current parking design and count meets the requirements of Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC (See Attachment #9A). For hotel complexes that include conference/meeting rooms and on-site dining facilities, in addition to guest room parking (one space/room), Section 18.83.050 requires parking to be calculated for each "associated use’, less 75% of the spaces required for the guest room. For the Cabana Hotel facility, at total of 499 parking spaces would be required; this equates to a ratio of 2.5 parking spaces per guest room. Separate from the parking requirement of PAMC Section 18.83.050, the current PC zoning for this property (Ordinance 2006) requires 575 on-site parking spaces. The project proposes to reduce on-site hotel parking from 520 spaces to 284 parking spaces, with no major changes in the hotel facility or operation. The proposed parking equates to 1A4 parking spaces per guest room (with inclusion of valet parking spaces; 1.25 parking spaces per guest room w/out considering valet parking). A breakdown of the proposed parking is presented in Attachment #gB of this,assessment. Of the 284 "uniclass" sized spaces, 207 parking spaces are designed as "self-park" spaces, 58 spaces are for valet parking and 19 spaces are for on-site employee parking. The proposed parking program represents a 50% reduction in the amount of existing on-site parking, as well as a 50% reduction in the parking required by the PAMC. Typically, this proposal would require the approval of a vadance from the requirements of PAMC Section 18.83.050. However, the property is located within the PC District; the proposed parking requires a zone change to the PC District for this site, given that Ordinance 2006 requires a total of 575 on-site parking spaces: Section 18.68.090(h) of the PAMC (PC District), requires that if the requirements of the City’s parking ordinance (Chapter 18.83) are modified for a project in a PC District, the modifications must be supported by traffic engineering studies. In accordance with this requirement, DKS Associates (hired by project sponsor) has prepared the Traffic and Parkino Study for the Cabana Hotel. Palo Alto (December 17, 1996). This report, which is on-file with the Planning Division, provides a study of theproposed parking to determine its adequacy for thishotel facility. DKS Associates has concluded that, based on surveys of similar-sized hotels with confarence/meeting rooms, restaurant and bar/lounge, the proposed parking of 1.25- 1.44 spaces per guest room is adequate. The DKS survey reviewed conditions at three local hotels (Stanford Park Hotel = Menlo Park, Holiday Inn - Palo Alto & Hyatt Rickey’s - Palo Alto) and hotel perking demands recommended by the Crowne Plaza Hotels - Resorts. ’ As follow-up to and confirmation of the conclusions presented in the DKS Associates study, staff conducted an independent survey of similar-sized hotel facilities. The survey is outlined in Attachment #11 of this assessment (City of Palo Alto Planning Division memorandum from Paul Jensen, Contract Planner to Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Usa Grote, dated February 11, 1997). The eight hotels that were surveyed (from Budingame to Santa Clare) were selected based on the project sponsor’s "Business Statement" that the Cabana facility would be marketed as a "Corporete-Business" hotel. The business statement establishes the following variables and perematere for the hotel survey: a.The Cabana Hotel will be marketed as a "Corporate/Business" hotel, which is to serve the lodging and conference/meeting room needs of the visiting business person. bo A mid-sized hotel contains 150-350 guest rooms, 5,000-15,000 square feet of conference/rneeflng room space; e 100 seat restaurant and bar, that is pdmadly marketed to serve the needs’of the hotel guest. Ukewise, the confarence/meeting space is m~rketed pfimadly for use of business guests of the hotel and is not sized for large conventions. c.VVhile peak pedod use is from February - November, dudng the weekdays, the amount of on-site parking spaces and parking space occupancy would be determined as part of the hotel survey. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-.ARB-168, 97-V-3) 32 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (CONTINUED) Impacts (continued): The parking and occupancy survey for the eight hotels presents the following conclusions: a. The hotels provide, on average, a ratio of 1.23 parking spaces per guest room. None of these hotels would meet the currently adopted parking requirements of the PAMC Section 18.83.050. The survey found that, on average, 37.5% of the on-site parking for these hotels was occupied dudng the non-peak month of February. b. Hotel room occupancy rates, on average, range from 75% during the non-peak season to 88% during the peak season. VVhile hotel occupancy rates as high a 100% were encountered, none of the hotel management interviewed experience problems with parking adequacy or availability, except the Holiday Inn - Palo Alto. Following completion of the hotel survey, staff consulted with two other traffic engineers for comments and feedback on the ¯ DKS Associates report and recommendations on reasonable parking requirements (See Attachment #11 for summary). The two traffic.engineers concluded that the DKS Associates adequately addresses parking for a mid-sized, mixed use hotel. While the parking ratio of 1.25 - 1.44 spaces per guest room is adequate, it is recommended that a 1.5 sp’acelguest room ratio be provided dudng the seasonal/peak peded demand. In order to ensure that parking overflow is minimized and/or controlled dudng peak use pedods, it is recommended that a "performance plan" be developed. This performance plan shall incorporate implementing measures such as a hotel management schedule for alternating meetings/banquets dudng peak pedods of hotel occupancy, mandating valet parking and a hotel van/shuttle service. This performance plan shall be incorporated into the conditions of the PC (Planned Community) District. Incorporation of a performance plan would reduce potentially significant impacts on parking to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 6.1 All construction and grading activity proposed within the El Camino Real (SR 82) right-of-way may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project sponsor shall be required to submit, with the Final Subdivision Map, a written authorization or proof of an approved permit for construction activities within the Caltrans dght-ofoway, encroachment permit 6.2 The name of the residential cul-de-sac (Glenbrook Court) shall be changed to Glenbrook Ddve. This name change is necessary to minimize confusion and minimize ~ervice response time by the Fire Department. 6.3 Pdor to the adoption of the PC (Planned Community) Distdct amendment for the hotel parcel, the project sponsor, in consultation with their traffic engineer, shall prepare and submit an on-site parking =performance plan’. The performance plan shall address and present measures that are to be implemented during the peak hotel season, when potential for parking overflow is likely tobe experienced. Theperformance plan shall take into consideration the implementation of the following standards and measures: a. No parking shall be permitted in any of the fire and travel lanes at any time. b. No hotel parking shall be permitted on neighboring residential streets (e.g., Glenbrook Drive) at any time. c. The management shall schedule events/activities so that there is no ovedap of full conference/meeting room use dudng peak pedods of hotel room occupancy. d. The management shall provide and operate a year=round van/shuttle service for hotel guests. e. Valet parking shall be mandated; extended hours of valet parking operation shall be implemented dudng the peak season. Two status reports on parking and the successfulness of the performance plan shall be prepared by the project sponsor’s traffic engineer. The first report shall be submitted to the City for staff review following full operation of the hotel through a peak season cycle, or within 7 months of PC District adoption, whichever is first. The second status report shall be submitted within 18 months of PC District adoption. If the reports find that, during peak hotel operation pedods, overflow parking is experienced, staff will refer the matter to the Planning Commission along with recommended contingency measures (e.g., secodng remote/off-site perking spaces) and/or recommended amendments to the PC District. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96oEIA-32 (96-CPAo4, 96oZC-13, 96°SUB-5, 96-ARB°168, 97-V-3) 33 7d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7d - Would the proposal result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, t~pa~an or vernal pool)? Setting: The DEIR for the Prooosed Villacles at Creekside Proiect. Wagstaff and Associates (1996) provides a detailed assessment of existing vegetation and wildlife found on and around the subject property. This DEIR provides the following summary of existing setting and conditions: a. Approximately 81% of the site is covered by existing buildings and pavement. The remaining 19% of the site is mostly landscaped with non-native plant species. The principal biotic feature that is within the vicinity of the site is the Adobe Creek, which is dparian corridor. This creek contains a combination of native and non-native vegetation. b.The developed project site provides little habitat value for wildlife. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed on the project site dudng site investigations for the DEIR. Co The property and portions of the contiguous Adobe Creek bank contain a total of 293 mature trees. A tree survey was conducted by Ray Momeau, arborist in 1994. The inventory, which is presented on Sheet TRP of the current project plans, identifies tree species, size, and condition. For the most part, existing trees are non-natives (ornamentals) and do not provide a significant biological resource to the site or the surrounding area. The only trees identified in the inventory thatare subject to the City of Palo Alto Prohibition and Regulations on Tree Removal (Ordinance #4356) are the Coast Live Oaks (29-30 count); these native trees are located along Adobe Creek. do The segment of Adobe Creek located adjacent to the subject property contains a combination of native (riparian) and non-native vegetation types. This segment is of vadable and degraded habitat quality. The variation and degradation is the result of 1) the narrow width of the corridor, 2) the invasion of non-native plant species and 3) adjacent development along the creek banks. A limited number and species of wildlife utilize this portion of Adobe Creek. Impact: The development of 14 new single-family residential dwellings and continued hotel use would result in substantial removal of non-nativelomamental trees but minimal impacts to Adobe Creek and wildlife resources. Project impacts are surnmadzed as follows: a.The amount of existing pavement would be significantly reduced in the area of t~e proposed single-family residential development. Therefore, this portion of the project would provide additional area for planting and new tree growth. bo The project would have no direct impact to or proposes native tree removal within the Adobe Creek corridor. Site grading, pavement and building construction would be far from the creek bank edge. The construction of the new stormwater ouffall and replacement of the existing outfall would result in minimal impacts to the existing vegetation and slope banks along the creek. C°The project would result in the removal of approximately 116 trees and possibly an additional 30 trees. Although the . proposed tree inventorylremoval plan (sheet TRP) notes that approximately 44 of the 116 trees can be relocated/transplanted, this effort has not been incorporated into the preliminary lansdcape plan (sheet L-l). None of the trees proposed for removal are natives (e.g., oaks, .redwoods) and none have "biotic value". However, tree removal would potentially impact the visual character of the site (discussed in the Aesthetics section of this assessment). Since no tree relocation/transplanting program has been prepared, it is assumed that these trees would be permanently lost. ¯ Removal of this number of mature, healthy trees would be inconsistent with the standards used by the Architectural Review Board (PAMC Section 16.48.120(a)(11)). ¯ a:\4290ecr.eia [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-$UBo5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 34 7d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - CONTINUED Impact - Continued d. The p~IR for the Viliaqe$ at Creekside Proiect, Wagstaff and Associates (1996), identified that the 19 Italian Cypress (trees #240-258, located along the entry esplanade of the hotel parcel) and 15 trees with trunk diameters of 12" or greater are in =fair" or =better" condition warranting preservation and protection (trees #050, 051,052, 141,161,162; 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 174, 181,183 and 221). In addition, the City Arborist has identified six existing Magnolias (trees #234-239, located in the entry esplanade) as providing a significant feature to the entry of the hotel facilities. Under the current proposal, all 19 Italian Cypress and all six of the Magnolia would be removed (possibly relocated) and six of the 15 other trees (12" or greater) would be removdd. The proposed residential subdivision is designed so that lots #1-#4 (backing up to the creek) are of adequate depth to provide an average setback of 35 feet from the top of the Adobe Creek bank. Sheet TM-04 (Tentative Map) identifies a 20 foot =minimal grading and treelcreek preservation" zone along the rear of lots #1-4. No special provisions are proposed that would ensure that trees are protected. Inclusion of tree protection and preservation provisions, as well as replacement tree planting requirements in the subdivision C,C, & Rs would control future potential for tree removal. Likewise, the Tentative Map recognizes the need for tree protection and minimal grading along the western and northern boundaries of the residential portion of the subdivision, where trees currently provide extensive screening of the property from contiguous sites. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels:. 7.1 All grading activity required for construction of the two stormwater drainage outfalls into the Adobe Creek shall be designed to avoid impacts to or removal of native and/or dpadan trees. All tree removal required for the installation of these ouffalls shall be limited to non-native/omamental trees and identified on the improvement plans submitted with the final subdivision map. A replanting program shall be require foratl non-native tree removal. 7.2 All construction and grading activities proposed within Adobe Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clare Valley Water District (SCVWD), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG - streambed alteration) and the US Army Corps Of Engineers. The City shall require the following as conditions of project approval: a. Require that ~he project sponsor submit, with the Final Subdivision Map, a written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard streambed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work within the creek. b. Require that the project sponsor contact the US Army Corps of Engineers to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any grading of areas for outfall construction within the Adobe Creek is authorized by the Corps (Nationwide Permit). c. Require that the project sponsor submit, with the Final Subdivision Map, a written authorization or proof of an approved permit from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work within the Adobe Creek and/or properties owned by SCVWD. 7.3 Pdor to the adoption of the PC District, the project landscape architect and arbodst shall prepared and submit a plan which demonstrates how the existing Italian Cypress and Magnolia trees in the front (eastern) parking lot can be preserved, protected and/or transplanted (Trees #240-258, and tree #050, 051,052, 141,161,162, 167, 168, 169,. 170, 174, 181,183 and 221). These trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. In the event any of these trees are to be permanently removed, each shall be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. All new tree planting required for mitigation shall be planted at a 24" box size. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97=Vo3) 35 7d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - CONTINUED Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 7.4 To maximize tree protection along Adobe Creek, ’tree protection provisions shall be required for the rear 20 feet of residential lots #1-4 and incorporated into the recorded subdivision CC & Rs. The provisions shall prohibit tree removal and allow for minimal grading only, and shall require tree replacement if trees are removed. A tree protection plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the improvement plans submitted with the Final Subdivision Map; this plan shall present measures for the protection of all trees located within this area (See Aesthetics section for a discussion of landscape screening; same as mitigation measure 13.2). 7.5 To maximize tree protection for screening along the northern and westem boundaries of the proposed residential subdivision, tree protection provisions shall be required for the rear (western) 30 feet of lots #5-9 and over the northern 10 feet of lots #9 and 10 and incorporated into the recorded subdivision CC & Rs. The provisions shall prohibit tree removal and allow for minimal grading only and require tree replacement if trees are removed. A tree protection plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the improvement plans submitted with the Final Subdivision Map; this plan shall present measures for the protection of all trees located within this easement. (See Aesthetics section for a discussion of landscape screening; same as mitigation measure 13.1). ¯ a:\4290ecr.eia [3t97]96-EIA-32 |96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUB-5, 96oARB-168, 97oV-3) 36 10a & lOb NOISE lOa - Would the proposal result in an increase in, existing noise levels? lob . Would the proposal result in the exposure of people to sever noise levels? Setting: The project is bounded by El Camino Real on the east, a major artedal roadway that carries substantial automobile and truck traffic. Related traffic noise from el Camino Real dominates the noise environment on the subject property. Other City streets in the area of the site include Glenbrook Drive and Los Palos Drive, which are local, residential streets that generate limited traffic and noise. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (Existing Setting Summary Memorandum and the Noise Background Reports - 1995) includes data on noise levels along El Camino Real. Based on 1994 noise readings, the eastern portion of the subject property is exposed to noise levels between 60 and 70 Ldn. The rear (eastern) portions of the site experience noise levels of less than 60Ldn. More recent noise measurements were taken on the site in 1995 for the DEIR - Villages at Creekside (VVagstaff and Associates (1996). This DEIR presents the following findings regarding existing noise levels: a. 30 feet westward from the El Camino Real curbside (front of hotel site) = 73-75 dBA b. Western property boundary at the Glenbrook Ddve street "stub" = 45 dBA. Impact: The project proposes to subdivide the property, creating an eastern parcel of 6.82 acres for hotel use and a western parcel of 3.24 acres for single-family residential lots. Potential noise impacts are summarized as follows: ao The front portion of the hotel facilities would continue to be exposed to noise levels in excess of 60Ldn. These levels ¯ are deemed a.cceptable for commercial structures/uses. Continued operation of the hotel facility includes use of the northern two-way driveway for access to the rear parking lot and delivery vehicles. Residents living north of the hotel facilities (Redwood Condominiums) would continue to experience noise from delivery vehicles and from guests parking vehicles. The amount/level and frequency of noise is expected to be reduced given that 1.) a valet perking program is being proposed (which would reduce hotel guest access to the parking lot dudng peak pedods of hotel operation) and 2) exit doors along the north side of the conference/meeting room facilities, have been changed so that they serve as "emergency exit" only. The rear, western portion of the site, proposed for development of up to 14 single-family residences, would be exposed to noise levels that are acceptable for single-family residences. Therefore, no spedal noise attenuation measures are required. Furthermore, the proposed single-family development would be compatible with the existing residential use pattern in the surrounding neighborhood. The additional, proposed residential traffic fiom the project on Glenbrook Ddve would result in less-than-significant noise impacts. d.The project would result in temporary construction noise. Proper implementation and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 10.1 Require implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval and Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of thePalo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, limit construction to daytime hours so as to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 37 11a-d PUBLIC SERVICES 1 la-d - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services such as fire protection, pofice protec~on, schools, maintenance of pubfic facilities (including roads), or other government services? Setting: The following services are currently provided to the site by the City of Palo Alto: a.~ - The subject property is located in the Police Department’s Quad 4, which is assigned a minimum of one officer per shift and is bounded by El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, Adobe Creek and the western city limits. b.Fire protection - The Fire Department maintains a tota) of eight fire stations, which house a total of eight fire companies. The project site is located within the response distdct of the Arastradero Station, located within one mile of the site at 600 Amstradero Road. Current service respond time to the subject property is estimated at 50 seconds via Los Palos Avenue and Glenbrook Ddve, and two minutes via El Camino Real. c.~P_te~- The City has an assured supply of 18,415 acre feet per year of water from the San Francisco Water District (water purchased from this District, Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir). d.Wastewater - sewage disposal services are presently provided to the site by a 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer main along El Camino Real The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Unified School Distdct (PAUSD). The area of the subject property is served by the Juana Bdoles Elementary School (grades K-5), Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School (grades 6-8) and Gunn High School (grades 9-12). The PAUSD estimates a student yield of 0.297 students/household for grades K-5, 0.138 students/household for grades 6-8 and 0.163 students/household for grades 9-12. Impact: The project would result in the continued operation of a 197 room hotel facility and development of 14 new single-family residential dwelling units. Services are currently being provided to the hotel facility. The new single-family development would result in the following potential impacts to public services: ~ - The project would result in approximately 37.8 new residents (14 homes X 2.7 persons/household) which would result in a minor increase in demand for police service (emergency and non-emergency response). The increase in requests for service’would not adversely effect Police Department response times and would have no effect on the department staffing ratios. The project would, however, add to the potentially significant impacts to the Police Department services as a result of cumulative development. Alternative mitigation measures are presented below to address cumulative impacts. : The projeci does not propose to develop a public, Pedestdardbicycie path along the creek and would therefore have no impact on cmekside security. bo ~.[];LP.J:gJL~..~ - The 14 new single-family residences would result in an incremental increase in service cells for lira suppression and emergency medical services. The Fire Department finds that the project-related increases in service calls would not substantially affect response times, or necessitate new staffing or equipment. The project would, however, contribute to the potentially significant impacts to the Fire Department services from cumulative.development within the community. ARemative mitigation measures are presented below to address cumulative impacts. The Glenbrook Court cul-de-sacdesign, specifically the length and width has been reviewed by the Fire Department. The Fire Marshall has concluded that the reduced right-of-way width of 50 feet (in-lieu of the required 60 foot width) and bulb diameter is adequate to provide safe, emergency vehicle maneu.v, edng. The project would result in an increase in hotel facilities building height to a maximum of 100 feet. This additional height would not represent an obstacle to the Fire Department as the structure would be designed with emergency service stair wells and an automatic sprinkler system. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 38 1 la-d PUBLIC SERVICES - CONTINUED Impacts - continued c. ~ - The project would slightly increase the demand for water service. The increase in demand would be attributed to the 14 new single-family residences (given that the hotel is an existing facility in which water supply is already accounted for). However, there is an adequate supply of water to serve the residents. The City of Pale Alto Utilities Department does require that for new service hook-ups, the developer 1) comply with local codes and ordinances addressing efficient water use, 2) pay the hook-up costs to cover the City’s existing and planned capital investments, and 3) be financially responsible for on-site improvements and the project’s fair share of off-site improvements. d.~ - The project would generate a total of approximately 7,590 gallons per day of wastewater (based on 14 new homes X an estimated 2.71 persons/household X 200 gallons per day of wastewater generated per resident). Based on the current sewage capacity, the existing treatment system would be able to accommodate this increase, eo ~ - The project would result in the development of 14 new single-family lots sized to accommodate family housing. Utilizing the student yield provided by PAUSD, the project would generate 4.1 new students in grades K-5, 1.9 new students in grades 6-8 and 2.3 new students in grades 9-12: To offset impacts from additional enrollment, the PAUSD has adopted school impact fees, which are required to be paid through new residential and commercial construction. The proposed project would be subject to the school impact fees for the residential development at $1.84 per square feet of assessable space. No fee is required for continued operation of the hotel facilities as no additional, accessible square footage is being added to the hotel. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels: 11.1 The following are alternative measures for mitigation of Police and Department service impacts from cumulative development in the community: a. Require individual projects to provide needed new staff, vehicles and/or other equipment; b. Require individual projects to provide a fair-share contribution, through use of a fee schedule, towards provision by the City of needed new staff, vehicles and other equipment; or c. Increases in cumulative demands for personnel are financed by the City’s general fund. Rely on cumulative contributions to the general fund t~ offset cumulative impacts on police services. The preferred altamative measure is option "c,= which is consistent with the mitigation measures required for other recenUy-approved development projects in Pale Alto. 11.2 11.3 The following are altemative measures for mitigation of Fire Department sendceimpacts from cumulative development in the community: a. Require individual projects to provide needed new facilities as well as vehicles, equipment and staffing; b. Require individual projects to provide a fair-share contribution towards provision by the City of needed new staff, vehicles and equipment. The Fire Depa~rnent is currently researching possible systems and/0r fee schedules for mitigation of anticipated cumulative impacts; or c. Rely on cumulative contributions to the general fund to offset cumulative impacts on tire suppression and emergency medical services. Add additional staff, as needed, on an annual disffict-wide basis. The preferred alternative measure is option "c," which is consistent with the mitigation measures required for other currently-approved development projects in Pale Alto. Require, as a condition of Tentative Subdivision Map approval, that all new de~elopmant on the proposed single- family residential lots be subject to PAUSD school impact fees. The fees shall be determined by the Disffict, pdor to the issuance of a building permit by the City. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB.168, 97-V-.3) 39 13a-b AESTHETICS 13a - Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 13b - Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Setting: The DEIR for the Prooosed Villaaes at Creekside Proie~, Wagstaff and Associates (1996) presents the following information on the setting of the property and existing improvements: ao The project site is located on El Camino Real, at the southerly edge of the City of Palo Alto. The El Camino Real/Adobe Creek bddge, located immediately southeast of the site, delineates the southern edge of the City of Palo AltO. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element identifies this area as the southern =gateway" to the City of Palo Alto. Urban Design Policy 7 and Program 23 state, "Strengthen gateway identity. Plant groves of tell trees and emphasize bridge structure and entrance at Palo Atto’s south gateway on El Carnino Real". b. The developed site contains three, pdmary visual elements. The prominent element of the site is the eight stow portion of the hotel facility (Element #1), which makes it one of the most visible structures along Palo Alto’s south portion of El Camino Real. The second visually prominent feature of the site from the El Camino Real frontage is the existing hotel site landscaping (Element #2). This landscaping consists of mature, ornamental (non-native) trees and shrubs covedng approximately 20% of the site. The existing entry esplanade is lined with two vertical rows of Italian Cypress and a row of magnolias. An inventory of the trees has been prepared concluding that the site, and immediate lands to the south contain a total of 293 mature trees. The third visual element of the site (Element #3) is the mature landscaping along the border of the site. The Adobe Creek establishes the southern boundary of the site. The channel banks, which are heavily vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs, form a ripadan tree canopy. This feature is highly visible from on-site and from immediate off-site locations and provides maximum screening of the hotel and hotel facilities from the adjacent residential neighborhood (Los Altos). The northern and eastern edges of the property are bordered by a 10-30 foot wide band of mature landscape., pdmadly non-native trees. These trees provide moderate to maximum screening of the hotel site and facilities from the adjacent residential developments. Impact: - The proposed project would result in the following activities: Co The project would result in the removal of 116 trees. Most of the tree removal would occur in the front (eastern) parking lot and in selected areas around the hotel facility. The preliminary landscape plans propose to potentially relocate and transplant approximately 44 of the 116 trees that are proposed for removal. The most notable of these trees are the large Italian Cypress and the row of Magnolias located along the enW esplanade. However, this preliminary landscape plan does not identify where or how these existing trees would be relocated/transplanted. The project has the potential to result in the loss or removal of 30 additional trees located in the existing, rear perking lot (as a result of grading and site cieadng for single-family residential lots). No tree removal is proposed along the 10 foot wide landscape stdp that borders the northern property line (adjacent to Redwoods Condominiums and adjacent single-family residential development). Likewise, no tree removal is proposed along the 20-40 foot wide strip along the westam property boundary, bordering the Green acres single-family residential neighborhood. No grading or tree removal is proposed along the southern property boundary, and/or within the Adobe Creek corridor. A "no grading/no development" zone ranging from 20 foot (35 feet measured from top of creek bank) is being proposed for the rear of residential lots #1-4 (see sheet TM-04 of application plan matadals). The preservation of the trees within these banks would continue to provide moderate to maximum screening of the hotel facilities end the single-family residential development from adjacent residential properties. a:\4290ecr.aia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96oCPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB=5, 96-ARB-168~ 97-Vo3) 40 13a-b AESTHETICS - CONTINUED Impact (continued): d. The project would result in the construction of new roof features on the stair tower and penthouse elements of the existing hotel structure. These new roof elements would introduce metal-seam material on hip features and the use of cement plaster (stucco) for siding and tdm features.- These features would raise the eight-story tower portion of the hotel building to a maximum of 100 feet in height (an increase of 15 feet). The changes in the elevations to the hotel tower would be visible from El Camino Real and the City =gateway"; These elevation changes would be minimally visible from the adjacent residential developments to the north, east and south. ¯ e.The project would result in the extension of Glenbrook Ddve, terminating 400 feet northeast in a cul-de-sac. Ultimate build=out of 14 new single-family lots would result in a project that would appear as an extension to the existing Greenacres neighborhood. The project would result in the planting of Redwoods, Fremont Poplars and dparian shrubs at the southeast end of the site, adjacent to El Camino Real and Adobe Creek. This planting is proposed to comply with the City’s Urban Design Element Policy 7 and Program 23 (=gateway" landscaping). The project would also result in the planting of a variety of 15 gallon/24 box size trees (London Plane, Magnolia, Raywood Ash, Chinese Pistache) in the eastern parking lot and along the El Camino Real street frontage. The single-family residential portion of the project would result in minimal visual impacts to adjacent properties and would not be visible from El Camino Real. As noted above, this portion of the project would appear as an extension of the existing Greenacres residential neighborhood. Furthermore, existing trees, which border this area of the site would be preserved. In order to ensure that these trees are preserved, it is recommended that restrictive easements .be required over the rear portions of the proposed lots that abut existing residential development. These easements can be imposed as a condition of Tentative Subdivision Map approval. Preservation of these ~ees for screening would eliminate potential visual impacts of the residential development. Two photo-based renderings of the project (as viewed from El Camino Real) have been prepared and submitted with the project applications (See Sheet V-l). The renderings are intended todepict the proposed hotel structure and site =mprovements with a 10-year growth of new plantings. These renderings show that the hotel portion of the project Would change the character of the site from El Camino Real and the City "gateway’. These renderings have been compared to the existing conditions (see Attachment #12 for site photos). While the general use of the site is not changing and building features and footpdnta would remain unchanged, the change in character would be substantial due to the combination of the following factors: The significant removal of the mature, omamantal trees in the front (eestem) perking lot (Element #2). While these trees are not subject to the City of Palo Alto Ordinance #4356 (Prohibitions and Regulations on Tree Removal), as a whole, they present a prominent natural feature on the site (comments from City Arbodst, January 15, 1997). New plantings of 15 gallon trees to replace the existing trees will be dwarfed for many years, until tree maturity. b.The replacement of the existing tennis courts with new, on-site parking (part of Element #2). The replacement of the tennis courts will include removal of existing, mature trees, which currently provide screening of this area from El Camino Real.. Although the hotel development would result in a change in the character of the site, this change, as viewed as a whole, would not result in significant visual impacts given the following: a.The hotel tower (Element #1) is, and would continue to exist as the prominent visual element of the site. Modifications to building elevations and height would not be substantially altered. The bulk and footprint would not change. While additional building height is requested, this additional height is not substantial. b.The existing, native and non-native landscaping along the Adobe Creek (southern border of the site) would be maintained. Ukewise, the existing, mature landscaping along the northern border of the site would be maintained (Element #3). a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 41 13a-b AESTHETICS - CONTINUED Impact (continued): Although the removal of the trees and landscaping in the front, hotel parking lot would be substantial, the preservation of the other prominent, visual elements (noted above), would reduce potential visual impacts to less-than-significant levels. Nonetheless, the value of the mature, non-native trees within the parking lot (particularly the Italian Cypress and Magnolias) are aesthetic; therefore, the preservation of these trees through modifications in the site plan/landscaping plan or through relocation/replanting should be required (See section addrest;ing Biological Resources and recommended mitigation measure 7.3). Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to lees-than=significant levels: 13.1 To maximize tree protection for screening along the northern and western boundaries of the proposed residential subdivision, tree protection provisions shall be required for the rear (western) 30 feet of lots #5-9 and over the northem 10 feet of lots #9 and 10, and incorporated into the recorded subdivision CC & Rs. The provisions shall prohibit tree removal and allow for minimal grading only, and shall tree replacement if trees are removed. A tree protection plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the improvement plans submitted with the Final Subdivision Map; this plan shall present measures for the protection of all trees located within this area. (See Biological Resources section for a discussion of tree removal; same as mitigation measure 7.5). 13.2 To maximize tree protection along Adobe Creek, tree protection provisions shall be required for the rear 20 feet of residential lots #1-4 and incorporated into the recorded subdivision CC & Rs. The provisions shall prohibit tree removal and allow for minimal grading only, and shall require tree replacement, if trees are removed. A tree protection plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the improvement plans submitted with the Final Subdivision Map; this plan shall present measures for the protection of all trees located within this area (See Biological Resources section for a discussion of tree removal; same as mitigation measure 7.4). 13.3 Implement mitigation measure 7.3, which requires that a tree preservation/replanting plan be prepared and submitted to the City. Tree replacement for trees permanently lost shall be at a ratio of 2:1 and planted at a 24" box size. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB.5,. 96-ARBo168, 97-V-3) 42 14b CULTURAL RESOURCES 14b - Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources? Setting: The subject property is contiguous to the Adobe Creek, an area that is considered to be "Extremely Sensitive" to archeological resources (Reference: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, 1994). In 1995, a field inspection of the site was conducted by a qualified cultural resources consultant (Holman and Associates). This field inspection was completed in conjunction with the prepara.tion of the DEIR - Villages at Creekside (Wagstaff and Associates, published January 1996). A summary of Holman and Associates findings was published in this DEIR, which reads as follows: ’ =The project field inspection had limited value for purposes of locating prehistoric cultural resources; over 90 percent of the project site is covered by buildings, pavement or landscaping, leaving a small area of ground at the southwestern edge of the project site and areas along the top of the creek bank outside the project site boundary for clear inspection. Nevertheless, considering that two prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded less than one mile east of the project site along the banks of Adobe Creek, and that the environmental setting of the project site is identical to that of these recorded sites in terms of access to food resources and possible use as a village or camp location, the property is considered by the EIR archaeologist and the City’s Comprehensive Plan update archaeologist to be archaeologically sensitive with a high potential to contain previously undiscovered cultural resources." Impact: The proposed project would involve construction activity, pdmadly site grading and installation 0f subdivision infrastructure (construction of ouffalls in Adobe Creek. Such activity has the potential to disturb previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may exist on the project site. Given the characteristics of the subject property (level site adjacent to creek) the site has the potential to contain such resources. The possibility of such disturbance of previously undiscovered archeological resources represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is required to reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to lees-than.significant levels: 14.1 Dudog construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained to observe approved ground disturbing activities, including the removal of the rear parking lot and subsequent project site preparation (grading activities). The archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96oARB-168, 97-V-3) 15a-b RECREATION 15a - Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 15b - Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? Setting: The subject property is located at the southem edge of the City of Palo Alto. The closest neighborhood parks in the vicinity are Monroe Park, Bdoles Park and Terman Park. The closest signed, public bicycle path runs along Arastradero Road, crossing at El Camino Real and continuing eastward on W. Charleston Road. Although not a City park, the subject property is contiguous to the Adobe Creek, an open creek channel that has recreational opportunities. Impact: The proposed subdivision would create 14 lots for single-family residential development. Given the proposed size of the lots, site topography and the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood, the 14 new residences are likely to be sized for families. The lots are large enough to provide usable yard area for outdoor, pdvate recreation use. However, the development would result in a new residential population, thus increasing the potential use of existing public parks in the neighborhood. Project impacts to public parks would be less-than-significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. As mentioned above, the Adobe Creek presents some recreational opportunities. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plar~ Open Space Element (Policy 10) and the School and Parks Element (Policy 4) addresses parks and access along creeks. These policies read as follows: Open Space Element- Policy 10: Utilize natural ~pat~an lands along streams, ponds, creeks and lakes, wherever possible, for paths and trails, and as links in the City-wide and subregional open space systems. School and Parks Element - Policy 4: Provide park s#es of different sizes and types to respond to the needs of a diverse population, including park-like natural areas, linear trails and creekside systems. At the request of City staff, the project sponsor has prepared an alternative site plan (Shoots A-3A and A=4A of the application submittal materials), which includes a pedestrian/bicycle path connection between Glenbrook Court and El Camino Real. This plan is no, t endorsed by the project sponsor;, in fact, the project sponsor has a strong opposition to providing this path system because of liability. The alternative site plan has been prepared to respond to the two City policies presented above. The path would commence at the western property boundary, bicyclists and pedestrians would util=’BP.~Glenbrook._ Court and the new sidewalk through the residential subdivision. A joi~t path would continue between proposed residential lots #1 and #14 and would enter the western portion of the hotel ~arcel at the southwest parking lot. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic would continue eastward, sharing a one-way vehicular driveway along the southern property boundary (Adobe Creek frontage), traversing through the front hotel parking lot and connecting with El Camino Real. While the alternative site plan would partially comply with Policy 10 of the Open Space Element and Policy 4 of the School and Parks Element, the design does not take full advantage of potential public access along the creek. As discussed above, the alternative pedestrian/bicycle path has not been designed for maximum public safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and does not provide the best opportunities for m~x. imum public access along Adobe Creek. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. The project would not be consistent with Policy 10 of the Open Space Element and would be partially consistent with Policy 4 of the Schools and Parks Element (policies encouraging paths, trails and public access along .creeks). However, consistency with public plans (e.g., adopted Comprehensive Plan policy consistency) would create significant impacts under CEQA only when an adverse physical effect would result from the inconsistency. In this case, the proposal to not include a public trail/path along the Adobe Creek would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. a:\4290ecr,eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 |96=CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) VVE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT VVE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED "~:~"~t~::~ ~" ~1"~ , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4290 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. pphcant s ~gna Date ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: Attachment #2: Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #5A: Attachment #5B: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Attachment #8: Attachment #9A: Attachment #9B: Attachment #10: Attachment #11: Attachment #12: Vicinity/Location Map Site PlanNesting Tentative Map & Alternative Site Plan with Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Ordinance #2006 (adopted PC District) Residential Subdivision Lot Inventory Proposed "Business Statement" for "corporate/business" hotel Proposed Public Benefit Statement Letter from the City of Palo Alto to Carrasco & Associates regarding BMR agreement; February 4, 1997. Letter from Bdan, Kangas and Foulk to Carrasco & Associates regarding site grading and drainage; October 30, 1996. Letter from Bdan, Kangas and Foulk to Carrasco & Associates regarding project runoff and hydrological impacts to Adobe Creek; February 12, 1997. Parking Requirement for Hotel Facility by City of Palo Alto Parking Ordinance (Chapter 18.83, PAMC) Proposed Parking Summary Table of municipal code parking standards for hotels (other local City requirements) City of Palo Alto Planning Division memorandum to Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytleand Lisa Grote from Paul Jensen, Contract Planner summarizing survey of hotel facilities and parking, February 11, 1997. Site photos - Presentation of Prominent Visual Elements of Site a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3} 45 ATTACHMF~_T_.~ Vicinity/Location Map ATTACHMENT #2_ Site Plan/Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet A-3) & Alternative Site Plan with Bicycle/Pedestrian Path (Sheet A-4A) I| ®; 3 I~;, I ATTACHMENT #3 oRDnance. No. z006 6o AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY [RONTING ON KL .CAMINO REAL AND KNO~ AS "EL CAMINO REAL ANNEXA- ’ .TIO! ’NO. 3" AND REPEALING ORDI~t%NCES 1814 A~D 1923 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: Section I. The Development Plan consisting of Palo Alto Cabana-Ground Floor Plan, Exhibit A; Palo Alto Cabana-Mezzanlne Flq~r Plan, Exhlblt B; and Palo Alto Cabana showing Typlcal Floor Pl@n, Southeast Elevation, Typical Lanai Suite and Typical Motel ~oom, Exhibit C are attached hereto and incorporated herein are h~eby approved subject to Section 2.. hereof. Section ~. The entire plan shall be subject ~o ~he ~ollowiug conditions: I.: The fol’%owlng plans are a part of’abe "Develo~meun Pla~’ ¯ . and all ~ses and development shall be subs.tantlally in accordance =herewith: PALO ALTO CABANA-GROUND YLOOR PLAN wi~h amendmentshowing auditorium, seating capacity 1,000, i0, 089 sq. ft., ceiling heigh~ Eo conform to auditorium speclfica~ions. ’ ¯ PALO ALTO CABA~A -MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN PALOALTO CABANA showing: Typical Floor Plan So=~heast Elevation ~Typ~cal Lanai Suite Typclal Motel Room Allingress and egress ~hall be via ElCamlno Real, excep~ that a ga~e shall be provided at the stub-end of Glenbrook Dri~e,..Sald gate shall be locked at all times and shall befor .~he exclusive use of emergency vehicles of ~he Ci~y ~f A minimum of 575 permanent off-s~reet parking s~alls shall be provided. Screen plannings shall’be ,provided as follows: a, b. C. d. Areas between buildings and cre~k. Northerly side property llne - a lO-foot screen pian=ing as indicated on =he approved plo= plan. Rea~ property line - a mlnimum of 30 feet of screen plaDting. AdJacen~ ~o creek and wiuhiu 330 fee~ of rear prope~y llne - a minimumof 30 feet of screen plan~ing. -I- No building shall be located within 20 feet of the bank of the creek. Exterior lighting shall be designed, constructed, and installed in such a manner as to protect neighborning residential develop. All signs shall be placed on the front or E1 Casino side of the building and no signs shall be permitted on th~ top ofthe structure. Adequate’provlsions shall be made to insure fire protection,such as fire hydrants, standpipe systems, and other require-ments.as~determined by the FAre Chief¯ of the City of Palo Alto. ;Height - 8 stories, not to exceed ~5 feet plus necessary machinery penthouse structure. .Construction of the auditorium shall be substantially atthe same. time as construction of the motel. Development schedule - Construction to start within sixmonths after effective date of approval. 12..The machinery penthouse structure shall be appropriatelyscreened or given architectural treatment. Section "~. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth herein @r any condition of a use permit i~sued pursuan~ heretg~ shall result in the immediate revocation of any such use Section 4. Ordinance 1814 and Ordinance 1923 are hereby repea: , .Section :5. This ordinance shall [ake effect upon ~he explra[i~ of =~h~.r~y.’d~ from its passage. INTEODU~ED~..Feb~uary ZT~ 1961. ATTACHMENT # 4 GLENBROOK COURT LOT AREA~S Total Site Area Lo_~t Lot 1Lot 2 Lot 3Lot 4 Lot 5Lot 6 Lot 7Lot 8 Lot 9Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12Lot 13 Lot 14 Dime~~-~i 17 x 88 x 33 x 14953 x 149 x 96 x 13660 x 136 x 84 x 10655 x 106 x 104 x 10466 x 117 x 97 x 12460 x 124 x 60 x 12260 x122 x 60 x11756 x 117 x 69 x 11542 x 115 x 66 x 143 x 6639x66x 143x69x11557 x 115 x 70 x 11960 x 119 x 61 x 12061 x120x61x12055 x 120 x 83 x 117 TOTAL R-1 Public Street R/W TOTAL SITE 141,123 12/19/96 118,501 2.720 22,622 0.519 141,123 3.240 _Area- Sa. Ft. ~10,906 0.250, 10,333 0.2377,666 0.176:,8,008 0.1849,593 0.2207,393 0.1707,266 0.1677,256 0o 1679,963 0.22910,166 0.2337,391 0.1707,296 0.1677,295 0.1677,969 0.183 CROWNE PLAZA ATTACHMENT #SA ~.l!lli!l~"BnsinessStatement" for "Corporate/Buli!~ess" Hotel Saturclay, February 01, 1997 B.B. Patel Pato Alto Cabana 4290 El Camino Real Paio Alto, CA 94306 Re: Parking Requirements at the Proposed Crowne Plaza Palo Alto Dear B.B.: Pursuant to the letter received from the City of Palo Alto, please let me address some of the questions that the City raised. Parking is more a function of a hotel’s market mix and location lhan anythiqg else. The following information should give a clear understancling of how this property will be operated. The following is a use and size breakdown of the 24,430 square feet of public space at the hotel: A)Hotel Restaurant B)Hotel Lounge C)Meeting Space D)Prefunction Area E)Hotel Lobby TOTAL 3,661 square feel 2,432 square fee*. 11,027 square feet 3,625 square feet 3~685 square feet24,430 square feet Paae 2. item 2 Business Statement: Crowne Plaza Hotels are a collection of upscale properties with services and _ amenities geared to the needs of the discriminatingexecutive traveler. As such, this I~ote! will be operated and marketed as an upscale, corporate hote=. One of the strongest growth curves in the hospitality industry charts the expanding size and influence of a category called ~disceming travelers." These are travelers who tell us. right down to the smallest detail, that they want the best of everything from a hotel stay. And they are wilhng to pay for that privilege. Crowne Plaza hotels ~vere created to accommodate that group of travelers. Crowne Plaza hotels, currently operating in major metropolitan and suburban markets, business centers and airport locations throughout the world, are designed to provicle a highly enhanced hotel experience at competitive market rates Crowne Plaza hotels are expertly staffed, comfortably furnished an0 attractively decorated - catering to the needs of the most uncompromising traveler. The hotel ~II not be marketed as a Conference Center, nor as a banquet center, nor as a resort hotel. As mentioned above, the hotel will be marketed as an upscale, corporate hotel. The meeting and banquet space existsas a necessary convenience in orcler to rent guest rooms. The peak period of demand for the hote~ rooms is Sunday through Thursday nights. Ii is during this time that the peak use would occur in the meeting rooms as the hotel guests are tl~e primary users of the meeting rooms in the hotel. Scheduling of the meeting space at the hotel is tightly managed process that occurs in dally revenue management meetings to assure that the meeting space is being utilized in generating room revenue and notfor local functions that could potentially block out a future group booking. ’ The restaurant and lounge are not intended to be stand alone uses, rather, a convenience and comfort of our I~otel guests. They are, of course, open to the public. These facilities are not operated as a separate entity. According to Crowne Plaza standards, the hours of operation for the restaurant are 6:00AM to 11:00 PM. There’s a certain feeling, a certain ambiance, a certain quality level that must be experienced to fully understand the product. All Crowne Plaza hotels are noteworthy for their impressive and tastefully decorated lobbies. A sense of welcome is extremely important. For relaxation, there is a lobby bar and restaurant. For convenience, there is a gift shop stocked with only the highest quality merchandise. For those travelers seeking the very finest in accommodations and maximum privacy. Crowne Plaza hotels offer many different guest room choices including the Crowne Plaza Club executive floor. Also, each Crowne Plaza hotel provides guests with fitness facilities, complete with a pool and a full assortment of exercise equipment. Crowne Plaza standards call for valet parking to be available at least 16 hours a day. In addition, a contingency plan will be crafted providing for.off-site parking in the unlikely event that demand for parXing exceeds the supply. Thisarrangement is standard within tl~e hospitality industry. The proportion of meeting rooms to guest rooms to parking at your hotel is consistent with the design of most every other full-service corporate hotel and does not raise a concern relating to the number of parking spaces at your hotel. In the publication, Hotel/Motel .[3evelopment, published by The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Lavanthol & Ho~wath, they suggest as a general rule to allow for one space per room, one space for every three or four restaurant seats, plus one Sl~ce for every three employees. The number of parldng spaces you are proposing is consistent with this formula. B.B., should the City I~ave any additional questions or concerns, p;ease give me a call, As an owner and operator ourselves, we continually study and review all aspects of hotel aevelopment to ensure the success of our properties as well as good community relations. Sincerely, Michael F. Higgins, C.H.A. Regional Vice President - Crowne Plaza Develol~ment ATTACHMENT #5~B r "nil mn Development of the site under the provisions of the PC District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by. application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this Section, the Planniag Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the Planned Community District. The major public benefit is to subdivide off 3.24 acres of asphalt parking lot to create 14 single-family residential lots. This benefit results from actually reducing the amount of area dedicated to a PC Zone (underlying CS zone) in Palo Alto and to create MORE R-I Zone area, thus bringing more land into conformance with established zoning districts. Benefit 2: Aesthetic imp_~y_~l~_9~,_the existing roofline by adding hip roof forms to st..~ir w ’screen. Reduce size ofequ_ipment P~blic benefit is also realized when the flat roofs on the stair towers and the elevator equipment enclosure are replaced with hip roof coverings. These-hip roofs will provide an aesthetic benefit to the public by allowing the building to touch the sky in a more gracious manner, as well as completing the aesthetic statement which relates to traditional roof forms in Palo Alto and at Stanford University. Benefit 3: R~mova ’ ’ement°with ~p_en land for R-I " ’ The community is aesthetically benefitted .by ~ over 3 acres of parking which is essentially an existing "sea of asphalt,’ with no interior landscaping. In its place will (ultimately) be .14 single family homes with-iDdividually landscaped yards. -The increased amount and variety of landscaping will create a cooler environment, improve the appearance of the area, and establish a more inviting habitat for birds, butterflies, bees and other wildlife. By replacing an existing parking lot with landscaped single-family properties, there will be a decrease in the amount of traffic noise, dust, car headlights, and other commercial-related activities of that parking lot which would otherwise impact adjacent existing residents. Removal of the parking lot also reduces the potential of pollutants flowing to the creek, which is a~benefit not only to the immediate community, but to the overall health of the creek itself. The portion of the creek presently bordered by parking will be borderedby. residential backyards. At the Caba~a property, new plantings will be compatible.with the existing riparian hibitat at the Creek. ¯’ . " ’’II II "r ~Ei~ance to Palc~O on E1 Camino R~il~ An additional benefit to the City of Palo Alto is the creation of a "gateway’[ landscape feature at the Southeasterly corner of the site. A feature ~.grove of trees will be plante.d between Adobe Creek and the front parking lot near the E1 Camino Real undercrossing, of the creek. This "gateway" will serve to announce arrival into Palo Alto, and hel.~ to differentiate Palo Alto from other cities as one moves along E1 Camino, where all cities tend to run together. This meets city objectives to improve the visual character of South E1 Camino Real. It also furthers the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan gatew.ay conce.pt for the E1 Camino Real crossing of Adobe Creek. ¯.v ’ ship of main site entra~c~~_W_~i_~ By realigning the main driveway into the Caba~a site, a better relationship will be created with Dinah’s Court across E1 Camino Real. As stated in the DKS Parking Study-, the 90 degree intersection of the new entry drive With E1 Camino Real improves traffic flow to and from E1 Camino. ~_~nefit 7 ~ The area of E1 Camino Real between Adobe Creek and Arastradero Road is essentially "hotel row" and needs a cohesive design plan to encourage pedestrians to~ walk between hotels., restaurants and related services in this zone. E1 Camino continues to be a pedestrian-hostile environment which needs thoughtful planning to improve its potential as a "promenade". The proposed street planting design study would provide a design concept plan which could create a substantially enhanced entry into Palo Alto. This design study would illustrate a vision for the "hote! row" segment of E1 Camino Real, where pedestrians could feel comfortable -- perhaps waiking through a double row of trees on each side of the street. This "promenade" would announce entrance to Palo Alto as well as improving the image for all businesses along this stretch of E1 Camino. By donating this design plan to the City as public benefit, the applicant will accelerate the process of improving E1 Camino more quickly than would otherwise occur. Palo Al o Departma~t of Plqnning a~ wl Community Etzvironment February 4, 1997 Transportation Tony Carrasco Carrasco & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Olenbrook Court Dear Tony: The City is in receipt of the Draft BMR Agreement proposed by you for the Glenbrook Court subdivision. Your proposal, copy attached, was included in the revised information submitted on December 19, 1996 for the thirteen lot subdivision and hotel improvements at 4290 El Camino Real. Your proposal followed several m~tings between City staff and the. project applicants, and is proposed in satisfaction of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of PaloAlto Comprehensive Plan. Your proposal has been reviewed by City staff and by the Palo Alto Housing Corporatic~n Board (PAHC). Staff and PAHC are receptive to your proposal for a mitigation fee in-lieu of the provision of atot in~dae s~ubdivision; however, we offer the fo!l.owing in revised Agreement in response to your proposal: 1. The mitigation fee will be collected in two stages based 1) on the value of the vacant lots and 2) on the value of the improvements. 2. The value of the vacant lots shall be dete.rmined by an independent appraiser selected by the City. Costofthe appraisal will be borne by the applicant. City shall be given 60 days. notice prior to date appraisal information is required. 3. The BlvlK mitigation fee for each vacant lot will be 5% (five percent) of the appraised value as determined in item 2 above. 4. The mitigation fee On all thirteen vacant lots must be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the final map.-. :,.,. .... ~.~0Hamilt~ Avenue P.O. Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.329.2404 415.~.~9.2240Fax Tony Can’asco February 4, 1997 Page 2 5. The mitigation fee on the value oftbe improvements to each lot shall be based on 5% (five percent) of tbe value of the improvements as determined using the latest International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Building Standards, "Building Valuation Data" (August 1996 copy attached). The calculation shall use the "good" cost per square foot and the San Francisco area regional modifier applied to the total square footage of improvemen~ in the plans submitted to the City for ~...b. uilding permit. 6. The mitigation fee described under item 5 above shall be increased by an additional amount equal to 40% (forty percent) ofthe ICBO valuation, in order to account for estimated soft costs, fixtures, add-ons, etc thht are not included in the "Building Valuation Data." This will bring the valuation .more in line with the sales value. 7. The mitigation fee on the value of the improvv.ments to each lot must be paid to the City at the time the first building permit is issued for improvements that individually or collectively with previous permits, brings the total building area on the lot to greater than 1,750 square feet. The mitigation fee is computedusing the entire square footage. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the Conditions of the Tentative Map and the Subdivision Agreement. The Subdivision Agreement must be completed and signed prior to the fin~. map being considered by. the City Council. Thank you for your cooperation during the planning pro~ss on this project.. Ifyou agree with this revised proposal, you may sign this letter indicting that we have reached agreement regarding the BlVIR component for your project. Sincerely, KENNETH IL SCHREIBER Director of Planning aa.d o Community Environment Attachment: - Draft BMR Agieement, D~cember 19, 1996 Pale Alto Housing Corporation Memo dated January 9, 1997 Building Valuation Data, ,~ugu~. t 1996 o Tony Carrasco February 4, 1997 Page 3 I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at Glenbrook Court (part of 4290 El Camino Raal) as described in this letter dated February 4, 1997. Tony Carraseo Date cc."Linda Ludden Poneini, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto HousingCorporation Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney ~J~tm Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Nancy Lytle, ChiefPlarming Official DRAFT BMR AGREEMENT It is the intention of Olenbrook Court LLC to subdivide the property to the rear of the Cabana Hotel and create fourteen lots. Eight of the lots will be retained at cost by the LLC’s five members and one lot will be retained.at cost by the present land owner. The remaining five lots will be sold at market prices. "" Glenbrook LLC, after our last meeting has chosen your second alternative i.e to pay the city 5% of the market value of all lots ~t the time that 50% of all lots (7) are sold or there is a transfer of deeds. In addition the city wants an additional 5 % of the value of each initial building permit. The average price per lot is approximately $350,000. When sevetx lots ~e sold, Gler~b~ook Court LLC will transfer ($350,000 x 5% .x 14) = $245,000.00 to the city’s BMR program. An additional contribution of 5 % initial of the House Buildi.ng Permit value will be contributed tO the BMR program: This fee will be charged .to each property owner at the time a building permit is issued for the first house I:iuilt on the lot. No subsequent BMR fee will be charged on subsequent permits. We believe that this approach is the m6st beneficial, to the neighborhood and the Below Market Rate program and the residents of .the neighborhood. We believe that the $245,000.00 can b~ leverag.e.d (with a 59% ~Iown payment} to buy four to five units in Palo Alto and the 5 % money from the value of the Building Permit can be used to fix those four to "five units, thus benefitting a larger number of low and haoderate income residents rather than providing .a windfall for 1.4 residents. We hiSpe this proposal meets with your program needs. , BUILDING VALUATION DATA At Ihe request of numerous building officials, Building Standards offers the following building valuation data representing average costs for most buildings.Became residential buildings are the most common for many cities, two general classes are considered for these, one for "average" construction and the other (or "good." ,Adjustments should be made for special archilectural or structural features and the location or the project. Higher or lower unil costs may ohen result. The unit costs are intended to comply with the definition of "valuation" in Section 223 o( the 1994 Unlform Building Code~" and thus include architectural, strut. rural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work. except as specifically listed below. The unit costs also inc|ude the contractor’s profit, which should not be omitted. Thd determination of plan check (ees for projects revie~ed by the International Conference of Building Of Ecials will be based on valuation computed from these 1~ ures, which were eslablished in April 1996. and Trpe 1. APARTMENT HOUSES: ¯TYI:~_ I or II F.R." ..............$?7.20(Good) $94.80Type V-Masonry{or Type IIII ...............63.20(Good) $77.30Type V--Wood Frame .....55.50(Good) $71.30 ¯Type ~Basement Garage 32.50 2. AUDITORIUMS: .~Y.pePe I or II F.£ ................. 91.40tl--1-Hour ..............66.00 i~eII-.,.N ......................62.60Ill--l-Hour ............69.60III--N ...........; .....66,00V~l-Hour ...........66.50pe V--N .................62.00 3. BM~IKS:Type I or II F.R." .............129.00Type II--1-Hour ..............95.00Type II-,-N ......................92.00~y~eIll--l-Hour ............104.80III-,,,N .................1OI.20Type V~l-Hour .............95.00Type V--,N ...................91.00 4. BOWLING ALLEYS:Type I1=-I-Hour .........44.40Type II--N ..........41.50Type 111--1-Hour ........48.30Type III--N .....~. ........4S.20Type V~l-Hour ......32.60 S. CHURCHES:Type I or II F.R. ........86.50Typ~ 11,--1-Hour ........64.80Type II--.N .............61.60Type Ill.--I-Hour .........70.60Type III--N ......;.. ....67.50Type V--l-Hour .......~. 66.00Type V--,N .............62.00 6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS:Type I or II RR." ..........121.20Type II--1-Hour ........64.00Type III--1-Hour .......86.20Type V~l.Hour ......81.30 Cost per Square !Cost per SquareFoot, Average O~cupan~/and Type Foot, Averase 7. DWELLINGS: Semi-Finished .............17.50(Good) $20.20 Unfinished ..................12.60(Good) $15.40 ,,:.. 8. FIRE STATIONS:Type I or II F.R .................99.80iyyy~pe I1--1-Hour .............. 65.40II--N .......................61.80Ill--l-Hour .............71.80pe III--N.~ ....................68.80Type V--l-Hour ..............67.30Type V--N ......................64.00 Cost per SquareOccupancy and Type Foot, Avemse 13. JAILS:T~pe I or II F.R ................$138.60Type Ill--l-Hour .............126.60Type V~I-Hour ..............95.00 14. LIBRARIES: TT~I or II RE .................101.40II--l-Hour ..............74.20~peII~H .......................70.60pe II1--1-Hour .............78.30pe III--N ......................74.40 Cost per SquareOccupancy an~J Type Foot, Average 20. RESTAURANTS:iipe II1~1-Hour .............$84.90pe Ilion ...........~ ..........82.00pe V~I-Hour ..............77.80Type V~H ......................74.70 21. SCHOOLS:iipe I or II RE .................97.00pe II~l-Hour .............’ 66.00pe Ill--l-Hour .............70.80TypeType V~I-Hour ..............66.20Type V~N ......................63.20 9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY: TT;Pe I or II F.R .................90.50pe I1~1-Hour ..............73.50 ~y~e~pe II.--.H .......................70.20pe 111--1-Hour .............76.40pe III--N .....................73.30V~l-Hour ..............74.00V~N .....................71.20 O. HOSPITALS:Type I or II F.R.° ..............142.30Type III.--1 -Hour ..........117.80Type V~l-Hour ............112.30 ~;peV--1 -Hour ..............73.70pe V--N ......................70.60 15. MEDICAL OFFICES:Type I or II F.R.~ ...............104.00Type I1--1-Hour ..............80.30Type II~N .......................76.40Type II1--1-Hour .............84.50Type III--N .....................81.00Type V~l-Hour .............78.60Type V~N ......................75.80 IlioN ......................67.30 22. SERVICE STATIONS:Type II~N ................; .....$8.60Type Ill--l-Hour .............61.00¯Type V~I-Hour ..............$2.00Canopies ....................24.40 71.8044.0042.80$3.4050.2045.0041,50 95.7069.7066.3065.6062.00 43.0025.5024.0029.0027.70 11. HOTELS AND MOTELS:Type I or II F.R." .............88.00Type Ill--i-Hour ..........76.20Type III--N .................72.70Type V~l-Hour .........68.20Type V-,-N ...................; 65.00 12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:!Yl~eI or II F.R .................49.60II~l-Hour .............34.50II.-.N .....................31.60Type 111--1-Hour ...........38.00Type lll--4q ..................3S.80Tilt-up ........v ..............26.00Type V~l-H~ur .........35.70Type V--N ..................32.80 16. OFFICES’::~1 or II F.R.* ...............93.00II--1-Hour ..............62.20Type II--N ......................59.40Type II|~1-Hour ...........67.40Type III--N .....................64.20Type V--l-Hour ............63.00~,,; 59.40 ~-wood Frame ...~., ~Mam ......Open C~rports ..............14.40 23. STORES:Type I or II F,R." ..............Type II--l-Hour ..............Type II--N ......................Type Ill--l-Hour ............Type IlioN .....................Type V~l-Hour ..............Type V--N ................... 24. THEATEKS:Type I or II F.P,. ...........Type Ill--l-Hour Type III--NType V~l-Hour .........Type V.--N ¯ Add 0.5 pe~’e~, to total cost for each sto~y over three. 18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:_Type I or II hR.° .............107.50_Type II--1 .Hour ..........87.00¯ Type II--N’. ....................!}3.30Type II1~1-Hour .............90.40Type III--N ...................87,30Type V--1-Hour ...........82.80Type V--N .....................79.80 19. PUBLIC GARAGES:_Type I or II hR.* ............42.40Type I or II Open Parking* 32.00Type II--N ...................25.00_Type III--1-Hour ........32.20Type III-,,N ........................28.50Type V--l-Hour .............29.30 25. WAREHOUSES’":Type I or II F.R .............Type II or V--l-Hour .....Type II or V--N ........ ;...Type Ill--I-Hour .........Type III--N ................. EQUIPMENTAIR CONDITIONING:Cornmerdal ..........3.60Residential ..............3.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ....1 .B0 "’Deduct 20 percent lot shell-only buildings.¯ "Dedhct 11 pen:ent for mini-warehouses. REGIONAL MODIFIERSThe following medilierz are recommended for use In conjunction with the building valuation dzta. In addition, certain local conditions may require fresher mndificatlom. Tome Ihese medi~er~ merely muldply the lifted cost pe~ square foot by Ihe appropriate ~,31onal modifier.. For example, to adjust the o~t of a Type III One.hou r ho~el.buildin~ of averse ~m~’u¢Ikm ~or Ihe Iowa area, ~l~’t I~ional Modi0er 0.gO and unit cost from valu~lion data, S76.20:o " 0.~0 x 76,20 ~ S61.00’~djust~d ~ per square ~ Eastern U.5.ModifierConnecticut ..........; ..........0.95Delaware .......................0.1}4District of Columbia ........0.87Florida ..........................0.74GeorEia .....................¯0.68M~ine ......................0.81Maryland ......................0.79Maslachuse~s ................0.94New Hampshire ...........0.82New Je~.ey ................0.91New YorkNew York City .........1,16Other ........................0.87N~th Carolina ..............0.70 Eastern U.S. (cont.)ModifierPennsylvania.-¯Philadelphia ................0.96Other .......................;...- 0.83Rhode Island ....................0.94South Carol|ha..; ..............0.70Vermont.., ........................0.80VlrRInla ...........;; ..............0.7.3west Vbginla .................0.82 Central U.~,.Alabama .......................0.72Arkansas ........................0.70Illinois .............................0.87Indiana ............................0.82Iowa ..............................0.80I~naas .............................0.74 Central U.S. (o’hr.)ModifierKentucky .........................0.77Louisiana ........................0.78Michig, an ........................¯ 0.84Minnesota ................; .......0.86Mississippi ...., .................0.71Missouri .........................0.78Nebraska .......................0.75North Dakota .................0.80Ohio ............................0.B0Oklahoma .......................0.71South Dakota ...................0.78Tennessee .......................0.72Texas .............................0.74Wisoonain ........................0.85 Western U.S.ModifierAlask~ ........~ ...............1.30Arizona ........................0.82 ¯Colorado ..................0.81Hawaii ........................1.14Idaho .........................0.80Montana ..............;,,..0.79Nevada ........................0.89New Mexlr, o .............0.76Oregon ...................0.83 UtaE ..........................0.75Washington ...................0.88 Wyoming .....................O.B0 30 BUILDING STANDARDS./]ulv-Att~ust 1996 Brian gangas Faulk Engineers ¯ Surveyors o Planners ATTACHMENT #7 October 30, 1996 BKF No. 960167 Mr. Tony Carrasco Carraseo & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94301 Subject:Tentative Map Grading Plan Cabana Pale Alto Dear Tony: In preparing the sub]eel grading plan between the hotel entrance and E1 Camino .Real, a key design criterion was to maintain the overflow path from the northern channel bank of Adobe Creek to El Camino Real for Adobe Creek spills that occur during the ~ 100-year storm event, Provision for this conveyance path is necessary until the existing 1/I C, amino Real culvert is replaced by the Santa Clam Valley Water District. The Federal ]~mergenoy Management Agency’s (PEMA) flow ~te of 2,700 cfs for Adobe Creek is based on existing development levels. FEMA’s Flood Insurm’tce Rate Map (Community Panel Number 060348 0005 D) shows the 100--year event contained within the existing channel of Adobe Creek. For the IrEMA design storm, our previous analyses for the Villages at Creekside project indicated that the Creek overtops its banks for a 230-foot long reach immediately upstream of El Camino Real, even though the FF, MA map shows no overtopping. A total Qf aboat 130 cfs flow leaves the Creek (5 percent of the pe.~k flow ram). and crosses the project site, spilling onto ]~I Camino Real. The remaining 95 potent of the flow remains in the channe!. The d~ign water level in the Creek immediately upstream of the E1 Camino Real culvert is about Elevation 61.6 and the northern top of bank is about Elevation 59.4. The low point of the existing front parking lot is approximately 4.0 feet below the ~jar, ent top of bank at Adobe Creek. Grading modifications in this area will set the low point at approximately 3.9 feet below the adjacent top of bank and will not significantly change storage volume. The low point along El Camino is approximately 0.5 feet above the Adobe Creek top of bank elevation. BKF proposes that the site b~ graded in a manner that maintains the effective flow path for spills from the channel during the 100-year design event. As the water level in the creek rises to the top of bank, the water level in the low-lying front parking lot will also rise because the 840 Price A~n~ " R~,~ood City. CA 94063 ¯ (415} 365.0412, FAX|415) 365.1280 Brian Kanuas Foulk I~ngifleers e Surveyors o Planners Mr. Tony Carrasco October 30, 1996 BKF No, 96O167 Page 2 on-sit~ storm drain connects directly to an outfal) at the ~reekl Thus, that portion of the parking area which is below the top of bank elevation wi!l be partially inundat~L by reverse flows and, at th~ peak flow, the low-lying storage volume wiIl not: be fully available. Once the water level in the parking lot exceeds the low point at E1 ~,amino Real, flow witl e~it the parking area, Very truly yours, BRIAN KANGAS FOULK P.L,S President Brian Kangas [oulk Engineers ¯ Surveyors ¯ Planners February 12, t997 BKF No. 960167-11 Ms. Linda Poncini Carrasco & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:Hydrology Analysis Cabana Palo Alto Dear Ms. Poncini: As requested, we have prepared a summary of existing and proposed grading and drainage for the Cabana Palo Alto project. GRADING AJND DRAINAGE Existing Conditions: The hotel site generally slopes from west to east, with an elevation of approximately 70 near Glenbrook .Drive and elevation 60 at El Camino Real. The existing main entry drive is a low area, dropping below elevation 56. ~ For the existing hotel site, approximately 62% is paved, 19% is building footprint, and 19% is landscaped. Therefore, for purposes of storm drainage calculations, 81% of the site currently has an impervious surface. The majority of runoff from the site drains to Adobe Creek via three separate outlet pipe.s which discharge between the top and toe of bank. Only a narrow strip of land adjacent to the creek drains via overland flow directly to the creek. _P~osed Development: The proposed hotel site will occupy 6.82 acres of the total 10.06 acre hotel site. The general drainage pattern and direction of flow will not be altered by the proposed grading. For the proposed hotel site,, approximately 75% has an impervious surface, and 25% is landscaped. Therefore, the runoff from the proposed hotel site can be expected to decrease by about 5%. Runoff from the hotel site will eontinu~ to be routed to the two outfalls. The two ouffalls will be reconstructed and designed per Santa Clara Valley Water District Standards. 540 Price Avenue . .Redwood City. CA 94063 ,, 1415) 482-6300 ,, FAX 1415) 482-6399 Ms. Linda Poncini BKF No. 960167-1 February 12, 1997 Page 2 The single family residential development wiil occupy 3.24 acres of the total 10.06 acre hotel site. For the proposed single family residential development, approximately 21% is paved, 16% is building footprint, and 63% is landscaped. Therefore, for purposes of storm drainage calculations, 37% of the site has an impervious surface. Using the Rational Method, total runoff will be 28% less under proposed development than under the existing condition. Runoff from the single family site will be discharged to Adobe Creek at an existing outfall location. The existing outfall will be reconstructed and designed per Santa Clara Valley Water District Standards. The existing 12" corrugated metal pipe .will be replaced with a 24" concrete pipe. Combining the hotel site and single family residential development, the impervious surface area decreases from 81% to 63%, and the landscaped area increases from 19% to 37%. Compared with the existing runoff, the proposed runoff for the .entire site is expected to decrease by 12%. For all three outfalls, rock rip-rap, rather than sacked concrete rip-rap, is proposed at the storm, drain outfalls to protect the creek slopes and to prevent potential erosion along the creek banks. Rock rip-rap also provides a more natural look. The majority of runoff from the site will continue to drain to Adobe Creek via a series of separate outlet pipes which discharge between the top and toe ’of bank: A narrow strip of land adjacent to the creek will not be disturbed and will. continueto drain via overland flow directly to the creek. The proposed condition does not concentrate the runoff any more than the existing conditions. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (415) 482-6336. Very truly yours, BRIAN KANGAS FOULK PROPOSED HOTEL SITE Proposed Hotel Site Single Family Site Area Current Hotel Site 296,917 sf 141,145 sf 438,062 sf EXISTING HOTEL SITE (Not Including the Proposed Residential Area) Location Area Percent of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking 159,518 54%3.66 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 85,203 29%1.96 Landscaped Areas 52,196 18%1.20 100%6.82 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.4 PROPOSED HOTEL SITE Location Area*Percent of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking 142,000 48%3.26 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 81,713 28%1.88 Landscaped Areas 73,204 25%1.68 100%6.82 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.4 C*A 3.48 1.86 0.48 5.82 C*A 3.10 1.76 0.67 5.55 Percent reduction in runoff with proposed development will be: * Paved parking area is approximate. BRIAN KANGAS FOULK - 2/12/97 960167 - Areas PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY SITE Single Family Site Area 1.41,145 sf EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SITE Location Area Percent of,Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking 112,080 79%2.57 .iLandscaped Areas 29,065 21%0.67 100%3.24 Runo~ Coefficient 0.95 0.4 C*A 2.44 0.27 2.71 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE Location Area Percent of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Road R/W 22,622 16%0.52 Building Footprint 22,400 16%0.51 Driveway 6,720 5%0.15 Landscaped Areas 89,403 63%2.05 100%3.24 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.4 C*A 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.82 1.95 Percent reduction in runoff with proposed developmentwill be: 28% BRIAN KANGAS FOULK- 2112197 960167 - AREAS.XLS COMBINED HOTEL SITE & RESIDENTIAL SITE Existing Hotel Site 438,062 sf EXISTING HOTEL SITE Location Area Percent of Area (st’)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking 271,598 62%6.24 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 85,203 19%1.96 Landscaped Areas 81,261 19%1.87 100%10.06 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.4 C*A 5.92 1.86 0.75 8.53 PROPOSED HOTEL SITE & RESIDENTIAL SITE Loca~on Area Percent of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking (Hotel)142,000 32%3.26 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 81,713 19%:1.88 Landscaped Areas (Hotel)73,204 17%1.68 Road RNV (Residential)22,622 5%0.52 Building Footprint (Residential)22,400 5%0.51 Driveway (Residential)6,720 2%0.15 Landscaped Areas (Residential)" 89,403 20%2.05 100%10.06 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.4 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.4 C*A 3.10 1.78 0.67 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.82 7.5O Percent reduction in runoff with proposed ~levelopment will be:12% BRIAN KANGAS FOULK - 2/12197 960167 - Areas ATTACHMENT #9A PALO ALTO CABANA P C ZONE CB~NGE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY CITY PARKING ORDINANCE Usage Category ~ Assembly (conference,24,430dining, lobby, bar) Exercise 1,392 Kitchen 1,800 Office 3,729 Storage 11,632 Rooms (197) 12/19/96 Credit for 3/4 of the "room" cars TOTAL 499 No. of Cars 60 407 200 7 200 9 250 15 1000 1~2 Subtotal 450 1 car/room 197 -148 ATTACHMENT #9B PARKING SUMMARY PROPOSED TYPE OF STALL AUTOMOBILE UNISTALL STND HANDICAP STALL HANDICAP VAN STALL OVERSIZE. (SHUTTLE) STALL "VALET ONLY" STALLS "EMPLOYEE ONLY" STALLS 9’-0" X 18’-0" 9’-0" X 18’-0" 9’-6" X 20’-0" TOTAL SELF-PARK 8’-6" X 17’-6" 8’-6" X 17’-6" TOTAL PARKING ROOM UNT- TO- PAR I~~ 197 GUESTROOMS 284 PARKING SPACES QUANTITY 193 6 7 207 58 19 284 1:1.44 RAT.IO Municipal Code Parking Requirements for Hotels in other local Cities Oty/Agency City of Palo Alto City of San Jose City of Mountain View City of Sunm~al~ City of San Mateo City of Burlingame City of Rcdwood City City of Santa Clara Ci.ty of Menlo Park City of San Rafael Required Parking for Hotel and Hotel/Conference Centers One space per guest room plus applicable parking for restaurant, banquet, etc., less 75% of the spaces required for the guest room. One space per guest room plus one per employee One space per guest room plus 1 space/2 employees and parking for associated uses (restaurant, etc.), as required by code One space per guest room, one space per employee and parking for associated uses (restaurant, etc.), as req. per code One space per guest room pl.us one space for manager One space per guest room plus additional parking for restaurant use One space per guest room plus. additional parking required for restaurant use at I space/3 seats Six parking spaces/lO00 sq,fl, Gross floor area, exduding vents, shafts and covered parking* Application of Parking Standard to Cabana Hotel Project Minimum of 400 spaces (assumes 407 required for associated and ancillary uses and 148 (less 75%, of I space/room) for hotel Minimum of 197 spaces + employee parking Minimum of 197 spaces + employee parking and required parking for restaurant and associated uses Minimum of 197 spaces 198 Minimum of 197 spaces + parking required for restaurant Minimum of. 197 parking spaces + parking required for restaurant 197 1047 spaces (based on total gross sq.fl, of 174,550)* One space per guest room plus I space for manager, 1 space/2 employees, as determined by a parking study and subject to a use permit. *Does not compare with the parking provided for the Stanford Park Hotel (200 spaces provided for 162 tin.hotel) Minimum of 198 + parking required for employees and parking as required per study ATTACHMENT #11 PLA NNIN G D I VISI ON Memorandum Date:February 11, 1997 To:Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle & Lisa Grote From:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner ¯ Subject:4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel); study of "corporate/business" hotel facilities, survey and interviews This memorandum is a follow-up to our January 24, 1997 meeting on the. Cabana Hotel and subdivision project. As requested, a survey has been completed and interviews have been conducted on parking occupancy and peak use periods for hotels with conference facilities. The results of this study are summarized in this memorandum. Further, as direoted, the results of this survey will be used in completing the environmental assessment for the Cabana Hotel and subdivision project. Completion of this study has involved the following tasks: Securing a cleat"Business Statement" from the project sponsor. This statement is to be reviewed to determine the market/business goals of the hotel operator and to use it as a basis for selecting hotels to survey. o Surveying existing hotel facilities of similar size and type (# of rooms, sq.ft, of conference facilities, size of restaurants). The survey is toinclude a review of parking and interviewing hotel management (to determine adequacy of parking, peak periods of hotel/conference use and occupancy rates). t 4 Interviewing Planning Department staff in City’s where hotel facilities have been surveyed. Determine ff there have been any problems, impacts or complaints regarding the adequacy of parking for existing hotel facilities. Identifying available parking standards for mid-sized hotels with conference/meeting rooms, restaurant and bar/lounge. Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February 11, 1997 Page 2 Consulting with a traffic engineer to determine if there is more detailed information available on hotel parking standards/requirements and to provide a cursory review of the DKS Associates parking study prepared for the project sponsor. Task #1:"Business Statement" A clear "Business Statement" has been submitted by the project sponsor and is provided in ~ of this memorandum. This statement, which was prepared by Crowne Plaza Hotel-Resorts, provides a use and size breakdown of the 24,430 square foot active public space area proposed for the Cabana Hotel (restaurant, conference/meeting facilities, bar and lobby area). The statement notes that the Cabana Hotel is proposed to be marketed as an upscale. Comorate Hotel. The hotel is not being marketed as a conference center, banquet center or resort hotel. "Corporate" hotels generally operate in urban and suburban settings located near business centers. The statement provides the following information regarding peak period use and ancillary facilities for a corporate hotel: It is noted that meeting and banquet space "exists as a necessary convenience in order to rent guest rooms." The peak period demand for. guest rooms is Sunday through Thursday evenings. It is noted that it is during this timethe peak use would occur in the meeting rooms, as the hotel guests are the primary users of the meeting rooms. The restaurant and bar/lounge are not intended to be "stand alone" uses but are marketed for the convenience of the hotel guests (these uses would be open to the public). Crowne Plaza policy is to have valet parking available for 16 hours per day; a contingency plan will be crafted to provide for off-site parking in the likely event that demand for parking exceeds supply. No details have been provided on this contingency plan (e.g., no off-site parking lot or area has been identified for spillover use). Task #2:Survey of Existing, Comparably-sized Hotel Facilities Based on the "Business Statement" and the size specifications of the Cabana Hotel, a total of eight similarly-sized hotels were surveyed. Hotel management was interviewed for information on market, facilities, peak use/operation periods, general occupancy and adequacy/availability of parking. The survey results for each hotel are provided in the individual charts presented in F~,X]:RB1T_~ In reviewing the results, it appears that there are some similarities in the various hotels, particularly in the parking that is provided, parking use, peak periods and occupancy.. These sirailarities are as follows: a.The use and square footage breakdown of the various public space areas Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February 11, 1997 Page 3 (restaurant, bar, meeting/conference rooms, etc.) confirms that the Cabana Hotel is designed for the corporate/business market. The conference room/meeting space areas and the size of the restaurant is comparable to the Holiday Inn (625 El Camino Real), which is marketed as a corporate/business hotel. All of the hotels are mid-sized hotels (approximately 150-350 rooms, 100 seat restaurant, 5,000-15,000 square of conference/meeting rooms) The hotel parking lot spaces were counted and reviewed for usage. The following presents an average on the amount of parking provided per guest room and observed use for these hotels: *Average number of parking spaces provided:1.23 spaces/room+ *Percentage of parking occupied (February 1997): 37.5% occupied All of the hotels provide a shuttle service to the airport for corporate guests, which could account for the percentage of parking that was found to be occupied. + The projec~ proposes a parking ratio of 1.25 spaces/room without valet parking and 1.44 parking spaces per room with valet parking. In addition, none of these hotels would meet the minimum parking requirements of the PAMC. It appears that, on average, the peak season for these hotels is February- November, during weekdays. The lowest use period is in December- January. Please note that two of the hotels have no peak season; the management clearly noted that they are busy year-round. Several of the hotels would not disclose their seasonal occupancy rates. An average of those occupancy rates secured discloses a range Of 75% (non- peak) to 88% (peak) occupancy. Interestingly, the Holiday Inn - Palo Alto has a yearround occupancy of 90-95%; the Biltmore Hotel and Suites in Santa Clara has a yearround occupancy of 100%. All of the hotels (except the Holiday Inn- Palo Alto) experience no problems with parking adequacy or availability. In fact, only two of the hotels operate a valet parking service; this service is either on request or during a weekend peak. The sales manager at the Holiday Inn indicated that parking is a problem during the weekdays, requiring guests/patrons to use the adjacent public spaces (30). The Holiday Inn has also had to lease spaces from Caltrans (at commuter train station). Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February 11, 1997 Page 4 Task #3:Interview of City’s (staff) Where Hotel Facilities Were Surveyed As part of this hotel survey, the City’s of Burlingame and Santa Clara were contacted to determine if they have perceived and/or experienced any complaints or problems associated with parking for larger hotels offering a mix uses. Comments from these contacts are as follows: City of Burlingame (Meg Monroe) Burlingame has a zoning ordinance parking requirement of one parking space per guest room. This standard is adequate for small motels and hotels with limited facilities for conferences/meetings but is not adequate to serve the parking needs of the larger hotels with restaurants and large meeting rooms. Many of the large hotels (with restaurants and large meeting rooms) along the SFO Airport strip were designed with a 1:1 parking ratio because of their proximity to the airport and high use/demand for a shuttle service (corporate guest). The parking does not account for the high usage of large conference/banquet facilities that are marketed and somewhat operated separate from the marketing of the guest rooms (e.g., banquets, local- sponsored conferences). Parking problems exist with the larger hotels (e.g., Hilton = 600+ rooms and large balkooms/banquet facilities). These hotels generally include restaurants and bars/lounges which draw non-guest patrons. It was suggested that we review the SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) publication, ~. This manual provides reliable trip generation and parking information based on surveys of hotels in operation during peak and non-peak use periods. City of Santa Clara (Jeff Schwilk for Art Henriquez) City of Santa Clara requires one parking space per guest room for all hotels (no requirements for other related uses). There have been no reported problems or complaints about adequacy of parking for any of the larger hotel facilities in the community. Task #4:Identifying Parking Standards for Mid-sized Hotels As a follow-up to my conversation with Meg Monroe, I consulted with SANDAG on their ~. For mid-sized hotels, the manual estimates that mid-sized hotels generate approximately 10 average daily trips. Assuming a 90% occupancy rate for ave.~e peak season conditions, the manual suggests a demand of 4-5 parking spaces per hot’el guest room. This parking ratio is approximately twice the amount of parking that would be required by applying the standard of the PAMC. Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February 11, 1997 Page 5 The Institute of Transportation Engineers 0TE) Manual identifies parking demand rates, per guest room, based on average weekend versus weekday conditions. ITE parking rates for hotels range from 0.26 to 1.32 during the weekday and 0.73 to 1.33 during the weekend. The average parking rate per guest room is 0.81 parking spaces. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) has published a’"shared parking" report, which found that July and August are peak months for hotel facilities. The ULI publications recommend that parking within a hotel complex be calculated independently for each use. Task #5:Consultation with Traffic Engineer on Hotel Parking Standards I spoke with both John Dowden of Dowling Associates, traffic engineers (Oakland) and Carolyn Cole of Crane Transportation Group (San Francisco) about available and realistic parking standards for mid-sized, mixed use hotels. I was provided with the following information: Dowling Associates (Jolm Dowden) John Dowden provided me with the following comments regarding the DKS Associates report prepared for the project sponsor and reliable parking standards for the proposed project: "a.The DKS surveys, which were used as a basis for determining the adequacy of the proposed 1.25 parking space per guest room ratio, were conducted during December. The "shared" parking report published by ULI found that July and August are the peak months; the reports note that December generates use that is 65% of the peak. If you apply a seasonal factor for December to July/August, the surveyed rate (0.98 spaces per occupied room) should be increased to 1.51 (0.98 divided by 100/65). The DKS report notes that the ITE parking rates for hotels average 0.81 spaces per room, with use ranges from 0.26-1.32 spaces per room during the weekday and 0.73-1.33 spaces per room during the weekend. The ITE rates do not disclose when the surveys were conducted; therefore, there is no accounting for seasonal changes in peak. Dowden recommends that a parking rate of 1.5 space per room parking ratio be provided for the Cabana Hotel. The 1.5 space parking ratio would take into account the seasonal changes in. operation and would accommodate parking demand for shared uses. Dowden provided some feedback on the use of the :F.l:atYl~g~t:ai~ Malll~, published by SANDAG. Dowden noted that while the manual presents trip generation figures and parking assumptions that are reliable, Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February 11, 1997 Page 6 these surveys were taken at hotel facilities in San Diego. San Diego is a destination "magnet" for large conferences; therefore, it may not provide the best comparable condition for determining parking needs. Crane Transportation Group (Carol.vn Cole.) Carolyn Cole provided me with the following information on parking for mid-sized hotels and on a recent survey completed by Crane Transportation Group: ao The Traffic Generators Manual published by SANDAG provides good information on trip generation for hotel uses but may not be the best source for determining appropriate parking. The information in this manual is based on surveys conducted in San Diego, which is a visitor- oriented/conference-oriented city. A recent survey conducted by Crane Transportation Group has identified parking demands for hotels based on size and occupancy. The results of this survey are presented in Attachment #3 of this memorandum. Based on Crane’s survey, a parking ratio of 1.25-1.44 parking spaces per guest room is within the range of parking needed for a mid-sized hotel (with conference/meeting rooms, restaurant & bar), which experiences an 80- 100% occupancy rate during peak periods. Cole recommends that approval of this parking rate should include conditions that would guarantee continued operation of a shuttle service, valet parking, as well as a firm contingency plan. conclusions/Recommendations: Based on the above survey information and recommendations, it appears that the proposed parking would be adequate to accommodate hotel and service facilities parking during non- peak and normal business periods for a mid-sized "corporate/business" hotel. However, a 1.5 space/room parking ratio is recommended to accommodate peak season conditions (a total of 296 parking spaces would be required to meet the 1.5/1 ratio, which is 12 additional parking spaces over what is currently proposed). In order to accommodate a recommended 1.5 space/room parking ratio for peak season use and/or times when spillover parking is required, it is reeomrnended that a "contingency plan" be developed by the project sponsor. The contingency plan should include any of the following measures and shall be incorporated into the conditions of the PC District: Valet parking be required as 37 of the proposed parking spaces ~re designed in "tandem". The hotel operators be required to establish mad operate a hotel-airport Co shuttle service. Require that the project sponsor lease 12 parking spaces from a neighboring parcel, which would be utilized when spillover parking is experienced. Require that the project sponsor agree to and submit a schedule of events/activities to ensure that any overlap in the peak periods for all of the hotel is minimized. Attachments: EXHIBIT ’A’: EXHIBIT ’B’: Business Statement for Cabana Hotel (letter to B.B. Patel from Crowne Plaza Hotels-Resorts, February 1, 1997. Results of Hotel survey CROWNE PLAZA EXHIBIT ’A’ Saturaay, February 01, 1997 B.B. Patel Paid Alto Cabana 4290 El Camtno Real Paid Alto, CA 94306 Re: Parking Requirements at the Proposed Crowne Plaza Paid Alto Dear B.B.: Pursuant to the letter recelvec~ from the City of Paid Alto, please let me address some of the questions t~at the City raised. Parking is more a function of a hotel’s market mix and Iocatio~ than anythiqg else. The following information should give a clear understanding of how this property will be operated. The following is a use and size Dreakdown of the 24,430 square feet of public space at the hotel: A)Hotel Restaurant B)Hotel Lounge C)Meeting Space D)Prefunction Area E)Hotel Lobby TOTAL 3,661 square feet 2,432 square feet 11,027 square feet 3,625 square feet 24,430 square feet Business Statement: Crowne Plaza Hotels are a collection of upsc~le properties with services and amenities geared to the needs of the discriminating executive traveler. As such, this ttote! ’will be operated and marketed as an upscale, corporate hoteh One of the strongest growth curves in the hospitality industry charts the expanding size and influence of a category called +discerning travelers.= These are tmveters who tell us. right down to the smallest detail, that they want the best of everytlting from a hotel =ay. And they am willing to pay for that privilege. Crowne Plaza hotels ~ere created to accommodate that group of travelers. Cmwne Plaza hotels, cun’ently pperating in major metropolitan and suburban markets, business centers and airport Iocation~ tl~roughout the world, are designed to provi¢le ¯ highly enhanced hotel experience at competitive market rates Crowne Plaza hotels ere expertly staffed, comfortably furnished an0 attractively decorated - catering to the needs of the most uncompromising traveler. The hotel will ~ot be marketed as a Conference Center, nor as a banquet center, nor as a resort hotel. As mentioned above, the hotel will be marketed as an upscale, corporate hotel. The meeting and banquet space exists as B necessary convenience in diner to rent guest morns. The peak period of demand for the hote~ rooms is Sunday through Thursday nights. It is during this time that the peak use would occur in the meeting rooms as the hotel guests arB tl~e prima~y users of the meeting rooms in the I~otel. Scheduling of the meeting space at the hotel is tightly managed process that occurs in daily revenue management meetings to assure that the meeting space is being utilized in generating room revenue and not for local functions that could potentially block out a future group booking. ’ The restaurant and lounge are.not intended to be stand alone uses, rather, a convenienca and comfort of our hotel guests. They are, of course, open to the public. These facilities are not operated as a separate entity. According to Crowne Plaza standards, the hours of operation for the restaurant are 6:00AM to 11~.00 PM. There’s a certain feeling, a’ certain ambiance, a certain quality level that must be experienced to fully understand the product. All Crowne Plaza hotels are noteworthy for their impressive and tastefully decorated lobbies. A sense of welcome is extremely important. For relaxation, there is a lobby bar and restaurant. For convenience, there is a gift shop stocked with only the highest quality merchandise. For those travelers seeking the very finest in accommo0ations and maximum privacy, Crowne Plaza hotels offer many different guest room choices including the Crowne Plaza Club executive floor. Also, each Crowne Plaza hotel provides guests with fitness facilities, complete with a pool and a full assortment of exercise equipment. item 2c Crowne Plaza standards call for valet parking to be available st least 16 hours a day. In addition, a contingency plan w~ll be crafted providing for off-site parking in the unlikely event that demand for parking exceeds the supply. This arrangement is standard within the hospitality industry. The proportion of meeting rooms to guest rooms to pa~lng at your hotel is consistent With the dasign of most every other full-service corporate hotel and ages not raise a concern relating to the number of parking spaces at your hotel. In the publication, Hotel/Motel Development,, published by The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Lavanthoi & Horwath, they suggest as a general rule to allow for one space per room, one space for every three or four restaurant seats, plus one space for avew three employees. The number of parking spaces you are proposing is consistent with this formula. B.B., should the City I~ave any additional questions or concerns, p;ease give me a call. As an owner and operator ourselves, we continually study and review all aspects of hotel oevelopment to ensure the success of our properties as well as good community relations. Sincerely, Michael F. H|ggins, C.H.A. Regional Vice President - Crowne Plaza Develop)merit Survey of Mid-sized, Corporate Hotels (Operations, Parking, Occupancy and Peak Season Use) for proposed Cabana Hotel and Subdivision, 4290 E! Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. February 7, 1997 oo A_.~achment #7A o ATTACHMENT #8 Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Landxcap¢ Arehitccts & PlaPa~rs 225 Miller Avenue, MiU Valley, CA 9494 I 415 383-7900 Fa~: 415 383-1433 MEMORANDUM E.Mail 755’70.31 ~.2f,(a Compu.~erve.eom RHAAI @AOL.com RHAA@~x.Netcom.¢om TO: FR: Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates Barbara Lundburg, Lou Alley DATE: RE: March 26, 1997 PALO ALTO CABA~IA - TREE MOVING RHAA 96008 There are 31 Italian Cypress, Cupressus sempervirens~ existing along the main drive and around the existing tennis courts. The design of the new enm/drive and parklng area to the Cabafia Hotel will require the removal or possible relocation of these trees. Relocation will require: a.Digging around the root area and constructing a box for each tree, then allowing the trees to sit for several months before final boxing and removal. During this period each tree has to be guyed. b,Relocating the trees will require craning each tree to its new location and guying until they are established. Guy wires can interfere with proposed construction. Each tree will cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000 to move, and it could take up to one year for the whole process. The moving experts tell us the survival rate is not very good for trees this size, forty I~.rcent at best. There are six Southem Magnolias, Magnolia grandiflora, existing adjacent to the main drive to the hotel. As with .the italian Cypress, the design of the new entry and parking area conflicts with their present location. These trees were planted in an old water feature or reflecting pool which has acted as a large concrete planter. Moving and relocating these trees is a much easier matter and consists of: Carefully breaking the concrete around the roots in lifting the tree out of the old pool area. b. Placing the trees in boxes that are eight square feet or larger. c. Storing the trees in an area on site with water and protection from the wind. d. Replanting in the designated areas with amended backfill and irrigation system. e. Survivability is seventy percent. Cost is $6,000 to $7,000 per tree. Do~l.~ N¢l~o~ ASL~. L Memorandum Palo Alto Cabafia Tree Moving - 2-March 26, 1997 Removal of the 31 Cypresses will require replacement at a 2-to-1 ratio or 62, 24- inch-box trees. The new landscape design shows planting a total of 120 new trees. This mote than meets the replacement requirement. All 62, 24-inch-box trees could be placed in the entry and parking area to the hotel, helping to replace the look of the existing mature landscape. Also, the design of the parking lot includes replanting the six existing Magnolias. Submitted March 26, 1997, by ROYSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY Barbara D. Lundburg, ASLA Principal Louis G, Alley, AIA Principal ATTACHMENT #9 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Joe Colonna, Planniog Department Jose Jovel, W-G-WW Utilities Engineering October 25, 1996 4290 El Camino Real Approval of the orject is subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H, and sewer in G.P.D.). = The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. The applicant must show on the site plan the e~istence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. ¯ The applicant shall be responsible ~or installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. The applicant’s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the on-site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, and fire flow water demands needed to Service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire system including all Fire Department’s requirements. 10. The existing water, gas and sewer service connections are not in accordance to current Utilities Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater and shall be reconstructed or modified to comply with Utility standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992 or newer revisions. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 11.Each unit, parcel or place Of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral MEMORANDUM 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Prior to connection. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved iandscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4- inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. An approved Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly (Backflow Preventer Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. An approved .~. Single Check Valve;m Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities-Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new sewer lateral installation may be required. A new sewer manhole may be required. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property at 4290 El Camino Real.. The applicant’s engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the County of Santa Clara, and provide the Engineering Division with copies of the public utilities easement across this parcel or the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the applicant. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. , ¯ The developer shall apply and obtain all required permits from CALTRANS for water and gas connections made by the City of Palo Alto in the State Highway right of way El Camino Real Route 82. The developer shall apply and obtain all required permits from Santa Clara County Valley water Distric for utility connections made by the City of Palo Alto in their right of way. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN REQUIREMENTS final map approval, the improvement plans shall include the design of a domestic water system, MEMORANDUM gas system, and sewer collection system to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineering Division. The improvement plans must be stamped and signed by a registered civil engi.neer. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Designed and installed by developer per City’s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, dated 1992). Water lines shall be designed for fire flows to meet Fire Department and Engineering Division requirements. Items of construction shall include at least the following: Water mains; water service; valves; tees; hydrants; blow-off; meters; backflow preventer devices; detector check valve for automatic fire sprinkler; trench detail; cross sections; tie-in details; specifications and together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. ~- GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Designed and installed by Utilities Engineering Division; gas design must be shown on the improvements plans). Gas mains; services; gas meter locations; and together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. CQ SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM (Designed and installed by developer per City’s requirements). Sewer mains; manholes with frames and covers; wye branches and laterals; cleanouts and boxes; standard details; profiles; specifications and together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. If you have any questions, please contact me at 329-2133 R. Cwiak Senior Engineers Morris White ATTACHMENT #10 ATTACHMENT #11 May 19, 1997 Mr. Paul Jensen City of Palo Alto Planning .Division, 5th Floor City H~ 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Cabana Dear Paul: After meeting with the Redwoods Homeowners a couple of times we agreed to share the costs of repairing the redwood fence that divides our properties. The_repair will consist of shoring every other post along the entire common fence line. In addition two deteriorated panels will be replaced and upto 4 panels, may have an 18" lattice screen added. These 4 panels would occur at the Redwoods courtyard area° Sincerely, c:\wpdocs\cabana\redwoods 4290 El Camino Real ph 4~5 857-0787 Palo Alto, Ca 94305 [x 4~5 496"~939 w~v cabaflahotel corn ATTACHMENT #12 STEPHEN W. PLAYER May 12, 1997 Mr, Ken Schr~iber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 De~r K~n: On behalf of the applicant in the above entitled matter, I submit the following letter for your consideration at your staff meeting on May 14, 1997, I respect~lly request t~t the staff recommend against public access along Adobe Creek. As you and I have discus,~ on prior ~ccasions, it is the opinion of the applicant that this is not an appropriate site for public pedestrian and/or bicycle access alon$ Adobe Creek. The Creek bank itself does not have adequate room to allow for the construction of a separate path for pedestrian and bicycle use between the bank and the Hotel access road without causing considerabl© damage and disruption to the artm immediately adjacent to the Creek, The juxtaposition of such a walkway and the access road will create an inherent dangerous situation to all parties attempting to use the facilities, and would require significant modifi~- tiom of the riparian habitat without ~y commemurate benefits to the users of any such paths. A staff recommendation against access along the Creek in this instance would not be inconsistent with the applicable Elements of the Comprehensive Plan since the Plan simply encourage, access along creeks wher~ appropriate, but do¢~ not require such access in each instance. The imposition of this requirement would cause encroachment on the lands of ~e Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Adobe Creek right of way as well as the removal of fencing and existing landscaping. In addition, one of the conditiom of approval for the Planned Community zone is the preparation of a Parking Performance Plan which has been prepare~ by DKS Associates on behalf of the applicant. The Plan re,.~ponds specif’~ally to one of the ¢oixtitio~ of approval and states that "no parking shall be permitted on neighboring residential streets at any time, including Glcnbrook Drive, Los Palos Avenue and Pomona Avenue." The requirement of 2;~00 ~L C~,t~INO ~tEiAt., ~,UIT~ ,,~10 Mr. Ke~ Scluo~r May 12, 1997 Page 2 public ac~ss either along the Creek or at any oth~r’location within the development will m~e it practically impossible for the appli~nt to comply with or enforce the above parking restriction, sin~e it will invite individuals to park in the adja~nt neighborhoods and walk the hotel premises. ! feel that such a result runs directly contrary to that which the applicant desires for this development, which is to prote~t the surrounding neighborhoods from any encroachment into their areas. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request that the staff recommend against public access aloag Adobe Creek and against any other access which would allow pedestrian, bicycle or other access into the adjacent neighborhoods. Tlmnk you ior your attention to this maRcr. SWP:pw ,B.B. Patel Tony Carrasco W, PLAYER ATTACHMENT #13 Palo Alto Redwoods 43.58 El Carnino Real Palo Alto, ,CA 94386 June 16, 1997 Kenneth R. Schreiber RECI IVI D JUN 1 8 1997 D~artrnent of Planning and rnmuoity E°~ir.OO~ent Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE:4290 E1 Camino Real (Cabafia Hotel site) Dear Mr. Schreiber: The Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association wish to express our concerns regarding what seems to be a major deviation from what is being proposed by the Cabafia Hotel in their marketing plan to present it strictly as a corporate/business hotel catering to business visitors. As you are aware, the large conference room, which accommodates approximately 400 people, is presently being used for proms and other large evening gatherings This concerns us because as noted in item 4 on page 13 of the Staff Report, "The project would result in a significant reduction in the amount of existing, on-site hotel parking, causing the project to fall below the amount of parking ~ ordinarily required by Palo Alto Municipal Code... " Cabafia’s available parking now, prior to the rezoning, seems to accommodate any usage of the conference rooms. We feel that the rezoning proposal does not address the "reality" of the current usage of the large conference room as described above. Where does the plan address the "reality" of where cars are going to park when the current parking spaces are eliminated? Section 3, page 1A-3 does not address the number of people (not hotel guests) who would be using the large conference room. We feel in order to address this issue, conditions should be placed on the use of the large conference room to comply with the proposed new parking ratio. The 58 spaces set aside for valet parking as stated on page 1A-4, are not adequate for this purpose. Given the fact that the proposal now causes the project to fall below what is ordinarily required by the PA Municipal Code, we request that the usage of that room be restricted to accommodate on-site parking. 2 Another concern. We were not. aware that the developers have an agreement with the hotel to access the housing development through hotel property. This is stated in the last paragraph of the Snapp letter dated.April 17, 1997 (attached). This is totally unacceptable to us. The burden of the construction noise, and dust would fall completely on the Redwoods homeowners. We propose that all construction be routed to the south side of the hotel along the creek. If this is not feasible then the Greenacres folks should, share this burden with the Redwoods folks. A third concern, speaks to notices of meetings. There was sufficient notice of the May 28th meeting. However, this meeting was canceled and no subsequent notice of the re-scheduled meeting was sent out to the public~ What is the policy for notification? We certainly could have had more representation to voice our concerns. We request proper notice of future meetings or re-scheduled meetings when this project is on your agenda. Finally, our fourth concern. We still do not have any idea what the common fence treatment will be as address in our letter to Paul Jensen dated April 18 , 1997 (attached). A letter to Paul Jensen from B.B. Patel dated May 19, 1997 (attached) talks about shoring and panels and possible lattices, but we need to see a rendering of the proposed fence, repair, particularly since we are going to share the expense. Very sincerely, Gifffin Derryberry President, Palo AltoHomeowners Association cc: Phillip Woods, Associate Planner, Architectural Review Board Attachments: Palo Alto Redwoods letter dated 4/18/97 B.B. Patel letter dated 5/19/97 Barbara and Craig Snapp letter dated 4/17/97 ATTACHMENT #13A ATTACHMENT #14 PreliminarT Plan for Bicycle Parking 20 total bicycle spaces (12 for employees and 4 for hotel visitors) ATTACHMENT #15 CORRESPONDENCE from Public Agencies, Organizations, the Public and Neighboring Property Owners/Residents STATE OF GALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1400 "~enth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 PAUL JENSEN CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 HAMILTON AVE, 5TH FLR PALO ALTO, CA 94301 April 14, 1997 RECEIVED APR 17 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environmen! Subject: CABANA HOTEL SUBDIVISION SCH #: 97032045 Dear PAUL JENSEN: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above na~ed environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any question@ regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight- digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse 0 CumuL~lv~ 97032045 97032045 Project Sent to the following State Agencies _:).:,, , - . :::.!:::.- CITY OF LOS ALTOS One North San Antonio Road Los Altos, California 94022-3088 Tel: (415) 948-1491 Fax: (415) 941-7419 RECEIVF!3 APR ~ ,I ’iqq7 Department ot Planning anO Community Environment April 18, 1997 Department of Planning and Community Development City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner RE:Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision of the Cabana Hotel Site at 4290 El Camino Real Dear Mr. Jensen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Cabana Hotel project, which involves a refurbishing of the hotel and a subdivision of the rear of the site into 14 single-family lots. We are pleased to see that most of the potentially significant impacts have been addressed, such as maintaining the 100-year flood flow path within the hotel parking lot and maintaining the riparian vegetation, however, one potential impact have been overlooked--creek security: The open rail fence along the creek adjacent to the hotel should be at least 6 feet tall to maintain the security of the Laureles Drive neighbors across the creek, and access to the creek from El Camino Real should be physically prohibited. We tnast that the your City’s lighting standards minimize any impacts 6f glare on adjacent residential properties and look forward to receiving notice of the future Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council hearing dates. Please call David Kornfield, Assistant Planner, or me at (415) 948-2790 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Planning Director Los Altos City Council Rancho Laureles Homeowners’ Association RESPONSIVE - INNOVATIVE - CONCERNED ~S A N T A C L A R A Valley Transportation Authority April18,1997 RECEIVED APR 3 1997 Deparlrnent of F~annmg an~ Co~,’nn~nily Environment City of Palo Alto ’ Department of Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Paul Jensen Subject:Environmental Assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Subdivision of the Cabana Hotel Site Dear Mr. Jensen: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Environmental Assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Subdivision of th~ Cabana Hotel Site. The proposed project would subdivide the 10. i-adre site located at 4290 E1 Camino Real into 15 parcels. The westerly 3.24 acres would be subdivided into 14 single family residential lots. The easterly 8.42 acres would be maintained as one commercial parcel for continued hotel development and use. This project site is located along VTA’s Bus Line 22, which is our most heavily used bus route, serving over 22,000 passengers daily. VTA maintains a southbound bus stop adjacent to the site. The bus stop is served by Lines 22 and 300 at 10 and 30 minute frequencies, respectively. Current ridership is approximately 60 passengers per day. VTA is currently conducting a study to convert Line 22 into a rapid bus corridor. This study is reviewing a number of station improvements, vehicle improvements and operational improvements that will increase safety, expand capacity and reduce delay along this major bus corridor. To facilitate these objectives, VTA requests that the development include direct pedestrian links to the bus stops from the hotel as well as the planned and existing residential area. This would enable hotel employees and guests and nearby residents to benefit from the extensive and expanded transit service offered by Line 22. E1 Camino Real is a heavily traveled 6-lane State Route. In the project vicinity, the curb lane is 20 feet wide. VTA standards require a minimum 22-foot wide curb lane for bus stops. Therefore, the e.xisting 20-foot curb lane is substandard in terms of maintaining transit operations free of potential traffic conflicts. We anticipate that the combination Of the proposed residential development and Line 22 improvements-would increase transit demand and thefi’~quenc3;of 3331 Borlh Firsl Slreel ¯ San Jose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Adminislralion 408.321.5555 ¯ Cuslomer Service 408.321.2300 City of Palo Alto Page 2 April 18, 1997 service stops. Therefore, VTA staff recommend that a modified bus duckout with 2 feet of additional curb lane width be provided to improve the ~xisting situation. We also recommend that the project include a concrete bus stop pavement pad consistent with VTA Bus Stop Pavement Details and Technical Specifications (Figure 26 and Technical Specifications, attached) to prevent pavement failures along the project frontage. In addition, the sidewalk adjacent to the bus duckout should be a minimum of 8 feet wide to comply with the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Lastly, the Environmental Assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration does not provide sufficient detail to assess the impact of the driveway relocation on our bus stop. We request the opportunity to review more detailed plans when they are available. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call Julie Render of my staff at (408) 321-5779. Sincerely, Environmental Program Manager TDR:JR:kh Attachments jr4259 _ 1o’± "-TYP "WHEN PAD IS ’75" OR LONGER, PLACE EXPANSION JOINT AT 1/2 THE LENGTH OF THE P.C.C. PAD. IN LONG PADS, EXPANSION .JOINTS SHALL DE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY 75-FOOT INTERVAI~ OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. SIDEWALX "-7 (OPTIONAL) ~.-6~--.--.~ lO’ - 12’ VARIES ~ ..~MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER - USE ~L ~~R~~ ~’D /~’~""~" :"/W/POL~ROPY~NE {a" c~s ~ ~Gc.[ BASE - ~ ~ J COMPANION 95~ RE~VE COMPA~ON ON NA~ SOIL SECTION A-A CONCRETE PAD ~//MONOLITHIC CURB & GUTTER #9 D0WEI~-JS" LONG SMOOTH BAR O IO" O.C. LUBRICATE INSTALL 3/4" WiDE FIBER FABRIC TO 1/2" BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL BELOW FINISHED SURFACE. FILL REMAINDER / WITH APPROVED SEAUNO COMPOUND: / #4 BARS TO ROUND CORNERS TO 1/4" R. ’~ / ~STABILIZE ~ 9 AGO. B t~l’~’i~AGG. BASE DOBIE SUPPORTS ~DOBIE SUPPORTS #4 BARS TO STABlUZE I 9 DOWELS 2" X I/4" WIDE SAWCUTCONTRACTION JOINT. FILL~ITHAPPROVED W~H APPROVED SEAUNC COMPOUND #9 D0WELS-|8" LONG SMOOTH BAR O 18" O.C. LUBRICATE BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL. SECTION B-B SECTION C-C EXPANSION JOINT CONTRACTION JOINT NOTE:FOR TECNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1, SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS \ ’SCUS E 26 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS P.C.C. pavement with monolithic curb and gutter shall conform to the provisions in Section 40, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT," and Section 90, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE" of the State Standard Specifications and these special provisions. P.C.C. pavement shall be class A with a compressive strength of 4000 psi at the age of 28 days. Polypropylene fibers (Fibermesh or approved equal), length 1/2", shall be added to the concrete at a rate of I 112 lbs/cy. ¯ After spreading and compacting, P.C.C. shall be given a prelimina~ finish which shall be smooth and tree to grade. In advance of curing operations, the pavement shall be given a final roughbroom finish with grooves having a depth of 1/8" perpendicular to the curb and gutter. All newly - placed concrete shall be cured in accordance with the provisions in Section 90-7, "Curing Concrete," of the State Standard Specifications. Curing compound to be used shall be applied to the. P.C.C. following the surface finishing operations immediately before the moisture sheen disappears flom the surface and before any drying, shrinkage or craze cracks begin to appear. CtLring compound shall be applied at a nominal rate of one gallon per 150 square feet. At any point, the application rate shall be within +/- 50 square feet per gallon of the nominal rate specified. Sawcutting of the contraction joints must be performed within 24 hours after concrete has received final surface finish. Contractor shall protect P.C.C. pad as specified in Section 90-8.03, "Protecting Concrete Pavement." Where public franc will be required to cross over new pavement, and ff directed by the Engineer, Type llI Portland Cement shall be used in concrete. When Type llI Portland Cemem is used in concrete, and ff permitted in writing by the Engineer, the pavement may be opened to traffic as soon as the concrete has developed a modulusof rupture of 550 pounds per square inch. The modulus of rupture will be determined by California Test Method 523. No traffic or Contractor’s equipment, except as hereinafter provided, will be permitted on the pavement before a period of ten (10) calendar days has elapsed after the concrete has been placed, nor before the concrete has developed a modulus of rupture of at least 550 pounds per square inch. Concrete that fails to attain a modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch within 10 days shall not be opened to traffic until directed by the Engineer. Equipment for sawing contraction joints (weakened plane joints) will be permitted on the pavement as specified in Section 40-1.08B, "Weakened Plane Joints," of the State Standard Specifications, Contraction joints, expansion joints and gaps between the P.C.C. pad and the existing pavement section shall be cleaned and sealed prior to permitting traffic on the pad. Removable cap joint shall be placed around the perimeter of the concrete pad exchiding cu~o and gutter. Joint sealing compound shall be type "A" joint seal and shall conform, to the provisions of Section 51-1.12F of the State Standard Specifications. The Z component polyurethane sealant shall be State Specification 8030 - 61J - 01 or approved equal. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY B US STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS ATTACHMENT 1 FOR F~ Palo Alto Redwoods April 18, 1997 RECEIVED / PR 21 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment Paul Jensen Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel site) Dear Mr. Jensen: The Palo Alto Redwoods have been working with the developer (Patel?) of this site and have come to a verbal agreement about a common fence. We have not seen any rendering or drawings of this fence in any of the plans or proposals that have been submitted so far. We want to be assured that any additions, changes, and/or modifications to this fence would be available for us to see and comment on. We have the notice regarding the meeting for Architectural Review approval of modification to the site plan and building elevation to the Cabana Hotel Facilities being held on Wednesday, April 30, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., and plan to attend this meeting. Is there something we can look at prior to this meeting that might impact the Palo Alto Redwoods? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Very Sinceri~ President Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto Cabana 4290htl,par c/o PML Management o 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 o San Mateo, CA 94404 o (415) 349-9113 KENT M ITCH£LL RICHARD R. H£RZOG MITCHELL & HERZOG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5=’0 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 230 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 9"~.301-2082 TELEPHONE (415) 327-7476 April 17, 1997 RE CE~V ’T_, D APR 1 7 1997 Department of Plan;l;,’, , ..{i;. C~rnrnunity En,~ir~.:n,~:~,-,:~: ~ACS,M,LE NUM~E~ DELIVER Department of Planning and Community Environment. CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, California 94301 Attn:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Proposed Subdivision of Cabana Hotel site city File #5: 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-BOB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Dear Mr. Jensen: This office represents owners of properties in the Greenacres I subdivision. We submit this letter on their behalf in regard to the Glenbrook Court Subdivision project, and specifically as written comment on the Environmental Assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-referenced project. Please make this letter part of the public record at any hearing held on this matter. As we have advised.the City of Palo Alto numerous times in the past, there can be no public crossing of the one-foot reserve strip at the northerly end of Glenbrook Drivewithout the written consent of all of the owners of the property in the Greenacres I subdivision. Thus, any project conditioned upon vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian or any other means of access across that strip of land is destined for failure without such consent. As the City also knows, a comprehensive settlement of this dispute, which would enable the Glenbrook Court development to be built and integrated logically into the existing Greenacres I community has been worked out between the Developer and the Greenacres homeowners. This has averted lengthy and costly litigation so far, but is dependent upon the City’s acceptance of the terms of the settlement, which have been presented in detail to the City. Any reluctance of theCity to agree to that settlement will be the sole cause for reviving and perpetuating that litigation at considerable cost and displeasure to the owners of some 90(+) homes in the Greenacres I subdivision. The subject Environmental Assessment emphasizes certain Policy statements from the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and concludes Department of Planning & Community Environment CITY OF PALO ALTO April 17, 1997 Page 2 erroneously that the Carrasco project is partially or wholly "inconsistent" with those policies suggesting that the Project cannot be approved for those reasons. The Policies cited are numbers 4, I0 and Ii of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, cited on pages 23, 24 and 25 of the Environmental Checklist Form, all involving creek access, parks, trails and paths. The fundamental misconception of the force and effect of these three Policies on this project is that the one-foot reserve strip, which the City wants this Developer to cross with a bicycle and pedestrian path, is outside the boundaries of this project. It is not under the ownership or control of this Developer or the City. The suggested mitigation or compliance with these policies calls for lands owned by non-applicants to be dedicated forpublic use as a condition of approval of this project. It is well established that a local agency cannot impose conditions on approval of a subdivision which the developer is not capable of performing, and which require "concerted action by others not a party to the transaction and over which the owner or developer has no control." (Lonqtin’s California Land Use, 2nd Ed., §8.24 "Capable of Performance by Applicant," pp. 799-800, citing Munns v. Stenman (1957) 152 C.A.2d 543, 552) ~ also states in that section that "the ~capable of performance’ limitation could arise in a situation wherein the applicant is required to provide easements across adjacent property," exactly the mitigation requested of this Developer vis-a-vis crossing the one-foot reserve strip. To the extent this Applicant owns and controls its lands and portions of Adobe Creek, it can be held to Policies 4, I0 and ii, but only as to lands within the boundaries of its property, and mot beyond. Mitigation which requires public access over lands owned and controlled by others would be an illegal condition of approval. For the foregoing reasons, any mitigation suggested which involves public access of any type over the one-foot reserve strip should be eliminated from consideration. Very truly yours, Kent Mitchell G-L\GOS2-OO1\CityP|.nn.|t1 Gloria and Stuart Kreitman 4216 Los Palos Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94036 April 18, 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Dear Mr. Jensen: RECEIVED APR 1 8 1997 Department ot Planning and Community Environment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed subdivision of the Cabana Hotel site at 4290 El Camino Real. Here are our comments: 1. We are in support of the proposed subdivision as submitted without the bike and pedestrian path. 2. The setting described in Section 15a-b, page 44 does not accurately reflect the current bike and pedestrian systems in the area. We would call your attention to the Santa Clara County Bikeways map which shows the closest bikeways along Los Altos Avenue and Arastradero Road. These lanes are connected by crossing Adobe Creek along Terman Park. The public trail/path along Adobe Creek as proposed by the City Staff does not connect with any of the major systems in existence. A path connection between a major commercial hotel enterprise and a residential community presents security risks to both the neighborhood and the hotel. 3. We would like construction traffic to occur via the hotel property for longer than one year as currently proposed. Sincerely, Gloria Kreitman . 415-494-6051 Mr. & Mrs. MARION HILL April 16, 1997 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 4270 Pomona Ave.Palo Alto CA 94306-4337 ~.,.~ ~ .,~.~ RECEIVED 1_ 1997 artrnent o~ ptanning and DeP mmunity Environment Co RE: 4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel site) We fully support the application of Glenbrook Court LLC for subdivision of the Cabana Hotel site into 14 residential lots as submitted in its original application, which is in accordance with its agreement with Greenacres I Association. We are unalterably opposed to the alternative plan imposed by staff which includes an ill-conceived bike/pedestrian path. Some pertinent comments: 1. The developer and Greenacres I Association have worked together very well in generating a plan that protects the general welfare and livability of the contiguous neighborhoods. The plan and agreement recognize the property rights of the Greenacres lot owners to the one-foot reserve strip legally allotted to them in the original plot plan recorded in Santa Clara County, and accepted by Palo Alto when it annexed Greenacres in 1959. City staff refuse to recognize either property rights or the desires of the neighborhood for its general welfare, as fully put forth in the original subdivision application. 2. Regarding the ill-conceived bike path: --Adequate paths already exist in the immediate area and serve connections between Los Altos and P. A. across Adobe Creek, along Arastradero to El Camino Real. An additional access to El Camino is unnecessary. --We agree with the developer that a path across the hotel property would present legal risks to the hotel and security risks to both it and Greenacres. --Placing the bike path along Adobe Creek is not feasible. The property belongs to the S. C. Valley Water District, and is not in the city’s jurisdiction. Access to the creekbank [and creekbed] would and is now endangering P.A. and Los Altos property owners to incursions by the general public. Also carving out a bike path would degrade the quality of the creekside. 3. Construction access should be from the hotel property as long as homes are being built. 4. Staff keeps quoting the Comprehensive Plan as if it is law that requires developers to do as the planning staff desires. The Plan is only a guide, and makes statements "where feasible" and "where possible". ]he Planning Commission can accept the original plot plan. 5. Note that in the EnvironmentalAssessment, with only 2 exceptions, none of the columns was marked, "Potentially Significant"; most all were marked "Less Than.." or "No Impact". Respectfully submitted, RECEIVED APR ]. ’7 1997, Department of Planning and Barbara and Craig Snapp Community Environment 4267 Los Palos Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 16, 1997. Dear Members of the Planning Commission . ~ We are wrfiti~the proposed housing development(on the Cabana Hotel Site. ~. We live i~ the Gr~e~acres su~,~ision to the west of the Cabana~,~.~our house will~,,, /} back up o~elopment. We have some positive ana~"~grt~"6Y-~ comments to mak~’cgard~proposal and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have been very pleased with the willingness of the developers to meet with our neighborhood and to listen to our concerns. As a result of these meetings, the developers have planned a cul de sac development that is consistent in density and type of residency with that of Greenacres, to which the new development would become attached. The developers have also agreed to preserve the trees which have formed a.n effective privacy screen for our backyards. Along with the buffer, generous set-backs and deed restrictions that will minimize the visual impact of homes built on lots abutting our fences ensure that the quality of our neighborhood will be protected. The protection and preservation of the character and quality of our neighborhood is our primary concern. The developers have responded positively to these concerns as indicated above. However, one major and o~main. Of major concern is the city staff insistence on the constructio~0f.~bbike, path fro_~he hotel site through the new housing development into our neig~ developers nor the hotel owners nor the Greenacres neighbors want such a path. We vtew it as a major security risk. It is not reasonable to open a residential neighborhood to free access from the back parking area of a major commercial enterprise. In addition to the risks of vandalism, graffiti, and trash there is the potential for injury as well. Greenacres has streets that curve and visibility is limited in several areas, including those that would be travelled by bicyclists coming offthe path onto Greenacres streets. Bicyclists and pedestrians might also be at risk moving through the hotel parking areas and access roads on their way to El Camino. Small children from the neighborhood could easily wander into this busy commercial area. Even if these risks could be mitigated, we do not feel that the path is even necessary. Two paths already exist that provide access into adjacent neighborhoods. The path behind Terman leads into Los Altos and provides easy access to El Camino and Village Corners and San Antonio shopping centers. Access to these same shopping centers and to Mountain View is provided by a path off Charleston Rd, a few blocks east of E1 Camino. The city staff plan would not only provide a risky, unnecessary path, but would require the developer to do it along the top of the creek. This is a riparian habitat that belongs to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, not to the developers. It is a habitat that is critical to the maintenance of creek bank stability. Removing trees and shrubbery to provide a path would undermine this stability, to say nothing of encouraging encroachment into the creekbed itself, a situation the Water District and creekside residents have expressed concern about in the past. Since the access road on the creek side of the hotel comes close to the seI back owned by the Water District, there is no room to safely install a path between road and set back. Finally, a minor (now) but potentially major (later) concern regards access to the housing development site for construction. The developers have an agreement with the hotel to access the housing development through hotel property for one year following plan approval. Since the developers plan to sell lots and not finished homes, we feel that the time allotted will probably not be sufficient. We ask the Planning Commission to request a - longer time frame -.at least 2-3 years. Sincerely, ¯Barbara D. Snapp Craig P. Snapp Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, Calif., 94301 Gentlemen: April 10, 1997 R E ~- E .~ ~.’ - -- ’APR 1 Department or Community I bought my home June, 1951 - 46 years ago. For 46 years I have lived a q ".e.~ife. _h.e5 and I ask that you help meto continue living the same quality~of--lige in the future. The Cabana Hotel is adjacent to my home. We have agreed with the developer to open up Glenbrook for 14 new home sites on the rear portion of the hotel property. We, the developer and the hotel owner are in agreement with all phases of the project. Our only obstacle is the City staff, some one on the staff has a job to establish as many bike paths as possible. Some one wants to put a bike path thro~r .quiet neighborhood, through the new developmen/V’and thr.o~h,,,the hotel property and none of us want it. There is[--t~ bike~ "Slane o’b~/~krastradero, which borders our neighborhood and there is’--a_.b.ike__la~/the very next through street, just south of us Los Altos Ave. The bikers don’t need a bike path through our quiet neighborhood, regardless of what the City staff person says. Please, for 46 years my home is in a quiet neighborhood, don’t put a bike path through it. Thank you. G. Dean Morgan 4276 Los Palos Palo Alto Apr. 17, 7997 PLan~,ing Com~sion City of PaLo Afro 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alt.o, CA 94501 Proposed Caba~m ~ev~opme~RECEIVED I PR 1 8 "1997 We, trunk that you mt~,6t not b~, aa,are ’of ~ze unzafe situation on /~i~ Gtenb~ook Drive or you would not even co~id~ i~tal£in~ a bike path i~a thx’s a~ea. If you #.ould observe ~t, you would be shocked. Department of Planning and Community Environment Because the~e ls i~ffici¢~ par~.ng for the JCC and T~ra~ Par~, ot~ street is us~.d as a par~x’.ng lot, T~x’z ls true day after day aft~ day except posslbty when it rains or after dark. Because Glenbrook is a dead end sLreet and not "a eul .de sac, tI~s ~eat~ a problem as there a~’,ays are drivers who are attempting toaroa~,~d 2n an inadequate space. Besid¢6 tl~L~, there often a~e cars parked on both sides of the. street - o(ten Zn illegal fashion ~ on tJ~e sidewalks and even. on the street next tO~ze fe,.,nce. We try to info.~i people who park .tl~s way, bu~ the~e new people coming h~e to .park as both the JOC and the par~ are heavily used. We have called the. po~e b~. the.y have informed us tha~ we will flu.re .to report, the offendegs - a .dau~ing task - as it is very difficult to k~ep monitoring t~:~and a~ng as potiee. Arwt.h~r problem is ~hat we have a i~gh share of tee~mge drivers who parti~ipate in the various spo~ on the playi~g fields and who zoom out of fiere at a high ~ate of ~peed. TI~z Zz a zoo and certai~y no’~the ~.~lace to add more chaos by includ- ing bicy~zts in tiffs h~zardo~ situatAon. We are war~ing you about t~’~ danger, pote~v~ial s,evere aceide~ (we l~v~ witnessed near .misses and minor ones) and the possible Liability ’to tlae ~ty, S" ~ohn ~. Gould M~i~ .E. Gould 665 Glenb~ook Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94 Copi,~ - 3oe Huber, Mayor, Pa£o Alto Go, my Fazzino, City Council P~LO ~LTO, C~ O~ 4-13-97 Planning Co,~ssion City of PaZo A~t.o 250 Ha,~ton Ave. Palo A~o, CA 94~01 Proposed Development of :t~e Cabana Site We w~sh to send our vi~ on the above proje~. we are pleased th~ the dev~oper h~ l~stened to the concerns of the GreenAcr~s’ @ome own~ and ha~ come up ~V~h a plan th~. h~ addressed thP~ ~ concerns. We s~rongly, object to the.infusion of a bike path. It is a path that nobody wa~ - not the deveZop~r/hot~l owner 6e~e of the. t~6~y, not ~ r~i~e~ of Los A~os a~ss th~ creek 6e,~a~e of 6~g~y pro6- Z~s and c~~y not o~ n~ghbo~ who ~xp~n~d a ~h of b~g~i~ when the ga~e. ~ Glenbrook ~ open to E1 Ca~no and w~h c~ed lmme~te- ly whe.n ~e gate {~s ~oe~ed. A~o, ~e ~ r~ide~ on Glenbrook Ct. no doubt wo{~d ~o~. ~ ~ "~h~. T~s would be s~ch an insign~fXoan~ l~t~Ze path ~h~’oe.h would not ~onnect wit~ any oth~. Plu~ we a~.eady We bike ~hs nearby that ~onne~t Palo Al~o to Los Altos and to Mr. Vi~v. Th~se ~os~ Adobe C~e~k and eonn~e~ ~ E1 Camino. In our "~6an visage" freedom fro~ ~ e~ime is a primary ~onc~rn. W#. tr{u~t that you can understand our fea~ and wo~ld try ~o all~uX~te them. We think that ~f you w~re Zn our s~tu~tion ~ha~ you wout.d he~t~l~ agree wi~h u~. We are not opposed t~ bike paths and co~id~r them an e×c~lle~t ide~, b~ in th~ pArtiau~r case, the. disadvantag~ ~a~ o~{~gh an~,~ limited be.nell,s. WP, would gr~.~y appreciate your help in this matter. SX.nc~r~ly, RECEIVED APR 1 B 1997 Department ot Planning anO Community Environment To: From: Joseph H. Huber, Mayor of Palo Alto and Gary Fazzino, City Council- Palo Alto Sara & Angelo Granzotti GreenAcres Neighborhood Dear Sirs, April t6, 1997 RECEIVED llp 1 8 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment We are writing to you to appeal to your common sense, and to ask for your help. The GreenAcres Association has apparently been unable to convince the Planning department of the City of Palo Alto to go along with certain elements of a plan proposed by the developer of the back portion of Cabana property. The two elements of particular interest to our neighborhood are that the development consists of a.maximum of 14 homes of a value comparable to that of homes in GreenAcres, and that such development connect only to Glenbrook Drive with no connection allowed between Glenbrook and El Camino, not even for a bicycle path. These two elements were evolved.by the GreenAcres Association and by the developer. and constitute the cornerstone of the harmony established between these two parties. Unfortunately, the City of Palo Alto, through its Planning department, has taken most unusual steps in the face of this harmony. The City has suggested to the developer that a lawsuit be brought against all residents of GreenAcres in order to obtain permission to cross a right of way owned by the neighborhood. Upon winning such suit the City could then demand that a bicycle path be built to allow connection between El Camino and Glenbrook drive. We will not dwell on the ignominy involved in the actions of a city staff, paid for by our tax dollars to represent us, which creates an environment that demands that an injurious lawsuit be filed by a developer against the city’s own constituency! We would like to focus this note on the characteristics of the proposed bicycle path which are most disturbing to all of us and should be equally disturbing to the City government. A study of the map of the area reveals that numerous paths are already in existence to serve the area and allow safe traveling in all directions. We have attached a map marked with the existingbicycle ways highlighted in green and the proposed connection in red. This new connection between the Aqueduct and El Camino would have to go through Terman Park, Glenbrook drive, the new housing development, the Cabana Hotel property, El Camino.and Monroe Street to connect with the existing path through Miller and Wilkie streets. The problems we see with the proposal for a redundant connection between the Aqueduct bike route and the Miller/Wilkie route are as follows: Terman Park: Currently there is a footpath which connects the Aqueduct bike route to the Jewish Community Center. This is a pedestrian path used daily by children, elderly people, handicapped people who use the path for a quiet walk or to come to watch the soccer and other games held on the fields, and others that come on foot from Glenbrook to play tennis etc. The footpath is narrow and is not designed to mix pedestrian and bicycle traffic. There have been several incidents on the Aqueduct bike route where speeding bicyclists have bumped into pedestrians. Most of us try to stay away from the bike route because it is used at very high sp.eeds by bicycles that come from behind at high speed startling people, to say the least. The paved footpath around the soccer field is often used as a place for people to sit and a place for handicapped people to travel on and park their wheelchairs when they come to watch games. The use of this area is intense particularly in the spring, summer, and fall, a little less intense in the winter. The Jewish Community Center uses the park for outdoor classes for the daycare and very young children play in the area of the proposed path. Hundreds of people are often in this area. Vehicles park every morning and afternoons on Glenbrook at the Terman end. Glenbrook drive: This short street has become the effective parking lot for Terman Park. The street is often packed with cars and it is not wide enough to permit safe coexistence of pedestrians, cars and bicycles when cars which are not from the neighborhood use it as a parking lot. It is often difficult to get out of one’s driveway due to the large number of cars parked on the sidewalks and in front of driveways and all over the street. Quite often the sidewalks are unusable for pedestrians because cars park on the sidewalks. We are constantly putting sign on cars warning them that it is illegal to do so, but to no avail. Children are often in the street walking to and from the various school activities offered by the Jewish Community Center, or to go and play in the park, or to go to either the Terman Library or Gunn High School.. New Development: By forcing a bicycle path through the proposed cluster of 14 homes, it would not only cause increased cost to the developers and future owners, but would also have a negative impact on the insurance rates of both of these parties. Cabana Hotel: The hotel would have to give up land and incur increased insurance rates. Overall: We are concerned about the increased risk of burglaries supported by a fast get-away path through the new and old neighborhoods and the hotel. Past history supports this concern. Future Users of the proposed path: The proposed bike path is clearly redundant. As you can see from the enclosed map(2), there is already an excellent connection with dedicated bike paths on Los Altos Avenue connecting with Del Medio street. The new path would force bikers to use a very narrow sidewalk on El Camino to go from the Cabana property to Monroe street. El Camino is a very dangerous road to travel on a bike (we have three broken ribs as a result of having been forced oft’the road by a car on E! Camino). We wonder about the liability assumed by a city that builds a bike path in an area known to have high exposure to potential accidents and attendant severe injuries. We think that forcing bicycle traffic onto a narrow sidewalk in an area where there are several hotels and restaurants is irresponsible. While an additional bicycle path appears to be a noble gesture eliciting images of idyllic rides by all sorts of citizens, the reality is sometimes different. Witness the increase of aggressive behavior exhibited by cyclists through the bay area. Several incidents of groups of cyclists inflicting .vandalism on other people’s property are. On the report books of several police departments in this area (our own car was vandalized by one such cyclist without any provocation, police report is on file). In summary we have heard repeatedly that someone on the City Staff insists that their will be complied with, and that the path be built at any cost. We are united as a neighborhood in thinking otherwise and would like to see the City of Palo Alto respond cogently and be considerate in respecting the wishes of its citizens. We ask for your support and hope that you will intervene to help us bring this matter to a satisfactory resolution. Sincerely, Angelo & Sara Granzotti 666 Glenbrook Drive Palo Alto Ca 94306 415-494-2224 angranzotti@msn, com PS Please distribute to:City Council Planning Dept ~ ,W rn 0 1959 Leghorn Mountain View California 94043 From China, Korea, India, Thailand SINCE 1964 RECEIVED, APR 1 6 1997 Department of Planning andCommunity Environment (415) 965-7760 (800) 845-7455 In CA: (800) 345-7455 FAX: (415) 965-0712 Planning Commission City of Pal. Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pal. Alto, Ca. 94301 Re : April 14, 1997 Greenacres #I Gentlemen and Ladies: My family has owned a home in Greenacres #i since 1951 before the neighborhood was incorporated into Pal. Alto. I was a little girl. in this rural neighborhood that was built in an apricot and prune orchard. At that time there was not only a chicken farm on Arastradero Road but also a pasture with horses. My father still lives in Greenacres #i and I bought the house across the street in 1978. He lives at 4276 and I live at 4271 Los Palos We have wonderful neighbors and are extremely happy living in our Pal. Alto neighborhood. We have been concerned about maintaining the peaceful quality of our neighborhood since the closing of the Hyatt Cabana Hotel about five years ago. We have had years of meetings and interactions with various builders, developers, and city representatives. Our basic concerns are the following: Maintaining the "green strip" of trees that border our neighborhood with the former Hyatt property. This is against my back fence so I am particularly interested in this. Keeping the height of the residential homes to a minimum height. We are hoping that the new neighborhood will be in harmony with ours. I would like to join with my neighbors in supporting the access of the new 14 homes and their guests to use our neighborhood streets and the access to Glenbrook Avenue. I do not see the necessity to have bike and pedestrian path that links the Cabana Hotel and E1 Camino Real with the new neighborhood and ours. Many thanks for your attention to this. We are always grateful for the excellent support of the City of Pal. Alto. Sincerely, 8411811997 18:32 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 02 April 17, 1997 Planning Commission Members City of Pale Alto RECEIVED De ~rtment o~ pl~nnir,j and~mmunitYEnvironment Subject; Proposed at 4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel Site) Ref: City File Nos:96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Dear Members: In the next month or so, you will be considering the application to allow construction of single family dwellings in the proposed Glenbrook Court development. This proposal by far would seem to be the most desirable that this neighborhood has seen.to date, in my opinion, and I have resided here for over 38 years, We (Greenacres I) have worked with the developer during his planning phase and are in agreement that there should be no bicycle path or pedestrian walkway from El Camino Real through the hotel property and the proposed development into Greenacres. In spite of the fact that the Cabana Hotel ownership: the developer and the Greenacres neighborhood find that a bicycle path/walkway wild have a negative effect on each, the planning department refused to accept the developers plans without it. Imagining myself as a potential buyer of a home in Glenbrook Court, I would have reservations about purchasing, for just that reason alone. We are ringed by bicycle paths, .probably with as high a density that exists anywhere in the city. The El Camino ingress for the proposed path is approximately 0.3 miles from Arastradero Road and 0.15 miles from Los Altos Avenue. The distances are infinitesimal to riders and walkers as well and do not warrant a short-cut through the proposed development or Greenacres I neighborhood. The bicycle/pathway will only provide an unnecessary short-cut to the existing paths that already exist and are now conveniently located. Arastradero Road on.the north edge of Greenacres neighborhood is a marked designated bi0ycle path; the Hatch Hetchy right of way on the west edge of Tarman is a designated bicycle path and connects between Arastradero Road and the third designated bicycle path which is Los Altos Avenue. Bicyclists can also use El Camino Real between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue. Greenacres is a highly desirable neighborhood, I would not like to see this quiet, calm, secure environment in which we reside, degraded to satisfy a desire of the planning staff (the singular requestor of the bicycle path). A~ a matter of fact, El Camino in the vicinity of the Cabana Hotel provides nothing of interest to require a special access. Also Adobe Creek in this area does not 04118/:1997 18:32 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 03 provide a Yosemite Park type vista by any stretch of the imagination. Additionally the police files for this area should show why we consider the pathway to be detrimental to the security of the neighborhood. In view ~)f the above I propose that a decorative, substantial, permanent masonary wall be constructed on the border,between the hotel and the proposed dwellings. The wall should be a minimum of 8’ high for the benefit of the potential homeowners.The wall between the Terman Apartments end the housing on Inygo Way, which was constructed as part of the JCC/Terman agreement is a good example. I hope that the information above will be given consideration in your ¯ deliberations and decision. Sincerely, Floyd S. Kessler ~,272 Los Palos Avenue Tel: 493-7780 Fax: 424-1425 4/16/97 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RECEIVED APR 3. 8 1997 Department of P~ann~ng and Community Environment Regarding the proposed housing development on the Cabana Hotel site: The current set of developers appears to have at least understood neighborhood concerns andproposed that there be no vehicular access from Glenbrook Drive through to E1 Camino, access which would be extremely environmentally destructive and socially disruptive. It also appears that the current set of developers understands neighborhood concerns and are trying to avoid proposing a plan requiring a foot/bike path access from Glenbrook Drive through to E1 Camino, access which would also be extremely environmentally destructive and socially disruptive. It is, however, the case that the City Staff is insisting that the developers propose a plan which includes some form of throughway from Glenbrook Drive to E1 Camino. And at the insistence of the City of Palo Alto, the developers are suing the individual residents of the Greenacres neighborhood to "clear" title to this one-foot strip so that the developerscan build out the properties and realize their profits, and so that the City can realize its Planning Staff’s vision of through access (that no one else wants) to E1 Caminoo The City is essentially holding the developers’ building permissions hostage to obtaining the "clearance" of title to the one-foot strip. (I guess it would look REALLY bad if the city were to directly sue its residents in the name of its sacred Comprehensive Plan. So the City is essentially forcing the developers to sue its residents for them.) This is indeed a sick City tactic and a strange vision of "good urban planning" for the future that requires and encourages lawsuits aimed at its residents. There should be NO openings of any kind from Glenbrook Avenue through to E1 Camino Real. To propose and insist upon one as the City of Palo Alto is doing is simply illegal, is very bad urban planning and is contrary to the wishes of the hotel owners, the developers of the proposed residences and the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. We are not talking about an opening from a neighborhood to a neighborhood here~. We are talking about an opening from a neighborhood of middle-aged and elderly people into the private property of a major commercial hotel and from there into a very busy major throughfare with-lots of vehicular and transient foot traffic. No one wants an opening of any kind EXCEPT the City of Palo Alto Planning Staff ... and they are obviously willing to force the City, the residents, the hotel owner and the developers into legal battles to try to obtain an opening ... at great cost’ to everyone. It should be pointed out that the proposal is flawed in that it claims that the 1- foot strip owned by the residents of the Greenacres neighborhood allows emergency vehicular access. This is NOT the case. No access across this strip is permitted without the express consent of the owners, consent which has not been sought or obtained by any individual or agency. There are already more bike paths in our southern end of town than anywhere except Stanford University area. We already have perfectly adequate East-West bike and pedestrian paths along Arastradero and perfectly adequate North-South bike and pedestrian connections across Adobe Creek to Los Altos and Mountain View. We do not, repeat, do NOT want or need the additional security problems an additional through connection to E1 Camino would cause. A bike and pedestrian connection between a large hotel enterprise and a residential neighborhood will inevitably be unsafe and will cause major security problems for both the neighborhood and the hotel, to propose such an opening and its attendant, liabilities is simply unrealistic irresponsibility, not "good urban planning." The City’s Planning Department has insisted that. the developers place a bike path on the tOp of the creek bank. This requirement would cause removal of most if not all the existing trees and shrubbery along the creek bank and the destruction of the existing creekside environment. Our south Palo Alto area has already suffered the "concretization" of the lower portion of Adobe Creek m an unwanted "improvement" forced upon us by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. I have lived along this creek for my entire life, grew up playing in the creek and still walk major portions of its length occasionally. I can personally attest that this concretization literally and tragically destroyed the entire natural environment and natural habitat of the lower Adobe Creek. The wildlife and plants that once grew there are now permanently and indisputably gone. And the Santa Clara Valley Water District continues its long-term efforts to perform similar destructive "improvements" to the upper creek areas m despite vehement and unanimous residential objections. The Adobe creek environment in question is therefor particularly fragile as a consequence and cannot withstand more destructive, municipally mandated "improvements." In any case, such a bike/foot path as is being insisted upon by the City would, of necessity, be located on property owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and is not under the control of the City, the neighborhoods, the developer or the hotel owner. How this fact seems to have escaped the Planning Department is beyond me But over time, they have shown themselves remarkably free of the constraints of facts, property rights, laws and everything else, so why should they not demand such a planning inclusion and provoke a costly and pointless legal brawl without regard for actual ownership i:ights? This seems to be the Planning Department’s entire modus operandi: to simply and repeatedly provoke pointless, costly and alienating divisions and legal battles everywhere throughout city, ignore or shrug off the resultant howls of outrage, and let the "winning" interest group determine the outcome. This is not "urban planning." This is simply a form of "trial by combat." And the sooner the City moves beyond its current style of "planning" toward a truly City-led consensual approach, the sooner a Palo Alto will emerge that won’t have to suffer from lots of stupid, alienating and expensive legal brawls. Under the present plan, construction access for the proposed houses will be from E1 Camino for only one year. But since the development will take place sporadically by individual owners and is likely to stretch over a longer period than one year. Because the construction noise, dirt and traffic are predictably going to cause considerable disruption to.resident and the environment, and because the hotel owners and the developers are the only ones who stand to benefit from this development, construction access should be through the hotel access to E1 Camino for the full length of time it takes to complete construction of ALL the housing units ...... --- It has been more than three long years that Greenacres Residents have been forced to suffer this Cabana development "process." And we don’t doubt that there is more of this wonderful City and developer-encouraged "process" to come. There have been absolutely no benefits of any kind offered neighborhood residents during this entire period. Developer insults, City indifference (alternating with City hostility and patronization by turns) emotional upheaval, endless meetings and a lawsuit required by our own City officials have been our lot so far. And with nothing on the horizon for our neighborhood but the prospect of crowding, more traffic, more crime, more noise, more dirt, more heavily impacted schools and more environmental destruction, do you really wonder that we are not really to be cooperative with the City’s vision of "good ~urban planning" forced down our throats? Michel, 646 Fairmed~ Member, Greenacres Improvement Association 84/18/1997 14:19 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 81 Pl~nnin.~ ommission, City of P...7.1o Alto, 250 Hsm~lton Ave 94301 SITBJECT: C~b,7..n_= Site (Housing Units) We 8re in consensus with the ,~,evelc, oer ’greed to ~ceep ~cnsity comp:’tible v,’ith the neighborhoods ~.nd will minimize the visu~,l impact these homes will hsve on this RECEIVED APR 1 8 1997 Department of Planning anc Community Environment We -re very m~ch ~,g:-,inst ,:~ bike psth 81ong the creek from E1 C-’z~no through our neighborhood. There is r bike p<th from E1 C~mino ~lon~ ~os Altos Ave th’t connects with $he bike ps.th on Ar~str~dero Ro~d, A bike p~th through s. m~jor hotel drivew"y is d~ngerous "rid will present ~ security risk te the neighborhood. Since residents, esDec~.lly children, ere not used ~o he~vy treffic in our neighborhood, construction tr-ffic is of gre~t concern to us. B’.rb~r~ .’.:.rid Ernest Guptill 629 Glenbrook D~ive Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, Calif., 94301 Gentlemen: RECEIVED ]. 7 1997 / DIVISION OF "TRANSPORTATION April 10, 1997 ’APR 1 4 I.C,,.: Department of Community E,.~;- .n:~: .~. I bought my home at 4276 Los Palos in June, 1951 - 46 years ago. For 46 years I have lived a quiet life here and I ask that you help me to continue living the same quality of life in the future. The Cabana Hotel is adjacent to my home. We have agreed with the developer to open up Glenbrook for 14 new home sites on the rear portion of the hotel property. We, the developer and the hotel owner are in agreement with all phases of the project. Our only obstacle is the City staff, some one on the staff has a job to establish as many bike paths as possible. Some one wants to put a bike path through our quiet neighborhood, through the new development and through the hotel property and none of us want it. There is a bike lane on Arastradero, which borders our neighborhood and there is a bike lane the very next through street just south of us - Los Altos Ave. The bikers don’t need a bike path through our quiet neighborhood, regardless of what the City staff person says. Please, for 46 years my home is in a quiet neighborhood, don’t put a bike path through it. Thank you. G. Dean Morgan 4276 Los Palos Palo Alto JOSEPH HUBER From: To: Subject: Date: ANGRANZ / NTMAIL (ANGRANZ@aol.com) JOSEPH HUBER / CPA, Cl Cabana bike paths Thursday, April 17, 1997 7:53PM < < File Attachment: CABANABI.TXT > > From: ANGRANZ@aoI.com To: joseph huber@city.palo-alto.ca.us cc: gary_f~zzino@city.palo-alto.ca.us To: Joseph H. Huber, Mayor of Palo Alto and Gary Fazzino, City Council- Palo Alto From: Sara & Angelo Granzotti GreenAcres Neighborhood April 16, 1997 Dear Sirs, We are writing to you to appeal to your common sense, and to ask for your help. The GreenAcres Association has.apparently been unable to convince the Planning department of the City of Palo Alto to go along with certain elements of a plan proposed by the developer of the back portion of Cabana property. The two elements of particular interest to our neighborhood are that the development consists of a maximum of 14 homes of a value comparable to that of homes in GreenAcres, and that such development connect only to Glenbrook Drive with no connection allowed between Glenbrook and El Camino, not even for a bicycle path. These two elements were evolved by the GreenAcres Association and by the developer and constitute the cornerstone of the harmony established between these two parties. Unfortunately, the City of Palo Alto, through its Planning department, has taken most unusual steps in the face of this harmony. The City has suggested to the developer that a lawsuit be brought against all residents of GreenAcres in order to obtain permission to cross a right of way owned by the neighborhood. Upon winning such suit the City could then demand that a bicycle path be built to allow connection between El Camino and Glenbrook drive. We will not dwell on the ignominy involved in the actions of a city staff, paid for bY our tax dollars to represent us, which creates an environment that demands that an injurious lawsuit be filed by a developer against the city’s own constituency! We would like to focus this note on the characteristics of the proposed bicycle path which are.most disturbing to all of us and should be equally disturbing to the City government. ¯ A study of the map of the area reveals that numerous paths are already in existence to serve the area and allow safe traveling in all directions. We have attached a map marked with the existing bicycle ways highlighted in green and the proposed connection in red. This new connection between the Aqueduct and El Camino would have to go through Terman Park, Glenbrook drive, the new housing development, the Cabana Hotel property, El Camino and Monroe Street to connect with the existing path through Miller and Wilkie streets. The problems w~,see with the proposal for a redundant connection between the Page 1 Aqueduct bike route and the Miller/Wilkie route are as follows: Terman Park: Currently there is a footpath which connects the Aqueduct bike route to the Jewish Community Center. This is a pedestrian path used daily by children, elderly people, handicapped people who use the path for a quiet walk or to come to watch the soccer and other games held on the fields, and others that come on foot from Glenbrook to play tennis etc. The footpath is narrow and is not designed to mix pedestrian and bicycle traffic. There have been several incidents on the Aqueduct bike route where speeding bicyclists have bumped into pedestrians. Most of us try to stay away from’ the bike route because it is used at very high speeds by bicycles that come from behind at high speed startling people, to say the least. The paved footpath around the soccer field is often used as a place for people to sit and a place for handicapped people to travel on and park their wheelchairs when they come to watch games. The use of this area is intense particularly in the spring, summer, and fall, a little less intense in the winter. The Jewish Community .Center uses the park for outdoor classes for the daycare and very young children play in the area of the proposed path. Hundreds of people are often in this area. Vehicles park every morning and afternoons on Glenbrook at the Terman end. Glenbrook drive: This short street has become the effective parking lot for Terman Park. The street is often packed with cars and it is not wide enough to permit safe coexistence of pedestrians, cars and bicycles when cars which are not from the neighborhood use it as a’parking lot. It is often difficult to get out of one’s driveway due to the large number of cars parked on the sidewalks and in front of driveways and all over the street. Quite often the sidewalks are unusable for pedestrians because cars park on the sidewalks. We are constantly putting sign on cars warning them that it is illegal to do so, but to no avail. Children are often in the street walking to and from the various school activities offered by the Jewish Community Center, or to go and play in the park, or to go to either the Terman Library or Gunn High School.. New Development: By forcing a bicycle path through the proposed cluster of 14 homes, it would not only cause increased cost to the developers and future owners, but would also have a negative impact on the insurance rates of both of these parties. Cabana Hotel: The hotel would have to give up land and incur increased insurance rates. Overall: We are concerned about the increased risk of burglaries supported by a fast get-away path through the new and old neighborhoods and the hotel. Past history supports this concern. Future Users of the proposed path: The proposed bike path is clearly redundant. As you can see from the enclosed map(2), there is already an excellent connection with dedicated bike paths on Los Altos Avenue connecting with Del Medio street." The new path would force bikers to use a very narrow sidewalk on EI.Camino to go from the Cabana property to Monroe street. El Camino is a very dangerous road to travel on a bike (we have three broken ribs as a result of having been forced off the road by a car on. El Camino). We wonder about the liability assumed by a city that builds a bike path in an area known to ’have high exposure to potential accidents and attendant severe injuries. We think that forcing bicycle traffic onto a narrow sidewalk in an area where there are several hotels and restaurants is irresponsible. Page 2 While an additional bicycle path appears to be a noble gesture eliciting images of idyllic rides by all sorts of citizens, the reality is sometimesdifferent. Witness the increase of aggressive behavior exhibited by cyclists through the bay area. Several incidents of groups of cyclists inflicting vandalism on other people’s property are on the report books ofseveral police departments in this area (our own car was vandalized by one such cyclist without any provocation, police report is on file). In summary we have heard repeatedly that someone on the City Staff insists that their will be complied with, and that the path be built at any cost. We are united as a neighborhood in thinking otherwise and would like to see the City of Palo Alto respond cogently and be considerate in respecting the wishes of its citizens. We ask for your support and hope that you will intervene to help us bring this matter to a satisfactory resolution. Sincerely, Angelo & Sara Granzotti 666 Glenbrook Drive Palo Alto Ca 94306 415-494-2224 angranzotti@msn.com PS Please distribute to:Planning Dept City Council Note: We are attaching two maps, however we are not sure that you will be able to read them, therefore we will deliver two copies in person tomorrowApril 18, 1997 at City Hall. Page RECEIVED .1. 1997 Department ot Co ’ P’; ]’i ".~RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION May 11, 1997 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attention: Mr. Paul Oensen, Contact Planner Sub3ect: 4290 E1Camino Real (Cabana Hotel Subdivision) Reference:City file #s:96-CPA-4~ 9&-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB=I68~ 96-V-3 and 96-EIA-32 Dear Mr. 3ensen : The Rancho Laureles Preservation Association was created to maintain and enhance the ability of the Los Altos families within its membership and the surrounding communities, to privately enjoy their properties without the threat of intrusion~ malicious mischief~ or any other act that could result in physical or monetary harmto the residents and/or their properties. We have determined that some of the proposals by the new owner of the Cabana Hotel to be in direct conflict with the stated purpose of the Association and therefore not in the best interest of the.surrounding residents. Keeping in mind that the property lines of the homeowners on the Los Altos side of Adobe Creek extend to the center line o÷ the Creek, access to or near Adobe Creek should be prohibited rather than encouraged as a public or private resource. This includes any bicycle or pedestrian trail on or near the area of Adobe Creek. Any trail facilitates trespassing. Any lanai or other outdoor recreation area to be used as a gathering point for hotel guests near Adobe Creek is clearly an infringement of the right to privacy of the Los Altos Homeowers directly across the creek and is not acceptable. a Dense landscaping sufficient to prohibit viewing from one property to another across the boundary of the property to existing homes shall be installed. The fencing and landscaping along the portign of the property bordering Adobe Creek shall, in addition~ be sufficient to prohibit access to the Creek. We respectfully request the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council to act in the best interest surrounding residents by protecting their rights to the private enjoyment of their properties. These concerns and many others have been voiced many times during the past 6 years. The only thing that has changed is the ownership of the Hyatt/Cabana property. Very truly yours, Richard E. Bartlett Presi dent Rancho Laureles Presevation Association cc: Larry Tong Planning Director, City of Los Altos Rancho Laureles Preservation Association Steering Committee RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION Paul Jensen c/o Planning Division, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California, 94303 Marcia Penn 1176 Laureles Drive Los Altos, California, 94022 May 12, 1997 RECEIVED PflW 1 5 1997 Department of Planning andCo,,"nn~n~ty Environment Dear Paul lensen: I am writing as -h representative for the Rancho Laureles neighborhood in response to the newest proposal for the Hyatt Hotel property at E1 Camino Real. The plan to establish a public bike path bordering the Adobe Creek and connecting El Camino Real to Glenbrook Drive is unacceptable to us. Our objections to this element remain the same: 1) The public bike path presents more visible and physical access to the creek that in turn will lead to more exploration of it. This will eventually find one young person experimenting with matches, as two did in the past, and the same results could be experienced by our neighborhood--fire. The 1993 fire jumped from the creekside roofs to a house several blocks away and caused over $80,000 worth of damage. After this fire, some of the firefighters stayed until early evening on our street and overnight at the Hyatt property because of their concern that there could be an Oakland Hills type of fire in this neighborhood; because of extensive foliage the fire could race up the entire corridor of the creek and spread from there. 2) More access to the creek and increased knowledge of its existence could lead to further creekside burglaries. 3) Many of us are deeply concerned about the increased possibility of injuries to people (especially children) who trespass in the creek and our liability for any such injuries. For your information, I am enclosing copies of a newspaper article describing the 1993 Adobe Creek fire. We appreciate the effort you are devoting to assessing the impact of this proposed project. ~ Marcia Penn c.c. David Kornfield, Los Altos Planning Department San Jose Mercury News ¯ ~.OCa| ¯ Saturday, June 26, 1993 LUCI S WILLIAMS -- MERCURY NEWS Smoke from Adobe Creek fire was so thick that Los Altos police advised some residents to leave the area, Fire damages four houses BI PALO ALTO FIRE from Page 1B Langton and Las Flores watered their roofs and lawns, while fire- fighters doused flames on some rooftops. Several residents had no idea their wooden shake roofs had caught on fire until police, fire- fighters or pas.~ersby pounded on their front doors. Mark Norman was called a hero by one resident. The Sunnyvale resident drove into the neighbor- hood after seeing the trees on fire from El Camino Real and spotted a house with burning embers on the roof. He notified resident Marcia Penn and hopped on the roof with a water hose to douse small flames. "It gets your adren- aline going," he said. Penn escaped with her art- work, family photographs and computer. The roof, attic and ceiling of a house on Las Flores, about a quarter mile from the crvek, suf- fered themost damage. Owner John Cademartori, 70, was sweeping his garage of de-. bris after firefighters doused the flames. \%oo,k I Blaze starts ~.Hn trees ~ER~RY NEW~ Cademartori earlier had walked down the street to see firefighters put out the fast-mov- ing flames on a 70-foot tree in the creek, a block and a half away. The fire was under control, he thought, before he walked back to his ~hree-b(.dro~m~, ~ingb, sto~5 home. "I wa~ going to put water the roof, but 1 sa.id, no, they knocked it down when it started. I won’t have to do anything about it," recalled Cademartori. It was in Los Altos then that he heard a knock at the door and he left. "It makes you feel like getting another roof; the whole neighbor- hood has wood shakes," Cade- martori said, echoing the state- merits made by several residents. Los Altos fire Capt. Robert Ewart estimated the Cademartori house suffered $60,000 in dam- ag.~ to the structure and $20,000 in damage to furniture. Damage to three other houses was estimated at $4,000 to $5,000 each, said Constantino. The smoke was so thick on Las Flores while firefighters battled the blaze at Cademartori’s house, that Los Altos police advised resi- dents to leave the area. Los Altos fire Capt. John Ford said that had there been higher winds, the neighborhood could have been swept by a firestorm similar to the Oakland hills in 1991. "It’s the start of our fire sea- son. It’s definitely that time of year, with the Fourth (of July) coming up," he said, "It’s going to be a long summer." Mercury News Staff Writer Holly Heyser contributed to this ~<rrL KENT MITCHELL RICHARD R HERZOG MITCHELL & HERZOG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5SO HAMILTON AVENUE,SUITE 230 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-2082 TELEPHONE (415) 327-747e FACSIMILE NUHBER (41S) .327-7994 June ii, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION City of Palo Alto Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Public Hearing - 4290 E1 Camino Real (Cabana Hotel) and 14-Lot Residential Subdivision (Glenbrook Court). Dear Planning Commissioners: We are the attorneys for the residents of the Greenacres subdivision adjacent to the proposed 14-Lot Glenbrook Court residential subdivision. Please make this letter and the attachment part of the public record in this matter. We are writing this letter to inform you of the current status ¯ of the resolution of the one foot reserve strip dispute. Following a meeting between city staff and the developer of the Glenbrook Court subdivision in May, the developer’s attorney wrote me a letter outlining the possibilities for resolution which were agreeable to the City staff and the developer. This letter was considered by the Greenacres I Improvement Association Board on June 4, 1997. The Board Members unanimously favored one of the alternatives described in that letter and recommended distributing the enclosed memorandum dated June 5, 1997, to all Greenacres residents. This distribution occurred-and although this is not a document or a process that binds residents and owners legally, we can report that the response from residents has been positive, and no objections have been received from residents to this conceptual resolution of the dispute. Under these circumstances, we request that the Planning Commission formally approve this’resolution in concept and principle, .subject to formal documentation being prepared for final approval by the city, its officlals, the developer, the residents of Greenacres, and their respective legal counsel. Very truly/yours, KENT MITCHELL June 5, 1997 MEMORANDUM From:Gloria Kreitman To:All Greenacres Residents Last night the Greenacres I Improvement Association Board met with our legal counsel, Kent Mitchell, to discuss the attached letter from Chilton H. Lee, Esq. Mr. Lee is the attorney for the developer of the proposed Glenbrook Court project. The Board members unanimously approved the conceptual settlement of the one-foot reserve strip dispute outlined in Mr. Lee’s letter as follows: i. The developer would record encumbrances against all of the new lots in his subdivision. These would be in favor of each lot owner in Greenacres, and would be enforceable by each lot owner in Greenacres in perpetuity. The encumbrances would prevent access from both E1Camino Real and from the remainder of the Hyatt Parcel to the new cul-de-sac and to the Greenacres subdivision for any purposes, including paths, trails, other public access ways, streets or roads. The City will agree to this. The encumbrances will be confirmed by a Stipulated Judgment to be entered by the Santa Clara County Superior Court in the pending lawsuit, binding all Greenacres Owners, the City, the developer and subsequent homeowners in the new Glenbrook Court subdivision, and the owner of the remainder of the Hyatt parcel. 2. The Stipulated Judgment will resolve the one-foot reserve strip dispute by confirming ownership by Greenacres lot owners. The Judgment will also create an easement in favor of the City and each of the lots in the new Glenbrook Court subdivision for public right of way and utility purposes. The City would do all maintenance of these utilities and Of the extended road from Glenbrook Drive into the new subdivision. 3. Nothing will be given up by the Greenacres owners until the final map for the new subdivision is recorded. Greenacres will get all of its new recorded protections against public access at the same time as it grants the easements over the disputed one-foot reserve Strips. The Board cannot make any decision which binds any individual lot owner in Greenacres. It is only acting in an advisory capacity for the sake of convenience. On June llth, the Planning Commission meets on this project. We need to tell them if there appears to be any opposition to this conceptual settlement. Therefore, please advise Gloria Kreitman (494-6051) or Marion Hill (493-7317) by 3:00 p.m. on June llth if you have any objection to this. GREENACRES I IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATES Gloria Kreitman Encls. RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION Paul Jensen c/o Planning Division, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California, 94303 Marcia Penn 1176 Laureles Drive Los Altos, California, 94022 July I, 1997 JUL 071997 Oe_partrnent ot ,. ~[,, . Dear Paul Jensen: We appreciate that the Palo Alto Planning Commission wishes to create a "gateway effect" to indicate the beginning of their city by installing lights on the Adobe Creek bridge at E1 Camino, a "Welcome to Palo Alto" sign, and a special landscape feature beside the bridge. We are, however, greatly concerned that without the city’s assistance the "gateway" to Palo Alto would also become a "gateway" to the Adobe Creek and its neighborhood. Since the gateway plan visually emphasizes the presence of the Adobe Creek bridge and the possibility of access to the creek, our concerns are the same as we had when a public accessible pedestrian and bike path was proposed: increased awareness of the creek and its accessibility would increase the chances of burglary, fire, the neighborhood’s liability for personal injuries, and could diminish personal safety. We ask that the city of PaIo Alto provide an effective method to prevent physical access to the Adobe Creek from this bridge. We trust the commission will take these concerns into consideration and make the gateway plan a public benefit for all of us. Sincerely, Marcia Penn c.c. Lary Tong; Director Los Altos Planning Department David Komfield, Los Altos Planning Department Los Altos City Council RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION July 3, 1997 Mike & Ann George 1156 Laureles Drive Los Altos, CA 94022 (415) 949 2045 home (415) 604 5881 work m george@ mail .arc. nasa.gov Paul Jensen c/o Planning Division, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94022 RE: Adobe Creek Access and the Cabana Hotel and Subdivision Project Dear Paul and Planning Commission, I have been following the planning of the Cabana Hotel and Subdivision Project with great interest. As a neighbor on the Los Altos side of Adobe Creek I am especially concerned with the potential access to the creek the development might provide. Deterioration of the riparian area as well as burglary, vandalism, fire and personal injuries resulting from access to the creek are a real concern as reflected in associated problems in the past. I request that the Planning Commission take these in consideration when planning the "gateway effect" at Adobe Creek on El Camino and provide an effective method to prevent physical access to the Adobe Creek. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Mike George RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION Paul Jensen c/o Planning Division, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue , Palo Alto, California, 94303 July 3, 1997 JUL O? 1997 Cornrnuni~, : ", Dear Mr. Jensen: We appreciate that the Palo Alto Planning Commission wishes to create a "gateway effect" to indicate the beginning of their city by installing lights on the Adobe Creek bridge at E1 Camino, a "Welcome to Palo alto" sign, and a special landscape feature beside the bridge. WE are, however, greatly concerned that without the city’s assistance the "gateway" to Palo Alto would also become a "gateway" to the Adobe Creek and its neighborhood. Since the gateway plan visually emphasizes the presence of the Adobe Creek bridge and the possibility of access to the creek, our concerns are the ’same as we had when a public accessible pedestrian and bike path was proposed: increased awareness of the creek and its accessibility would increase the .chances of burglary, fire, the .neighborhood’s liability for personnel injuries, and could diminish personal safety. We ask that the city of Palo Alto provide an effective method to prevent physical access to the Adobe Creek from this bridge. We trust the commission will take these concerns into consideration andthe gateway plan a public benefit for all of us. Sincerely, Lucia Lee 1193 Laureles Dr. Los Altos, CA 94022 I::~NCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION REC~’~~’ oommuni~ E~,; - RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JUL 0 8 ~997 Deparlmerlt o~ t"la~lnl~lg and Community Environment Ju!y 8,1.997 AGENDA ITEM #3 Meeting of July 9,1997 Chair Phyllis Cassel and Members of the Palo Alt~ Planning Commission City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Chair Cassel and Planning Commission, On behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I would like to urge your support of the Palo Alto Cabafia’s application and ask you to move forward on the project. The chamber has long been on record in support of new hotel and conference facilities in Palo Alto. Facilitiessuch as those proposed by the Caba~a management will provide much-needed hotel and meeting space for businesses, conference and event space and tax revenue to the city. The project, once completed, will also be excellent addition to El Camino Real, an area of the city that has recently begun to show some new and needed vitality. As our membership continues to voice its concerns about the lack of hotel and meeting space in Palo Alto, the chamber increasingly is looking for. opportunitieswlike the Cabafiamthat add to the hotel stock and provide other community benefits. This is a tremendous opportunity for the city, the business community, residents and others to benefit from in the years to come. Again, we encourage your support of the Cabafia’s application and hope that you move swiftly in making this project a reality. Sincerely, President & CEO 325 Forest Avenue l’ah) Alto, Califovrtia 94301-2515 415/324-3121 F~t.x: 415/324-1215