Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-09-08 City Council (29)
TO: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 18 FROM: DATEi SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment September 8, 1997 CMR:377:97 4290 EL CAMINO REAL (CABAI~A 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 S: 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3 AND 96-EIA-32), The project applicants, Carrasco and Associates, request the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning, new PC (Planned Community) District, Tentative Map and building height variance for the subdivision of the 10.1 acre Cabafia Hotel site. Approval .of applications would permit 14 new single-family residential lots and site and building improvements to the existing Cabafia Hotel facility. As outlined in the attached City Manager’s Report dated August 4, 1997, 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 (Attachmetit 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 subjeet property from Service Commercial to Single-Family Residential (Attachment 1A). CMR:377:97 Page 1 of 13 Adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the western 3.24 acre potion of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) District to R- 1 (Single-Family Residential) District (Attachment 1B). Adopt the attached resolution 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 PANIC Section 21.20.2400a)(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. 8 Approve the ARB findings and Standard Conditions of Approval for the hotel site and building improvements (Attachments IF and 2B). Approve the proposed variance from PAMC Section 18.68.110c and 18.68.150b (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 Policy issues are outlined in the attached City Manager’s Report, dated August 4, 1997 and in the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated July 9, 1997 (Attachment 2C). BACKGROUND On August 4, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing on the various applications involving the subdivision of the 10.1 acre Cabafia Hotel site. Approval of these applications would permit the subdivision of the site into 14 new single-family residential lots (for the western 3.24 acres) and one parcel for continued hotel use (eastern 6.82 acres). On a 8-0-1 ’ vote (Schneider absent), the City Council dosed the public hearing and continued the item to the meeting of September 8, 1997. The Council requested that staff and the project sponsor provide additional information on a number of issues. A summary of additional requested information follows: "’nl " f - 1 " . The Council requested that the one-way access road, that is located on the south side of the hotel site, be studied to determine if it is capable of accommodating use by construction vehicles during grading and construction. It was requested that the project civil engineer and a geoteelmieal engineer provide an assessment of the existing conditions and potential impacts. The Council also requested that CMR:377:97 Page 2 of 13 construction vehicle use of this road be analyzed for potential impacts to the riparian areas of Adobe Creek. A summary report is provided in the attached memorandum from Caxrasco and Associates, August 15, 1997, and in the supporting correspondence from the project consultants (see Attachment A for memo and correspondence). The project sponsors have consulted with Brian, Kangas and Foulk, project civil engineers, and Lowney Associates, geoteclmical engineers, regarding the condition and use of the southern service road. As outlined in Attachment A, the engineers present the following conelnsions and recommendations regarding the use of the southern, one-way access road: ao The existing road is in average condition, with few cracks in the asphalt pavement. The thickness of the pavement and base material has been inspected and determined to be suitable for lighter-weight or empty 2-axle construcfon vehicles. The .width and curves along the road do not make it suitable for use by 3-axle or IS-wheel vehicles. - bo The soil in the general area of the road is stable and does not present any characteristics that would affect its stability for road use by lighter-weight construction vehicles. There is one area along the road that is.very close to the top of the creek bank (western portion of road, south of two-story hotel structure, at closest point is 8 feet from top of bank). While Lowney Associates has concluded that no reinforcement or stabilization measures to the road or the creek bank are currently necessary, it.will be monitoring this specific area through the wet (winter) season. If stabilization is deemed necessary, the likely measure would be to install 2-3 concrete bollards ("soldier beams", 2 feet in diameter) along the edge of the road pavement. These bollards would reinforce the road and reduce the likelihood of impacts to the adjacent creek bank. Recommended Tentative Map condition 11 (Attachment 2A). and Standard Condition of Approval 9 (Attachment 2B) acknowledge that stabilization measures may be recommended by the project geotectmical engineer and must meet the approval of Public Works Engineering. Public Works Engineering has reviewed the information from the engineers, finding that it adequately addresses the potential impacts and presents appropriate recommendations. Draf[ Tentative Map condition I1 (Attachment 2A) and Standard Condition of Approval 9 (Attachment 2B), addressing the required construction logistics plan, have. been amended to include use of the southern, one-way access road use by lighter-weight, 2-axle construction vehicles only. ClVlR:377:97 Page 3 of 13 The Council requested that potential biological/riparian impacts to the Adobe Creek area also be analyzed. A detailed assessment of biotic resources along this portion of the creek was completed for the Villages at Creekside development DEIR (1996). The detailed assessment was completed by Hartesveldt, Ecological Consulting Services. The DEIR concluded that: a) this portion of the creek does not contain any special-status species, b) habitat quality along this portion of the creek ranges from low to moderate, and c) the riparian corridor is narrow in width. In addition, the distance between the edge of the one-way access road and the top of the creek bank ranges from eight feet to 30 feet. Hartesveldt has reviewed the current proposal for use of the southern, one-way access road for construction vehicles (see Attaetmaent A, letter to Tony Carrasco, August 19, 1997). Hartesveldt has concluded that use of this road during construction would have a negligible impact on the creek corridor. At present, a chain-link fence runs along the southern edge of the access road, separating the hotel improvements from the creek and creek banks. To ensure that this fence remains during construction (as a Separation between the development and the creek corridor), staff recommends that draft Tentative Map condition 19 (Attachment 2A) and Standard Condition of Approval 12 (Attachment 2B) be amended. The recommended amendments would require that the existing chain-link fence be maintained in place during construction. In addition, the amendments require that the temporary fence be extended westward, along the southern property boundary of residential lots 1-4, terminating at the southwestern border of the subject property. Preparation of Draft Construction Lo_dstics Plau_ The Council requested that a drait construction logistics plan be prepared. While the submittal of a complete plan was not required (as it-is typically required prior to the issuance of a grading permi0, it was requested that the "plan basics" be provided. The "plan basics" for the required Construction logistics plan have been prepared and are presented in the attached memorandum from Carrasco and Associates, dated August 15, 1997 (Attachment A). The logistic plan basics follow the standard format recommended by the Public Works Engineering. These plan basics present the following information: ao Estimated schedule for. completion of subdivision improvements and site improvements for the hotel (estimated maximum of 8 months). bo Construction vehicle routing (including use of the southern, one-way access ¯ road for lighter-weight construction vehicles). CMR:377:97 Page 4 of 13 Co Staging area for equipment and materials storage, as well as parking for construction vehicles. d.Tree protection measures. o e.Estimated number of construction vehiele trips per day (34). It should be noted that the plan basics do not represent the final, construction logistics plan that would typically be required by the City’s Public Works Engineering Division. As required by recommended conditions of approval, a detailed construction logistics plan must be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit and must be prepared by a licensed contractor. Study of estimated time frame for construction of hotel .site and residential subdivision improvements_. The Council requested that the project sponsor revisit the time frame for completing the hotel site and residential subdivision improvements. The purpose of this request is to determine ffimprovements can be completed in less than 18 months. The project sponsor has revisited the estimated time frame for completing hotel site and subdivision improvements. As outlined in the attached memorandum from Carrasco and Associates, August 15, 19.97 (see Attachment A), it is estimated that these improvements can be completed in h maximum of eight months. According to the project sponsor, thi~ time frame assumes allowances for potential delays (e.g., weather conditions). Draft Tentative Map conditions 11 and 30 (Attaelunent 2A) and Standard Conditions of Approval 9 and 16 (Attachment 2B) are currently drafted to require that "for the first 18 month__s of grading and construction for the subdivision and housing development," all construction vehicle access is to be routed eastward, to E1 Camino Real. It was not the intent of these conditions to require that home construction tmttic be routed through the hotel site. Once the subdivision improvements have been completed and Glenbrook Drive is extended and paved, it is logical and appropriate that access to residential lots for home construction be provided from Glenbrook Drive and the Greenaeres neighborhood. These draft conditions should be amended to clarify that.the construction vehicle routing is specific to the completion of the subdivision improvements and hotel site improvements. With a reduced time frame for completion of the subdivision and hotel site improvements, it is also appropriate to amend the schedule for construction vehicle routing. Public Works Engineering finds the estimated eight-month’sehedule to be reasonable but somewhat aggressive. Therefore, staff recommends that the conditions be CMR:377:97 Page 5 of 13 amended to reduce the time frame for construction routing from 18 months to 12 months, which would allow some additional time in the schedule for uncontrolled delays (e.g., wet weather). o Additional information on how residential lots would be sold and implementafi_f!.9.1L~ standards for home desiga. The Council requested that the project sponsor provide information on how the residential lots would be sold.. In addition, the Council questioned whether specific ¯design standards would be imposed and/or required for the single-family residential lots. A response to this issue is provided in the attached memorandum from Carrasco and Associates, August 15, 1997 (See Attachment A). The project sponsor anticipates that lots would be sold to individual buyers for home construction. The project sponsor has indicated that, upon recordation of the Final Map, the partnership would maintain six of the lots for home construction. The project proposes a rezoning of the western 3.24 acres (area of the 14 single- family residential lots) to R-1 (Single-FamilyResidential) District. Therefore,home design on each lot would be required to comply with the standard provisions of the R-1 District. The R-1 District does not require architectural review for single-family homes, if they are singly developed. However, property owners are encouraged/strongly recommended to refer to the City’s Singe Family Residential _Guidelines for Palo Alto in designing and siting new homes; these guidelines are not mandatory. If the project sponsor (as one entity) maintains ownership of two or more lots that are proposed to be developed at the same time, home design would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The draft subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C,C & Rs) present provisions for architectural control. The subdivision proposes the establishment of an Architectural Committee, which would be responsible for reviewing and approving home designs and improvements for each lot. The committee would be required to ensure "harmony 0~_e.xtemal design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography’~e C,C & Rs do not present any specific standards for home design or exterior materials and colors. As a condition of the subdivision (Tentative Map), the Council can impose an architectural review requirement for singly-developed single-family homes. Imposing this condition would require that the Final Subdivision Map be recorded, with a note on the face of the map, indicating that each lot would be subject to City Architectural Review (per PAMC Chapter 16.48). Furthermore, in order to ensure that each property owner is aware of the City’s architectural review requirement, a note would CMR:377:97 Page 6 of 13 need to be recorded as part of the deed for each single-family lot. While this requirement can be met through implementation of these measures, it is difficult to monitor over time. Alternative measures for the protection of the ~xisfing trees along the western and northern borders of the residential subdivision. The Council requested that the project sponsor explore and present additional or alternative measures for ensuring the protection of the existing trees along the western and northern borders of the residential subdivision. Staff had originally recommended that tree protection easements be recorded for these areas (see strikeout, draft Tentative Map condition 13, Attachment 2A). As summarized in Attachment A, the arborist report acknowledges that there are a number of dead or dying trees along the western and northern borders of the subject property. The environmental assessment assumes that these trees would be removed as part of site ,preparation and grading. To address the healthy trees that are to remain, the project sponsor proposes language in the subdivision C,C & P,s, which require tree protection and replacement. The project sponsor is proposing these C,C & R provisions in-lieu of the City-required tree protection easements.. Section 3.03 of the draft C, C & Rs (excerpt enclosed with Attachment A) states that the property. owners of lots 1-10 would be required to protect and maintain existing trees along the western and northern borders of the subdivision. Tree replacement would be required for removal. As indicated above, staff had originally recommended tree protection easements for lots 1-10 (strikeout condition 13, Attachment 2A). However, the Planning Commission recommended that the condition be deleted. The Commission found that: 1) the condition established onerous control by the City; and 2) regardless of imposing protection measures, property owners would want to maintain the trees for buffer and privacy purposes. Staff had initially recommended the tree protection easements for several reasons. First, the City is not party to subdivision C,C & Rs, which are recorded with a Final Map; they offer no control to the City. Secondly, the existing trees located along the western and southern borders of the subject property are non-natives (pine, carob and walnut species), which are not subject to the City’s tree preservation and management measures (ordinance applies to Valley Oak and -Coast Live Oak species). As part of the environmental review process for this project, staff concluded that these existing, mature trees provide a valuable buffer between the project and the adjacent residential uses. It was determined that the tree protection easement would provide the best method of preserving the tree buffer and guaranteeing replacement for tree removal. The easement would not require the City to authorize tree removal and replacement (e.g., required permit or approvals), but would provide the City with some level of control over monitoring tree preservation CMR:377:97 Page 7 of 13 and removal. With the exception of the easement and the C,C & R provisions, there are no other reasonable methods for ensuring tree protection in this area. If the Council chooses to require the recordation oftree protection easements for residential lots 1-10, the appropriate condition language is presented in strikeout condition 13, provided on page 4 of Attachment 2A. Provide hotel parking and facility information on Hyatt Rickeys Hotel. The Council requested that the staff-prepared hotel parking survey be expanded to include the Hyatt Rickeys Hotel facility in Palo Alto. A parking survey of the Hyatt Rickeys Hotel facility was completed by staff. Please refer to Attachment B, which charts the results of the survey. The following information was secured from consultation with the hotel management (August 11, 1997) and a site visit (August 13, 1997): Hyatt Rickeys has 344 guest rooms and 504 on-site parking spaces. The parking ratio is 1.45 parking spaces per hotel room. The eight hotels surveyed by staff in January/February 1997 present an average parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per hotel room. Support facilities include a total of 24,000 square feet. of ballroom and conference/meeting facilities, a 250 seat restaurant and a 70 seat cocktail lounge. According to the hotel management, the ballroom can accommodate seating for up to 1,000 persons. Hyatt Rickeys does not have valet parking, nor is a formal parking "contingency" plan implemented. According to hotel management, generally, there have been no problems with on-site parking use or availability. However,. every six to eight weeks, breakfast meetings gather 400 to 600 persons in the ballroom. This gathering generates a high parking demand. Hyatt Rickeys has an agreement with the contiguous Elk’s Club to use their parking during this time. Based on a mid-week site visit, 25-30 percent of the on-site parking was occupied. This observation does not present the best assessment of parking use, as this field visit was not conducted during the peak hotel use period or during the weekend. It should be noted that the hotel management confirmed that Hyatt Rickeys is considered a "resort hotel," not a business/corporate hotel. Therefore, the peak use periods are June - July, which is different than the peak use periods for the other hotels that were surveyed by staff (February - November, mid-week peak). CMR:37’~:97 Page 8 of 13 DKS Associates, the project sponsor traffic engineers, had included the Hyatt Rickeys Hotel in their initial parking survey that was prepared for the project sponsor. Staff had not included this hotel in the subsequent hotel parking survey because: 1) its "resort hotel" status and 2) the conference/meeting facilities are considerably larger than the Cabafia Hotel facilities. Fla~her resolution of affeement involving the one-foot wide strip of l~nd located at f 1 r k ri . The Council encouraged the project sponsor to work with the Oreenacres property owners to resolve the draft agreement involving the terminus of Glenbrook Drive. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Carrasco and Associates, dated August 15, 1997 (see Attachment A), for a response to this item. Since the August 4, 1997 City Council meeting, there has been some additional progress to resolve the status of the one-foot wide strip of land. Clarification on mount of hotel ballroom, conference/meeting space. The Council requested that staff provide the specific size of the large ballroom facility that is located to the rear of the main floor lobby. This ballroom is proposed to be subject to a use permit after March 1, 199.9. The large ballroom is 8,900 square feelin size. As indicated on page 6 of the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated July 9, 1997 (Attachment 2C), the total hotel conference/meeting space is 11,027 square feet..This total includes the large ballroom and the smaller meeting rooms on the main and second floors of the hotel. Maximum occupancy for the large ballroom is 1,270 persons (based on UBC standard of 7 sq.ft./person). In addition to the above, please note that the Tentative Map conditions have been revised to reflect the recommendations of the City Attorney’s Office (see Attachment 2A). Specifically, draft condition 12 has been expanded to clarify the City’s position regarding review of the subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C,C & Rs). While the condition requires City review of the final C,C & Rs, the City would not be party to this document and would not enforce the C,C & Rs. Draft condition 15, which addresses the one foot-wide strip of land Ioeated at the terminus of Glenbrook Drive, has been expanded. The revisions to this condition incorporate the project sponsor’s requirements for ensuring subdivision access and extension of utilities, in the event the status of the one foot strip of land is not resolved prior to Final Map approval. CMR:377:97 Page 9 of 13 _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. 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 IMPAC_~ 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 (PAUSD). The continued operation of the hotel facility would generate transient occupancy tax. Since the hotel will remain with or without this project, the primary City fiscal impact is property tax and the costs associated with service to the 14 new single- family residential houses. ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSESSMENT_ An Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and is provided as Attachment 7 of this report. Potentially significan~ 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 A: Attachment.B: Memorandum from Carrasco and Associates, August 15, 1997, includes the following: Memorandum from Lowney Associates, geoteehuical, engineers, dated August 15, 1997. Letter from Hartesveldt, Ecological Consulting Services, to Tony Carraseo, dated August 19, 1997. Preliminary Logistics Plan (Plan basics for required construction logistics P!an) Excerpts from Glenbrook Subdivision CC & Rs summarizing provisions for architectural control for home construction and tree protection Arborist Report - Hyatt Cabm3a, Ray Morneau; May 2, 1994. Parking survey results for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel, August 13, 1997. CMR:377:97 Page I0 of 13 Attachment 12:Letter from Stephen W. Player, attorney for project sponsor, to City of Palo Alto regarding public access along Adobe Creek, May 12, 1997 Attachment 13:Letter from Palo Alto Redwoods Association to Ken Sehreiber, 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 PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CC:Carrasco and Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 95301 Stephen W. 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 Chilton Lee, 605 Stanford Financial Square, 2600 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Gloria Kreitman, Greenaeres 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 CMR:377:97 Page 12 of 13 City Manager’s Attachment 1A: Attachment 1B: Attachment 1C: Attachment 1 D: Attachment 1E: Attachment 1F: Attachment 2A: Attachment 2B: Attachment 2C: Attachment 2D: Attachment 2E: 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:. Report, August 4, 1997, which includes the following attachments: Draft resolution mending Comprehensive Plan land use designation 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 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 (revised) Draft Standard Conditions of Approval for hotel site and building renovations (revised) Planning Commission Staff Report, July 9, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 9, 1997 Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes, June 19, 1997 Residential Lot Inventory Revisions to draft C,C & Rs, addressing tree protection provisions 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 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 Carraseo and Associates, May 15, 1997 Response to Draft BMR Statement, letter from Carrasco and Associates to Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto, May 23, 1997 EIA/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Memorandum from Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey, landscape architects, to Carraseo and Associates summ "~arizing 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, Cabafia-Palo Alto,. to City of Palo Alto, regarding fencing improvements along the northern property boundary, May 19, 1997 CMR:377:97 Page 11 of 13 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 Assoeiation~ 1176 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 CC (without attachments): Ross Pont, 1184 Lattreles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Sue Cotm, 4250 E1 Camino Real, C-325, Palo Alto, CA. 94306 Angel Rocha, 4250 El 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 G-reenacres property owners CMR:377:97 Page 13 of 13 CARRASCO & ASSOCT TES 1 MEMORANDUM Date:August 15, 1997 From:Linda Poncini ATTACHMENT "A" To:Paul Jensen via hand to City Hall Re:PaloAlto Cabafia PC Zone Change Response to Council-requested "Follow-up" items MEMO Following is our response on the "follow-up" items from the City Council meeting of August 4, 1997: i.Additional study of southern s~rvice road on hotel site: The condition of the existing service road has been visually observed to be in average condition with a few cracks in the asphalt. At the most, some standard maintenance on the road would be accomplished. It appears that the road had not been maintained during the years when the hotel was closed. We have reviewed the Geotechnical Report (by Lowney Associates) for the Phase II project and have attached a copy of the boring log for boring #EBI. This boring indicates that the soil in the general area near the road is stable and does not indicate that there should’be any particular concern regarding the stability of the service road. Also attached is a memo from Lowney Associates, dated 8/15/97 regarding their on-site observations of the roadway condition. It should be no~ed that this service road was originally designed as a Fire Lane, to accommodate ~ fire vehicle access. Its use continues to be Fire Lane; thus, it can carry heavier vehicles than a standard driveway. Please refer to the attached Construction Logistics Plan chart for the projected number of vehicle trips per day. It isprojected that there would be 700 truck trips (total) on this road during construction of the subdivision. The trucks would be ~_~, 2-axle construction trucks. Eighteen-wheelers or 3- axle trucks would not be permitted on this service road, due to its winding nature - such trucks could not negotiate the winding curves. In summary, ~t does not appear that the road would need modification in order to carry empty 2-axle construction vehicles for a total of 700 trips. See Constructioh Logistics Schedule. Regarding potential biological/riparian impacts of construction traffic, it should be noted that the service road is existing and has traffic existing on it at this time. In the H. T. Harvey & o Associates’ biotic surveys for the Villages at Creekside project, prepared in 1994, it was noted that the site along the creek is unlikely to support any special-status species of wildlife. This is because the site has been so previously disturbed by existing development. The surveys also showed that there are no special- status plants on site and that it should not be expected that any would occur on-site. As additional follow-up, attached is a letter from David Hartesveldt, ecological consultant, regarding possible impact of vehicular traffic on the habitat values of the creek. It should also be noted that there is an existing fence between the southerly property boundary and the creek property, which will provide protection from construction activities on the hotel property and on residential lots i through 4. Construction Logistics Plan: Attached is a construction logistics plan and bar chart which indicate number and routing of trucks, duration of construction, etc.. This plan follows the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department’s "Logistics Plan Guide". A final version of the plan will be submitted prior to submittal for Grading Permit. 3.~_O!L~n Time Frame- Please refer to the Construction Logistics bar chart and the Hotel Parking Construction schedule, attached. Residential Lots - Sale n D i n n r - As previously stated, the residential lots will be sold to individual buyers. Six of the 14 lots will. be sold, individually, to existing members of Glenbrook LLC and Mr. B. B. Patel and will be constructed at the same time as the subdivision. The design standards for the indi~idually-built homes are described in Article IV of the C C & R’s which were previously submitted to the City° A extra copy of Article IV of the C C & R’s which states the standards is attached¯ x’ ting Trees~ Attached is a copy of Section 3.03 of the C C & R’s, where the language for tree protection and replacement is contained. The C C & R’s document has been provided previously and is included.as Attachment 3A of the Planning Commission Staff Report. As previously stated, since the trees buffer Residential to Residential 10ts, they are no different than other R-I back yard trees. The-applicant prefers that the trees be protected by using C C & R’s rather than an easement. For the condition of existing trees on the residential subdivision area of the site, see attached Tree Evaluation Plan. This plan identifies each tree and its condition as of May 2, 1994, as reported by Ray Morneau, Arborist. The Arborist’s report also indicates the projected survivability of the trees. It should be noted that several trees in the "tree protection" area on the western border of the site are noted by the Arborist as dead or decayed and will require removal. Further Resolution of One-Foot Strip: Attorneys for the applicant and the neighbors are continuing to work on this issue with the City Attorney’s office. Debbie Cauble will have the latest status on the One-Foot Strip. Regarding City staff follow-up task as to parking: The applicant would like to re-state that we feel that the hotel parking proposed, 284 spaces will be adequate for the hotel facility and its functions. A parking study by DKS Associates and the City staff additional study of other local hotels indicate that the proposed ratio of 1.44 spaces per room is sufficient for this type of hotel. It is our understanding that the Palo Alto Holiday Inn currently has a 1.0 to 1 room ratio and i0,000 sq. ft. of meeting space, with the capacity to seat 1,000 for dining. The conditions of approval of the PC Zone change and Subdivision also include the requirements for status reports and placement of a "renewable" Use Permit restriction on the Meeting Rooms. If there were a parking problem related to the hotel operation, the City will have the option to require limitations to the use of the Meeting Rooms. In addition, the franchisor of the Palo Alto Caba~a hotel, Crown Plaza, has substantial experience from its other hotel facilities in programming and managing events and parking. As has been .stated previously, it is in the best interest of the hotel franchisor to prevent parking problems for their customers. If problems occur, this would harm the marketability of the hotel, which would be contrary to Crown Plaza’s business. As was stated at the Council .meeting, it is possible to create .underground parking and decked parking at the "tennis court area" parking lot and the rear parking lot, to increase ~he parking count by 60 to 70 cars. This could.be accomplished should there be a parking problem which would require severe limitations on the use of the meeting rooms. The addition of 60.car spaces would result in 344 spaces, or a ratio of 1.75 spaces per room. cc:B. B. Patel Grace Wu LOWNEY ©CIATF$ Environmen~at / Ge0technical ! Engineoring S~ce. 129 Filber~ St. Oakland. California 94607 PHONE (510) 267-1970 FAX (510) 267-1972 405 ~lycle Avenue Mountain View. Calilorrfia 940,13 PHONE (415) 967-2365 I-AX (415) 967-2785 ~150 Rl~eem Drive. Suite E Pleasanl:on. California 94588-2689 PHONE (510) 462-/808 FAX (510) 462-8346 MEMORANDUM C,’~rrasco & Mr. Tony ]:itTI1: AItn: From: C. Barry B~]der, P.F.. Project: Palo Alto Calmna Holcl Oar.e:August 15. I~)7 Fax:(415) 322-2316 Fax: Page~: 1 Project No: 596- l,i As requested we have met with you at the site and reviewed the site conditions adjacent to the perimeter driveway along th~ s¢,uth side o|" *he p~ject to bc used for some traffic during construction. We understand that .~nstmction traffic will hc limited to lightly loaded 2-axle trucks. The crest oi" tl]e adjacent creek bank, =~ indic.~tted by the (;ivy of Palo Alto, comes appmx~latcly 5 fec~ of tile ~Ict~ driveway. ’I1~e lyank of the c~k ap~ars to havc rc~tcd ~ d~s ar~ due ro ~osion of thc toc of ~e bank. B~ed on our prelim~a~ r~i~ of the creek hank, the adlac~t ma~ay~ and d~o ~fic[pa[~ loading c~nt~ons, in our opinion the smbili~ or" the ~k ha~ ~ dds area is p~Im~y contnflled by erosion of the ~ ~om s~am acfi~’,. ~omc surface ~osion n~ay also be ex:t~ing due to i~gation runoff. Therefor, based on our p~lhl~a~ r~vi~w, in our opinion, it ~ely that the antidpated ~ght t~cks dung co~aion would.k~ause insmbiliw d the adjacent l~nk. Howev~, ff a morn de[aged a~nlysis d ~e loading conditions and smbili~ of the ~k b~k ~ d~ired, we would be happy to pin, de a scot-of-work and cost ~t~Ic ~I t~ar ~e. ~so, ~’c r~oz~n~d flint we be remin~ I.o r~ ~k Bank follo~ng he~ ~ns and ro make suppl~nental recotmx=~ndations should remedial action }~ Mail Copy m Follow ~ Yes I~ No Please notify us il you have r~c~ived ~his fax in enor. Time Senl Sender’s Initials I I I I II. DRILL RIG: Minuteman SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 ft. (F.F.=IOO)LOGGED BY: D1 BORING TYPE: 4-inch cont. flight DEPTH T(~ GROUND WATER: 18 ft.DATE DRILLED: 1/15197 4.0 92 20 ~15 2,0 83 23 ~ 12 6.0 110’15 ~29 7.0 I01 14 ~44 8.0 24 Z 38 6.0 2.4 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 117 14 /50/4" 10- ~~// CL 15- ~~/ CL / CL // 20- 6C 25- SILTY CLAY (CL) stiff, moist, dark brown, with some sand and gravel, low to moderate ~plasticily,medium sand,and subrounded gravel tosubangular inch, roots, occasional weathered rock fragments lasticity inde,x = 17, Liquid Limit = 36 olor grading to yellowish brown . Hncrease sand and gravel, trace black specks -X-~ery stiff, increasing sand SANDY CLAY (CL) very stiff, moist, yellowish brown, with gravel, low plasticity, fine subrounded gravel, trace subrounded gravel to I/2 inch, weathered rock fragments SILTY CLAY (CL) hard, moist, dark brown, moderate plasticity, subrounded gravel to.l/4 inch, trace sands and rock fragments to I i~ch, white streaks -X-~hite mottles, roots, color grading to olive N~sSANDY CLAY (CL) very stiff, moist, yellowish br.own, with gravel, fine to medium ands, subrounded gravel to I/2.inch, rock fragments to linch CLAYEY GRAVEL 16C1 dense, wet, brown, medium to coarse sand, subangular and subrounded gravel to linch, trace rock fragments 15 50/6" EXPLORATORY BOR]~NG - EB-1 PALO ALTO CABANA HOTEL Paid Alto, California LOWNEYASSOCT_A TESEnvironmenlal/Geotechmc al/Engineering Services P.O. Box Z697, Oakhurst, CA 9364~ Phone (ZOO) ~2-4880 F~ (Z09) 64Z-4880 August 19, 1997 120 I-Inn|ilion Avenue Pale Alto, CA ’94301 Dear Mr, Carrasco: This lctlcr is in response to our recent phone conversation regarding proposed vehicle use on the Villages at Crcdksidc projccl site in Pale Allo. It is n~y unders[anding that during the next 6 months (approximately) 1he road which cotmccts I!~e trent and back parking areas of the former hotcl will b¢ used for vehicular traffic. Approximatcll¢ 700 vcl~icnlar trips along this road arc planned. All trips will be confiner[ to weekdays. The average number of tril~ will b¢ 5 (or sligh0y more) per day. The vehicles im, olved will be pickup and t~o-axel mtcks. There will bc no cn~o" off the road into Ihe adjaecnl riparian habitat of Adobe (?reck. ! have been askcd 19 provide nn opinion as Io the possible impact of the proposed vehicular traffic on the habitat lalues of the creek. I do not believe the number ortntck trips proposed along Ibis shun len’g~h of road will have any effcc| on thcsc vah|cs. ’ Anim:d monalisy from collisions wilh v~hides will be negligible. Vehicle speeds will be surfic~cnlly slow Ihal drivers Will Ixrablc Io break for animals. Fnr|hennorc. many terrestrial animals using Ihe creek corric~r arc noclnnml and weald noS be moving nbmtt much when vehicle use of Ihe road OCCURS. Vehicular disturban~ of ttalivc wildlifc in lhc adjaeem creekcorridor will also be negligible. The number of vuhicle trips will be fewer than I per hour, too few to have any s~nbstantial ~:ffcct on any wildlife species. It should also be pointed out that the qualiw of tile riparian hnbilat adj;~eent to the road is quite low (see Adobe Creek Habitat Quality. and Related ,Setback Recommendations. a map prepared by H. T. Ha~’~." and Associates), There is little riparian vegetation along the’creek at this location ~||td tlative plato species were itcarly absent.. In 1995 the only ~rccs present wcrc bluc gttms. this section o1" Adobe Creek wottld not altract man)" animals for foraging or breeding, In shun. there would not be much wildlife along this section of creek for the vehicles to distud~, Sincerely. David j. Hanesveldt PRELIMINARY LOGISTICS PLAN For Subdivision improvements and Hotel site improvements. Project Description: Construction of a 400’ long Glenbrook drive extension, removal of existing asphalt paving, placing imported fill and grading. Note: Construction on the hotel parcel will occur onto and from its own parcel. Construction Schedule: See Attached Hotel: 6-8 weeks after grading permit. See attached Exhibit 1. Use of South driveway: Condition:Average condition can be used by fire trucks or light construction trucks. See Lowney Associates’ letter Restrictions: One way west to east - See section 902.2.4, 1994 Uniform fire code. o Working Hours: Monday - Friday Saturday ,8amto6pm 9am to 6 pm o Noise: Must conform to/CPA Noise ordinance. Signs will be posted to indicate hours of operation. Construction traffic to observe posted 5mph signs. Construction trucks to have exhaust system checked from compliance with state & federal emission. Implemented in the construction contract. Notification of residences: Contractor to distribute logistics plan and sehedute to Redwoods Homeowners Board. Contractor to distribute letters to .neighbors indicating status of project and commencement of major phases. Traffic Control Flagman may be necessary at E1 Camino intersection with service road. Methods & means to be determined by contractor. Construction Vehicle Parking: Construction vehicles not used for actual construction will be parked within the lot outside of fenced ~ee protected area. No construction vehicles necessary for the subdivision improvements will be allowed to park in the Greenacres neighborhood or on the service access road abutting the Redwoods. Enforced by inclusion in the construction contact. See #10. o Materials Storage: On site outside of tree protected area. See arborist report. !0.Protection of Existing Facilities: A tree protection plan and fencing shall be submitted to the Public Works department prior to construction. 11.Storm water pollution prevention plans: Best Management practices will be incorporated into the improvement plans as required by Public Works standards. c:\wpdocs\prelog .I 3 I I I I I EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS~ CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (C,C & Rs) Addressing Architectural Control ARTICLE IV.ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL Architectural Restrictions Section 4.01. No building, f~nce, wall, or other, structure shall be commenced, erected, or maintained upon the Property, nor shall any exterior addition, change,or alteration therein be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height,.materials, and location of the same have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Architectural Committee composed of at least three (3) but not more than five (5) members elected by the Owners. Notwithstanding the above, Declarant may appoint all Of the original members bf the ArchiteCtural Committee and all replacements until the first anniversary of the ~issuance of the public report for the Development. The Declarant reserves to itself.the power to appoint a majority of the members to the Architectural Committee until ninety percent (90%) of all the Lots in the DeveloPment have been sold or until the fifth anniversary of the issuance of the final public report for the Development, whichever occursfirst. After one (i) year from the date of issuance of the original public report for the project, the Owners shall .have the power to elect one (i) member to the Architectural Committee until ninety percent (90%) of all the Lots in the Development have been sold or until the fifth anniversary date of th~ issuance of the final public report for the Development, whichever first occurs. Thereafter, said Owner~ shall have the power to elect all of the members of the Architectural Committee. Members elected to~0the.Architectural Committee by the Owners shall be Owners of Lots in the Development. Members appointed "to the Architectural Committee by the Declarant need not be Owners. A majority of theArchitectural Committee may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the committee, the successor shall be appointed bythe person, entity or group which appointed or elected such member until Declarant no longer-has the right to appoint any member to the committee, and thereafter the remaining members of the. committee shall have full ~uth0rity to. designate such a successor. Neither the members of the committee nor its designated representatives shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant hereto. At any time after the Declarant~s right to appoint a majority of the’members’of the committee is terminated, the then record Owners of a majority of the Lots shall have the power, through a duly recorded written instrument, to change the membership of the committee or to change ’any of its powers and duties. In the event said Board, or its designated committees, fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said .plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required and this Article will be deemed to have been .fully complied with. EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS~ CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (C,C & Rs) Addressing Tree Preservation and Replacement for Lots #1-10 SectiOn 3.03. ~ach Owner of Lots I through 10, incZuR.tve i shall preserve, protect, and malnta~n any and all existing trees or=hls or he~ Lo~-along the Western property l~e to the satisfaction of ~he Ar~hltectural Committee of the Assocla~lon. A11 ulte an~ Notwithstanding the above, any traes that are not hea’Ithy aa7 beremoved ~pon the approval of an arbogist’s report by said ArchiteCttiral commlt~ee. Any ~rees that are removed shall bo repl~ed ~ith trees approved by ~ald Aruhi~ecuural Committee so asto insnre privacy between ~heresidents of the subdivision known asTract 792~ Green AoDes, referred to horein and Lots ] thrOUgh 10, inclusive., Equitab].~ $o~vitudes Section 3.04. The covenants and reu~r~c~ions se~ forth Jn thi£ DeclaratiOn shall be e~forceable inure to ~he benefit of and bind al~ Owners. These servinud~, may~e ehforc%d by ~ny Owner. . ~Y/140RNE4U ,4rbofist 1354 Dale Avenue, #8 -,44ountain View, California 94040 o (415) 964-7664 0 i i " i I I i i !iI I I i i i i O~ ATTACHMENT ’B’ " 0 City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE: SUB~CT: 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 SUBDMSION (CITY FILE NOS: 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3 AND 96-EIA-32). 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 subdivisiori, of the 10.1 acre Cabana Hotel site. Approval ofappfi~tions would permit 14 new single-family residential lots and site and building improvements to the existing Cabana Hotel facility. 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 (Attachment7, 96-EIA-32) and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 7A), finding that the proposed project would not result in any significant en~iromnental 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 IA). CMR:351:97 ¯ Page 1 of 9 o 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). o 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). o 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 fight-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 four the hotel site and building improvements (Attachments 1F and 2B). o 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 Comprehensive 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 El 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’sBelow Market Rate 03MR) 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 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2C) and in a letter to Carrasco and Associates from Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Sehreiber, 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. o The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board found that the project would not be inconsistent with Policy 4 oftlae 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 concluded 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. o 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 IF of this report. rx ctrriw 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 PANIC. The PAM.C would require a minimum of 499 on-site parking spaces, compared to the proposed 284 on-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 E1 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 (ear 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 speci~ 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, draft 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 staffto 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 arecapable 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 tracks. The applicant also contacted ihe Fire Deparanent 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 ~etback_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 protectioneasements 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 right 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 bythe 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 prepar’ed 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is attached for City Council review and approval (Attachment 7A). STEPS FOLLOW~ING 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 1C: Attachment 1D: Attachment 1E: 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 fight-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 El 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 Sehreiber, City of Palo Alto to Carraseo 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 Carraseo and As,soeiates summarizing tree removal and transplanting measures, March 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: / /t. KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and ¯ Environment CITY MANAGER APPRO,VAL: FLEMING Manager 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 Carnino Real, D-337, PaloAlto, 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 Greenacres property owners CMR:351:97 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT #1 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 .Project: 4290 El CaminoReal 2.Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Service Commercial to Single- Family Residential and Zone Change from Planned Community (PC) to Single-Family Residential of 5.24 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 WK~RF.d~q, 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: ~2~_i. 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. ~2~Ti~_~. 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." ~2~ZL~I~_~. The that this project,, with implementation of the mitigation’measures described in the Negative. Declaration, will not have a significant environmental effect. ~h~]g_~.. 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 1 9’70’70"2 ~c 0080538 Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. petition filed after the effective date shall be untimely° INTRODUCED AND PASSED: A referendum rejected as 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 970702 Project: 4290 El ~amino Real 1. Zone change of 6.82 acres from Planned Community (PC) to Planned Community (PC) for Hotel land use. File Noe: 96-CpAo4; 96-ZC-13 Dab, e:?4-96 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 THEZONE 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. ~?~JJ~_~. 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. ~C~/J~l_~. The .Council finds that this project, with implementation~0f the mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration, will not have a significant environmental effect. // // // // // 970702 lae 0080537 1 ~T/~Q2~__~. This ordinance shall be effective on the 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 2 970702 lae 0080537 RM-30 PF Proje~: 4290 El Camino Real 2.Comprehensive Plan Amendment from 5ewice Commercial to Single-. Family Residential an~l Zone Change from Planned Community (PC) to SlngleoFamily Reeidential of :5.24 File Nos: 9~CPA-4;,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. ~ECTION 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 1 970728 iae 0080539 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 site 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 Cc~nunity 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, andwith 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 includes 284 vehicular parking spaces, ~ili~::iiii~iiiiii~i~i~!iiiiiiii~~ ~~[ xs feasible and adequate g~ven the restrictions and conditions on the pe~itted uses for the s~te, and justifies modification of the retirements of Chapter 18.83 with respect to n~er of parking spaces. Relevant studies, prepared by an 9~/0728 I~ 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 ho~el parking and occupancy survey completed by the Department of Planning and Community Environment (included in Environmental Assessment 96-EIA-32). Similar .hotel projects located inthe 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 per~f~rmanc@~plan measure are not ef~fective~ SECTION4. 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 fol~Dwing 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: (i) Operation of up to 200 guest rooms; bar/lounge; (ii) . 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 A2.0.1 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 If" dated May 5, 1997. 3 9707281~ 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 A2.0.1 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, ~econd Floor Plan: Phase II" dated May 5, 1997. (c) Site Development Regulations. 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 Municipal 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 |~o 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 Loadinq 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 Cormnunity Environmentl The Development Plan approves and requires the provision on 284 on-si~e vehicular parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: (i) Of the 284 total spaces, 207 shall be self- park spaces, 58 shall be forvalet parking, and 19 spaces shall be reserved for employees only. In addition, a minimum of 20 bicycle parking spaces, of .ch 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 parking 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 5 970728 Ix 0080539 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 ho{el 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 service 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. ~~iiiii~liiFollowing completion of construction~’..~, ..::::~ :::4: ~ :::and commencement of full operation of the hotel facilities, a status report on the success~of the Parking Performance Plan shall be submitted bythe 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. 9707281~ 0080539 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 and 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/Irriqation Improvements. The project 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) ~ateway Feature. The project includes installation of substantial landscaping and monument-style entry signage to Palo Alto at the southeast corner of the property. 9707281~ 0080539 7 These improvements shall be designed and installed in accordance with City specifications, generally as depicted on Sheet ~L-I, 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 970’728 lao 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 PF Pbo_iect: 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 Reeidential of 5.24 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.II0c. 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. o The granting of the variance from the PAMC 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 El 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 street 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 21.20o240(b)(2) Draft 1. 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 requffement 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’wildlife 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 21o20.240(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 fight-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 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 provide more than the minimum 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. l ndgstm.cab 1E-3 TTA Draft Findings for Architectural Review A_ rqpLQy.aL of Hotel Site and Building Improvements 96-ZC-13 & 96-ARB-168 The project is consistent and compatible "¢¢ith 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 signage at the southeastern corner 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 1F-! 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 improv, ements which are compatible with the commercial and residential development of 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 aloag 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 thdopen 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 El Camino Real and,access for emergency vehicles. 10. 11. 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. 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. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project. 1F-2 12. 13. 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. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction of the hotel structure were previously reviewed and approved by 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, impr.ovements 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. 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. 15. 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 poficies (selection of redwood trees at City "gateway") and to be compatible with thenative vegetation that exists along Adobe Creek. 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 (revised September 8, 1997) 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 tmilding improvements for the 6.82 acre Cabana Hotel parcel. Prior o 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 not be effective until the effective date of the rezoning ordinances for the PC (Planned Community) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) re-zoning. 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), California 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. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The plan shall include the following: a. 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. 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 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. c.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. d.Drainage for the eastern 6.82 acre hotel parcel shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. e. The final design of all new stormwater drainage outfalls shall include the installation of an acceptable, bioteehnical 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. f.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. .g. o 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. t0. 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 Pal. 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). 11.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. Alltruck routes shall conform to the City of Pal. Alto’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Pal. Alto. The logistics plans shall be prepared to ensure that, for the first ~¢o-years [~i ~ ~~ of grading and construction for the subdivision a~ de~topme~ a!!ll construction vehicle 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 subdivision, designed to ensure minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and operation on the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. ~f!~~g~~ 3 12.Final Conditions, Covenants and Restricti’ons (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. 4 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). Map,~-~sub~id~i~r ~fi):ae~k~ :su~ ~,,~! 16. 17. 18. 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 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. Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, 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, 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 pared). 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 E1 Camino Real frontage, spaced at intervals of 25 feet. Tree species shall be Yarwood London Co go 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. 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 of3’x 5’, including area for irrigation. 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 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. 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.f. of the Standard Conditions.of Approval for 96-ZC-13 and 96-ARB-168. Specifications and/or plans addressing landscape treatment, tree protection, parkinglot 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.Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and the City’s Planning Arbodst, and implemented 6 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 P!an 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. 20.All new development on the proposed single-family residential lots shall be subject to Palo Alto Unified School Dish-ict (PAUSD) school fees, ~o 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. 21.The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400 amps or greater will require a-three-phase service. 22.The improvement plansshall 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 El 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 (VTA) bus line stop #22, which fronts the subject property. This improvement shall be determined in consultation with the VTA. 23.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. 24..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. 27. 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 (seeCity Standard Drawing 201). These plans shall include the proposed modifications and improvements to the main hotel driveway intersection with E1 Camino Real. The final 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. 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, 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 Carraseo & Ass0eiates, 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 Map. The agreement requires that a timber mitigation fee be paid at the time the first building permit is issued for each residential lot. 28.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. 29.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 construction logistics plan, for the first two-years !~v.::~y~.~ ~6~ following commencement of grading and constructlon~~ab,~lifisiOft:fi~~ 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 tracks to reduce spillage into the public right-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. 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 84~taM, ~ Monday - Friday ~ b.9:00AM to 8~uM, ~ Saturday 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 9 Division shall verify that no crushed asphalt material has been placed in areas designated/approved for landscaping or planting. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 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. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 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). 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. 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) 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 ATTAC~HMENT #2B (revised September 8, 1997) Draft Standard Conditions of Approval for Hotel Site and Building Improvements 96-ZC-13 & 96-ARB-168 Prior 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) fight-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 ofFish 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). ", e.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. 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 (eastem) 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. c.Drainage for the hotel site shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. d. The final design of the stormwater drainage outfall shall include the installation of an acceptable, bioteclmical 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 ren{oval 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, baeldlow 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 theDepartment of Public Works: a. An Ene.r0aehrnent 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. 2 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. Construction drawings for issuance of a building permit for the hotel parcel shall comply with or include all conditions redommended 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). 10. 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 of Palo 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 tvco--yea~. ~ ~~ of grading and construction "-- (authorized under Tentative Map #96-SLr13-5), all con_struction vehicles 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 :development, designed to ensure minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and operation on the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. 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. 11.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 Arbodst, 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.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 ~ of deciduous and evergreen species shall be provided for all replacement trees, as approved by the City’s Planning Arborist. d.Landscaping for the "gateway" feature bordering E1 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. e. An area shall be identified for a new pad mounted transformer along the El 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. f.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 4 12. go reviewed by the Public Arts Commission and the SCVWD, 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-ZC-13). 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- 1 ~ Site Lighting Plan (Carrasco and Associates), dated December 19, 1996, on file with the 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, typ.e 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 dearly defined pedestrian path through the parking lot. The path shall be defined 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 El Camino Real (between the intersection of Dinah’s Place and the Riekey’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). 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 2:1. 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 dripline 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. 13.The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400 amps or greater will require a three-phase service. The final 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 El 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. 6 During Construction 16.Consistent with the approved construction logistics plan, for the first ~ ~ !!2 ~Onths following commencement of grading and construction ~foritl~e s~bdi~i~itn ,,aritt~h0t~l’:site, improvements, 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.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 tight-of-way. c.Requiting the contractor to submit a logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth material. 18. 19. 20. 21. 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 6~90taM, ~,_.~, Monday - Friday b. 9:00AM to ~ ~~ Saturday 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. All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required fi~om the service point to the switehgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 7 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 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). 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 further 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. 8 ATTACHMENT #2C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:.Paul Jemen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE:July 9, 1997 SUBJECT:4290 El Camino ~; 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), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. o 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 #iA). Adoption of the attached ordinance rezoning the western 3.24 acre portion of the subject proper(y 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 #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 findings 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 ~ 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. 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 (pai:king 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 toa) 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 o 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. 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. ]h![odifications to on-site p~!rking 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 -vlsitors of the hotel would have the ability to dropToff/pick-up their vehicles at the front lobby entrance. Of the total 284 parking spaces, 207 self-park spaces are proposed along with 58 valet spaces and 19 employee spaces. The new parking and circulation would result in tile removal of a number of existing, mature trees located on the front (eastern) parking lot, facing E1 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-c~in style ballast 120/277 v01t, 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, 75-1130 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 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 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,2totel 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, 19971 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 proposa.1 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. 4290eer.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-5) 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. 4290~r.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 thb proposed single-family residential lots (lot size, width, depth) is provided "m Attachment #3 of this 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 of approximately 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 10-2-96), which are intended to be recorded with the.final map for 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-1681 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 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 134,386 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) 4290ecr.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 off-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 exaeed 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. Theproperty 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). 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-ZCo13, 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 by 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 ~nvironmental 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: o 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 Cam°no 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/deficiencies arise. Commission membefs also requested additional information on a) estimated number of hotel employees_and b) the availability of on-street parking and/or the potential for parking impacts to neighboring commercial uses along E1 Cam°no Real (See Discussion section for additional information requested by Commission). 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 8 The Commission recommended that bicycle parking be addressed and incorporated into the f’mal plans (See Discussion section for a review of current bicycle parking proposal). A majority of the Commission agreed with the staff fmdings 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 recommendations presented 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/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the PC District rezoning and 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 public benefits. 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. o 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 to study 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 4290ecr.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 recomrfiended 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 Comp~ A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with pertinent Comprehensive Plan elements and policies is provided in the 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 desig .nation 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. 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 10 Housing El’ement 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 t’im,,ing 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. _ 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 4290~r,sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-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 thi~ intersection. The City Transportation Division has reviewed this alignment, f’mding 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 El 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). 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 10 of 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 Elernest Policy 4, Program 2 of the Environmental Resources .Elemen~ 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). Ci.ty of Palo Alto ~iagle-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 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 abov~ 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. ]~1 Camino Real Desigll._G.gi.Oglj]l~ 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 appea~rance 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 integra(e 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. ~tandards for Architectural Review (P~ The design and layout of the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 14 d290ccr.sr~ 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 #1F of this staff report. 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. 4290~r.sr3 The exceptional circumstance, in this case, is that the ~ 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 change~ 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 elements, 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 three elements). The project would result in the loss of 9.ag of the three primary visual elements (parking lot landscaping). However, staff finds 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 had initially 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-V73, 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. , 4290~r.sr3 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 par.king standards can be established for a PC District, where f’mdings 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). As follow-up to the DKS study, staff conducted an independer~ 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 EnvironmentalAssessment/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. ~terviewing 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 in_put 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 f6r 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 El Camino Real area has been surveyed by staff. Within a ~ ~ foot radius of the hotel, there are approximately 65-75 on-street public parking spaces along El Camino Real and along Tamarack Court (Dinah’s Place). e.The commercial properties along E1 Camino Real, wMeh 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 use~’ with parking lots that are most visible from the Cabana Hotel site are 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 18 4290ecr.sr3 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/c0nference 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 approvalrequire 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. 4290¢cr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, ’96-EIA-32 Page 19 o 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 poteritial 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 sp6nsor has prepared an alternative site plan (see Sheets A-3A and A-4A of the Application Submittal Materials), which includes a pedestrian/bicyclepath 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 utilizing 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. 4290e~r.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96oARB-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 pedestrians 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 Attachmem #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. This alternative would address pubfic 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). 42~O~cr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96~SUB-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 accegs 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. 6.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. 4290¢cr.sr3 A ten foot wide landscape setback and solid fence are currently provided along the northern property boundary of the hotel site, abutting the Palo 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 Palo 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, 96-ZC-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 f’mal details for this agreed fence replacement be included in the final landscaping and irrigation plans that are required for ARB approval. 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 Transpo.rtation Division finds that the 25 % reduction is justified in that most of the bicycle parking is expected to b~ 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 s~gle-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 4290ecr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 23 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. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.20.240(b)(2) requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. Staff finds 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 Palo 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 thafa 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. 4290~r.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 p/ogress 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 subdivisioa can be demonstrated; or 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 utllities for the proposed subdivision can be provided. Staff f’mds that ~ (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 subjectto 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 applicatiom, 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 p,assed 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 guarantees 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 bordersof 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 10.1 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. 2~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 4290ccr.sr3 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 26 in this case in that: The site has historically been zoned PC District and developed with a hotel co_mplex. With the exception of a change in the amount 9~f 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 reviewedby staff. ARB and staff comments are as follows: Benefit 1: The project would r Response: The project would be consistent with Policy 7, Program 17 of the Pal, 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 increas’mg land that would be available for housing, this is not considered a direct public benefit. : 4290e~r.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 Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, application, of the PC District is not necessary to accomplish aesthetic improvements to the existing bifilding. 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. 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. ~ 4290ecr.sr3 Benefit 5: The project would create ""o " ~area would include a . -. . " ~. 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 Palo Alto’s south gateway on E1 Camino Real. ". While the Palo Alto Comprehehnsive Plan policies address and encourage "gateway" planting at this site, the ARB and staff fred that the proposed improvements, inclusive of the proposal for an monument-type entry sign to the City of Palo Alto (See B_c.llgfl~), 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 recommendsthat, in-lieu of funding, the project sponsors should construct and install the sign as part of the gateway improvemerls. The sign should be designed in accordance with the specifications implemented by the City for other similar 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. ~0 landscape a portion of the E1 Camino Real center median. Please note that this statementwas revised on April 8, 1997 and on May 23, 199Z 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 south 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 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 replaeemer~ 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 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3, 96-EIA-32 Page 30 4290~cr.sr3 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 s!;reet light fixtures at the E1 Camino Real brid~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 I!_O_t 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 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 th~ 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 #9L 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, al! 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 subdivision be 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 fmdings 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 96-CPA-4, 96-ZCo13, 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. 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. 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 4290~cr.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 lbcated adjacent to Adobe Creek, an open channel which carries run-off on a year-around basis. The proposed project would result in theremoval 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. 0 t 4~ 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. 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 p~ojeet would be less-than-significant. ¯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. 4290~r.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: 5~ 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’of 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. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: 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 # 1E: 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 Associatesi 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 4290ecr.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 Kenneth 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 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 COURTESY COPIES WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS: Ross Pont, 1184 Laureles Drive, Los Altos, CA. 94022 Sue Cahn, 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. Jensen, Contract Planner Project Planner: Paul A. Jensen, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: /~~.~. ,~7~ . J~E. Gillfland, 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 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 9, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Council.Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding. ROLL CALL P_.L¢..~:Commissioners Byrd,~Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt A_b.~:Commissioners Beecham and Bialsod Staff Present: Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Paul Jensen, Contract Planner David Ross, Chairman, Architectural Review Board Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community.Environment Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chainperson Cassel: The first item on our agenda is oral communications. At this time, any member of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Seeing no one who wishes to speak, we will move on to the next agenda item. AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS (No changes, additions or deletions) .. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1997. ~: Are there any corrections or omissions? Commissioner B_£r_~: I was absent that night, so I will not be voting. MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move approval of the minutes of June 11, 1997. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Chaim_ erson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye: All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0 with one abstention by Commissioner Byrd and Commissioners Beecham and Bialson absent. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 1 07-09-97 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 1997. Chairperson Cassel: Axe there any corrections or omissions? MOTION: Commissioner Schi~: I move approval of the minutes of June 18, 1997. EC_S__E_C_Q.N_~: By Commissioner Schmidt. , MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Beecham and Bialson absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ 4290 EL CAMINO REAL (CABAI~A HOTEL): Proposed subdivision of a 10.1-acre site into 14 single-family residential lots (western 3.24 acres) and one commercial parcel (eastern 6.82 acres) for the Cabafia Hotel facilities. Applications to be considered for this project include (1) an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Service Commercial to Single-family Residential; (2) rezoning from PC District to R-1 district for the western 3.24 acres for single- family residential use; (3) rezoning of the eastern 6.82 acres to PC~ (Planned Commtmity) District; (4) a variance from the requirements of PANIC Sections 1"8.68.110(c) and 18.68.150(b) permitting an increase in the current hotel building height limit to 100 feet; (5) Architectural Review Board approval of modifications to the site plan and building elevations for the Cabafia Hotel facilities; and (6) Tentative subdivision map approval for a 15-lot land division, which includes a request for conditional exception from PANIC Section 21.20.240(b)(2) to permit a 50-foot-wide right-of-way width for a cul-de-sac extension of Glenbrook Drive in lieu of the required 60-foot right-of-way. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 96-V-3 and 96- EIA-32. Chairperson Cassel: Would Ken please introduce the staff?. Following that, we can have the staff presentation. Mr. Sehreiber: At the staff table tonight we have Paul Jensen, the contract planner who has been managing this projeetfor us, also Debbie Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney, and David Ross representing the Architectural Review Board tonight. Paul will have some opening comments, and then I will review the correspondence that is at your places. A:lPCMins7lpe0709.reg Page 2 07-09-97 Mr. Jensen: Good evening. The project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 1 lth. At that time, the commission voted to forward the PC District rezoning applications and the variance applications to the ARB for review. The ARB reviewed those applications on June 19th, and a summary of their comments is on Page 9 of your staff report. Briefly, some of the comments from the board were that they supported the public benefit but requested that the project sponsor consider integrating a public art program into their improvements. Secondly, they also recommended that the parking performance plan for the hotel include a requirement to monitor employee parking in addition to visitor parking. Lastly, the board directed the project sponsor to study modifications to the front parking lot design in order to incorporate a centralized pedestrian path connecting the path with El Camino and the entrance to the hotel. The project sponsor has responded to this item, and there is a schematic drawing which they will explain as part of their presentation. The Planning Commission comments and directions that were given on June 11 are ineorpoi’ated in the staff report. The commission had requested that the PC ordinance incorporate additional contingency measures for parking for assurances that parking would not become a problem. It was also requested that staff explore the possibilities of some provisions in the PC district that would allow the district to be reopened and reviewed in the future, in the event there is a parking problem. The city attomey’s office has drafted a PC district ordinance which is provided as Attachment 1C of your staff report. Basically, what the ordinance recommends is that the large banquet and meeting facility, which is truly what we found to be the parking generator, be subject to a ¯ conditional use permit after March 1, 1999. That,- presumably, is the period of time in which the proposed project would be completed and in operation under the proposed PC district. At that time, a conditional use permit would be required for the banquet and meeting room facilities. This gives the city the greatest amount of leverage specifically for this part of the use for the. hotel without having to reopen the whole PC District. The commission also requested some additional information on the number of hotel employees, plus commercial uses and parking along E1 Camino Real. That information ~s summarized on~ Pages 18 and 19 of your report. I do have one correction. The report notes that there are 65 to 75 on-street public par_king spaces around the site within 200 feet. This parking is within 400 feet, and it will be corrected in future reports. There have been a number of letters submitted. Ken will summarize some of these letters. Some of the more significant letters include one from the Palo Alto Redwoods Association listing a number of concerns. One major eoneem of theirs is construction traffic through the hotel site. The project sponsor has indicated that they have been working with the Palo Alto Redwoods, and are prepared to give a status report on that this evening. There are also letters that were submitted from residents on the Los Altos side of Adobe Creek. While they seem to agree with A:lPCMinsTIPc0709.reg Page 3 07-09-97 the gateway improvements, they are concerned that those improvements might open up access to the creek. That concludes my presentation. Mr. Schreiber: In addition to the letters that Paul identified, at your places is a letter from Susan E. Frank, President and CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce in support of the project, specifically the hotel and conference facilities. There is a letter from Commissioner Bialson, who is unable to be with us tonight. That letter expresses her concerns about the parking ratio, especially the potential impact of the meeting facilities, and she attaches to that a Palo Alto Daily News advertisement by the Cabafia from last month which includes a reference to banquet facilities up to 800 people. Lastly is a memo that I sent last Thursday to Greenaeres property owners. I apologize that this was not in our packet.. The letter that was.transmitted to the property owners has some correspondence and the staff report. The correspondence relates to two things, one being a letter that the commission received on June 11 which outlined some understandings by Attorney Kent Mitchell representing the Greenacres Homeowners Association and some attached correspondence that had gone out to the Greenacres residents. There were some assumptions in that letter regarding the position of city staff on certain issues, and some of those assumptions were incorrect. So I have also transmitted to you a copy of a letter that Debra Cauble sent to Kent Mitchell dated June 13 which Corrects the status of the staff position reg~ding both the Glenbrook Drive one-foot strip, as well as city participation in any CC&Rs. Also joining us at the stafftable is Carl Stoffel, transportation engineer, who has l~een working on this project, as well. Chairperson Cassel:- David, do you have anything you wish to add? David Ross. Architeetura! Review Board Chairman: I have one minor item to add, which isthat the PC application portion of this project addressed a few cleanup items in the architecture of the buildings themselves. They are not discussed much in the staff report, :but the board was enthusiastically in favor of these items, which include some peaked roofs on tower elements and a cleanup of the mechanical screening on the main building. Those were moved from the original ARB package for building improvements into the PC portion, because the finding of exceeding the height limit was necessary in order to do any work at all in those elements, which already exceed the height limit. Those are important items to retain as part of the Overall aesthetics of the building. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions by commissioners for the staff?. Comm’ssioner h" : I am wondering if Mr. Jensen could summarize for us again the multiple traffic and parking studies that were done. I know you told us about them at our last meeting, but I think it might be helpful for our perspective and for the public to hear them again. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 4 07-09-97 Mr. Jensen: I would be glad to. When the application was initially filed, accompanying the application was a report from DKS Associates which had been commissioned by the project sponsor. Basically, that report was an initial survey of several hotels around the Palo Alto area to try and justify a parking standard of 1.25 parking spaces per hotel room in similar sized facilities. Staff had some concerns about the study, because the city’s requirements are considerably higher. When you take a facility such as the Hyatt and you convert.the parking standard into an actual parking count, it is roughly about 2.5 spaces per room. So we conducted our own survey, and the survey is outlined in an attachment to your s~aff report. We looked at eight similar sized hotels in the mid-peninsula that have a similar market, a corporate or business type market, and included a comparable amount of banquet and meeting facilities. We found that the parking standard that DKS Associates had come up with was fairly close to what we were experiencing as p .a~’tof our survey. What we had concluded, though, .was that the parking ratio of roughly 1.5 spaces per unit was justified during peak conditions, and that was the purpose of the recommendation for a parking performance plan, as outlined in your staff report. That is how we came up with the conclusions and recommendations. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any other question before I open the public hearing? Commissioner Ojakian: Do we have any further information on the BMR negotiations? I remember there was a disagreement between the staff in terms of the payment frequencies or intervals or when this should happen versus what the applicant was suggesting. ~: There has been no further discussion with project sponsor on this issue. As we understand it, they are still continuing to propose the payment plan that they have, which is outlined in the staff report. ~" ... Chairperson Cassel: I will now open the public hearing. First wewill hear from the applicant. Steven Player. 1874 Guinda Street. Palo Alto: I am here on behalf of the applicant. I would like to introduce our team tonight who will be available to make brief presentations as to the status of what has occurred since the preliminary review by the Planning Commission and subsequent review by the ARB. We have Tony Carraseo and Linda Poneini from Carraseo & Associates. From DKS, we have our traffic eonsul.tant, Mark Spencer. From Crown Plaza, the operator of the hotel, we have Mike Higgins, and we have the applicant and owner, B. B. Patel, and we also have Grace Wu who is one of the managing members of the LLC, developer of the back parcel. Also, I think Alex Benedetti, our present manager, is here. I would like to address a couple of points, rather than going through the Complete staff report, which I think Paul has done an excellent job on and hassummarized and which I think you are familiar with. One of these I would like to address right out of the blocks because it appears to be an issue and a flag that has been of constant concern to Annette Bialson and also to several ¯ other people that I have talked to. That is the advertisement you saw in the Palo Alto Daily News A:lPCMins71pe0709.reg Page 5 07-09-97 about how the particular 800-person meeting room is being marketed. To give you some background, as you know, the hotel has undergone some internal revisions, reconstruction, redecorating, etc., and it has been operated pursuant to a Certificate of Occupancy Permit under the initial PC which was granted to the Cabafia Hotel back in 1961. None of the external parking configurations or none of the external portions of the building, other than what has been primarily approved by the ARB, has been changed at this particular point. Under that original conditional use permit, the banquet facilities, or meeting facilities, whatever you want to call them, Were.allowed to have approximately 800 people. At one time, I think it even said a thousand occupants. I don’t know whether there has ever been anywhere near that number in all of the years I have been here in that.particular space. This is the permit under which we have placed the ad and which we have marketed. The parking has not changed. Nothing has changed. It is exactly a~ it has been utilized in the past. .. Mr. Higgins from Crown Plaza is here, and he can indicate to you how the marketing of that will change when the PC is approved and when the parking configuration is changed to reflect it. So that is the distinction. That is what has happened. That is not an indication in any way, shape, matter or form on how this is going to be done in the future. So I just wanted to address that right away, and if you have questions about it, we have people here who can respond to your questions. I met with the neighbors in the Palo Alto Redwoods yesterday, and I met with their attorney yesterday, and we had a discussion. At the time, he expressed considerable concern about several items, some of which we were able to address and have begun to work on. Others ’are still under discussion. Unfortunately, due to the shortness of the time between the meeting - yesterday and today, that did not allow us to fully.go over all of the issues of concern, but one initial Concern that they had was the noise that has come out of the facility at some of these functions. A particular one that also was addressed by our management and concerned our management was one particular one last Saturday night or the Saturday night before. But to respond to that, I would like to hand you a letter that was received from Mr. Mark Salter, who is our sound consultant. At the request of Mr. Patel, he will be undergoing a study of that particular facility and how it can be sound-proofed. It will be undergoing testing hopefully within the next week or so to see what can be done so that we can respond to the neighbors’ concerns as to how ¯ do we deal with music and noise that might be coming from within the box. We are also looking at alternatives and ways to handle sound and noise from people after a function is over through the use of security personnel to oversee the parking lot and make sure people leave in a quiet and orderly fashion. So hopefully, we can respond quickly to these concerns that they had. In addition to that, a e~oncern has been expressed about parking. One of the aggrieving factors, a cumulative factor that.people have expressed concern about, is what are we going to do with the ¯ employee parking. How is the employee mix going to work? At the request of the Planning Commission, we did a survey of our existing employees which recaps the present breakdown of our present employees. At the present time, we have 29 employees. Of those employees, eight A:lPCMins71PC0709.reg Page 6 07-09-97 drive, five are dropped off, and sixteen use public transportation. We anticipate that our employees will probably be somewhere around 80-90 at the peak. Again, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Patel can speak further to that: We expect the mix and the breakdown of how they will get to the site to be somewhat equivalent to what we have here, proportionately. We are going to undertake to educate each of our employees, that wherever possible, to take public transportation, to take bicycles, to be dropped off, in any way we can to mitigate the presence of any additional automobiles on the premises. We are also looking at the possibility of using a possible off-site parking lot which belongs to-the owner, even if we t/ave to bring, the employees in by van. This is something that we are addressing, and we feel that it will go far in helping us to deal with the perceived parking issue. Again, let me say, it is a perceived parking issue. We do have our representative from DKS and the study that Paul has done, we would indicate that parking should not be a problem, but we don’t know that, so we are as concerned about it as you are in terms of the efficient operation of the hotel. I would like to go back to the fact that we want to be good neighbors, and we are trying to be responsive to the needs of the neighbors. We are still under discussions. I cannot represent to you that we are in complete agreement. We have two concerned neighborhoods that we are working with. We are trying to please everybody, but there are some basic things you have to do when you have a project of this type. One is that you have to construct it. How we work that ~ construction in a way that does not put an undue burden on any particular group is something that we are still in discussion about. There are some recommendations made which we would concur with in terms of what we are going to need for access to the site. That is in the staff. report. One of those is the ,use of the road for one year. As you will hear later on,that is in " . discussion and debate. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve those issues, and we wish to do it off-line so that it does not have to be a decision bythe Planning Commission or the City Council, if we can possibly do so. At this point, I would like to ask Linda Poncini to address what she has done in regard to realignment of the parking lot and conversations with the Public Art Commission. ¯ Linda Poncini. Carraseo & Associates. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: I will just briefly mention that we have had a couple of meetings with Leon Caplan of the Public Art Commission. We discussed the idea of using the lobby of the hotel for display of art. From our discussions, that looks like it could be a very workable.thing. We are going to continue to work with Leon on that. : We had a comment in the staff report from the Valley Transit Authority about wanting some ~.- improvements to the bus stop in front of the hotel. I have had a meeting on site with Paul Jensen and with representatives from VTA. We have worked out a few details with them. Some of the things they were interested in could not be accommodated on the site because of the short distance along the curb from the main intersection to the bridge at the creek. We are working in conjunction with them to make some improvements "to that bus stop and to the bench to move the A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 7 07-09-97 bench back off the sidewalk and closer to the grove of redwood trees which will be placed in there, and to do some improvements at the sidewalk. They have said they would be flexible in working with us on that, so I think we are making progress on that. The biggest thing where we have done a lot of work since the last meeting was a couple of suggestions from the ARB and also reflecting some of the interest here at the Planning Commission. We have reworked the front parking lot and the landscaping in that area. Two things: one was to create a pedestrian path that comes through the parking lot so that people can get from their ears into the entrance of the hotel more directly without walking through the driveways. We have created a pathway that is on an axis with the entry to the hotel. This also extends out to the El Camino sidewalk, making it easier for bus passengers to also get into the hotel. The other suggestion that came from the AR.B was to try and retain as many of the large, existing cypress trees as possible. In order to do that, we have redesigned the entire parking lot to aecornmodate trying to save those trees. In this plan, we have managed to save all but four of them. We also then created a double row of cypress trees along the pedestrian path which will then relate to the existing cypress trees. Those cypress trees along the path are relocated cypress trees from around the tennis court area. So not only are we retaining the bigger trees, but we are also relocating some of the smaller ones which can more easily be transplanted. The bigger ones are very hard to relocate. We have changed the planting palette to the extent where we are creating a more decorative palette in the middle of the parking lot by using a flowe ’.nng plum, which adds Color in that area. The existing magnolias are being relocated to the curved wall around the entrance and also to the l~ont of the site so that they make more of a visual impact at E1 Camino. We have put flowering trees along the entry path to give more interest. I want to note that we still have a total of 284 cars on Site. The mix of ears between valet, van, employee and self-park has changed slightly. If possible, we would like some flexibility, in the final wording in the recommendations that the284 ear spaces would be constant, but we may have to have flexibility on the mix of ears in tryingto make this really work. In this case, we are dealing with a lot more existing trees that are going to dictate how we can place the ears. This is a preliminary plan that we have e0me up with. It seems to work, but we still have to keep working on it, and we will be bringing that back to the ARB. The final thing to mention relating to the parking and circulation is something that we have not talked about in much detail, but it might help to see how it is changing on the site. Regarding the existing condition on the site in the front of the building, there is not a lot of parking. There is the big entrance drive and the former pool area, but not a lot of paiking there. Most of the parking is at the back, so when people are using the meeting room facility, the entrance to the meeting room facility !s from the back. Traditionally, that is the way the building was Used. At this point, it is being used that way because of the construction going on in the rest of the part of the building that is going to be demolished. The way the new plan is going to work is that there is more parking in the front, and the majority of the self-parking spaces are in the front. People A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 8 07-09-97 will come into the lobby, and they will be directed through the lobby to the pre-meeting area and to the meeting area. The majority of the valet parking is at the back, so people will not be accessing that parking lot to use the meeting room. They will be directed to the front, so we are including that method of people getting in and out of the meeting room, and we think that will help some of the other problems. Commissioner Schink: Tony, can you summarize for us? Mr. Carraseo: First, the good news, which is that Grace Wu has worked it out so that we can get the BMR payment done at the time of the final map. It has cost us some money to do that, but we have been able to accomplish it. The bad side of this is that we still continue to be concerned about the easement that staffis recommending. We would like you to treat us just like you treat any other single-family house in Palo Alto with a lot of trees in the back yard. We would propose, as indicated in the staff report, that we handle the replacement of those trees or would prune them or do any such maintenance of those trees in the CC&Rs. We, like you, want to keep those trees, and we would prefer to do it just like any other R-1 house does it. Thank you.. Commissioner Schink: Tony, I have a small design issue. Did you all agree with the idea of retaining the Italian cypress? Do you think that is a good design? Mr. Carrasco: I was never convinced that we couldretain those Italian cypress, however, our landscape ’architects, Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abby, are very talented landscape . architects. I asked Lou Alley this question personally, because I was not convinced, but he has convinced me that it is possible to keep them, creating a formalism there in spite 0fthe driveway coming off at an angle. Commissioner Sehink: So he essentially agrees that it is a reasonable decision.’? ~7.d~.~: Yes, he agrees. .Tom Feir: I am the attorney for the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association: It is somewhat with regret that I am here today. We were hoping that we could settle our differences with the project sponsor, and unfortunately, that has not occurred, at least at this point. I am not saying it won’t in the future, but I would like to initially say that the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association consists of about 117 homes that directly face to the north of this project, They are subject to any construction noise, traffic, dirt, vibrations that may exist during the construction project.. They are not opposed to the development, per se. All they would like to have happen is that some of their concerns be addressed, considered, and hopefully, acted upon by the Planning Commission. They have four concerns, and I know there are some people here who also want to speak, but I would like to address those four concerns for youl .They all have to do with the ultimate approval of your conditions for the construction of this project. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 9 07-09-97 The first, and probably the primary issue that they are concemed about is the use of"the service road" (for.lack of a better term) that fronts on the north side of the Cabafia’s property and separates the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association from the Cabafia. In reading over all of your documentation in your staff report, it appears as if the construction vehicles are going to be run anywhere from one year to three years over that road. The Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association is opposed to that for this reason. Basically, if the construction vehicles are run across that road, it will cause them great inconvenience both in terms of noise, traffic, dirt and vibration. The project sponsor has an alternative to this, which is to use the road that abuts Adobe Creek. If you just want to look at a cost/benefit analysis, the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association just committed $170,000 to power wash, stain and paint all of their buildings. If the construction vehicles run up and down that road, you can guess what is going to happen. Their other concern is that while all this traffic and noise takes place, there are approximately 40 units that face the Cabafia Hotel. Let’s say that one of those units wants to sell. They take a prospective buyer out on the balcony, and say,this is your view. They hear and feel the vibration; the noise and the dirt. What do you think is going to happen? The one suffering is the owner of that particular unit, not the Cabafia Hotel. " The other item we would’ like to address is the hours of construction, which is of concern to the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association, because they are the ones that are Subjected to the noise and the inconvenience. Your municipal code allows construction to happen seven days a week. They would like construction to be limited to Monday through Friday. If they are going robe subjected to the noise and the inconvenience, why can’t it be done Monday through Friday and not on the weekends. This, hopefully would minimize the impact on all Of the ’~ neighborhoods. -: ¯ - _ . Their other concem, which has been addressed tonight by the project sponsor, is the parking reduction. Parking reduction has been addressed by the project sponsor, and that is their lbroposal, and it appears that staff’S recommendation is that the parking for this whole project be reduced almost in half. The Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association looks down on the project. They can see, and they know when meetings are being held, obviously where the hotel guests and anyoverflow parking is going to take place. What is going to happen when there isn’t sufficient room for these people to park? Lastly, their concern is not with the development but with the current use of that banquet room, or if you want to call it a meeting room. When the original permit was issued, they were supposed to knock off any sound or meeting at Midnight. This is not happening. !f you go back and look at the police reports, the telephone calls to the hotel by the homeowners, it is going well beyond midnight. When the meeting or banquet or party ends, they flow out into the parking lot, and there is additiona! noise, traffic, yelling and screaming, and it takes 45 minutes to an hour for these people to leave~ They would just like that. concern to be addressed and that somehow, that Midnight curfew, if you want to call it that, be addressed and adhered to. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 10 07-09-97 Josephine Shuster, 4250 E1 Camino Rea!, palo Alto: I am here because I am very concerned about the homeowners. My unit already faces Denny’s parking lot, and I can still hear the bottles from the Cabafia being emptied at 3 o’clock in the morning sometimes. I would like to refer to the map to explain certain points, if possible. First of all, I would like to say that some of us have been given private tours of the interior of the hotel, and they are doing a beautiful job of remodeling. We have no objection to that, and we also have no objection to the houses being built in the back. What we do have an objection to is the traffic coming next to our project. Our units are here, and the ballroom is here. If the truek~ come in and out here all day long, that is going to be several hours of noise, dirt and vibrations. We have proposed that they come into the access road here and go around to the other side of the hotel, so that they would come in one way and out the.other way. We want to negotiate with them that if they could do this for three months, by that time, the project at the back, which are the lots they are developing, should have this road in to the cul-de-sac, and then they should be able to use that to bring in the construction materials. So that is our proposal as a compromise so that everybody is satisfied..We would not get long-term noise and vibrations and dirt. We propose that for three months, we would not mind the trucks coming in one way and out the other way. Then after that, ,they should have their road built here, and take their tracks that way. The other concern is, of course, the parking. While it is adequate at present, when you take out these lots, this is a lot of their parking. I don’t think this area here is going to totally replace it. The hotel is not at full occupancy now, as you know. The rooms around the pool are now being occupied, so those are the only rooms being used at present. When the major part of the hotel is finished with the 100-foot tower with additional rooms, when that is full and there is a ballroom full of people, we don’t know where people are going to go. We have heard ’there is alternate parking, but we have not been told where. That is’an item of great eoneem to us. So those are the major points that we are discussing with them, and we hope to reach an agreement that is amenable to all of us. We had hoped to reach it before this meeting, but there was such short notice that we did not have time to prepare as adequately as we would have liked. I am on the board of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners, and I have lived there for 12 years. I have been on other homeowners’ boards, so I am used to dealing with these situations. My brother has- been a developer and has developed large tracts of homes and other buildings, and we want to come to an agreement. We do not want to have a problem between us and the hotel. This is what we are proposing, and we hope that something can be worked out that will be agreeable to both parties. Some of the people are going to be giving Mr. Feir their time, because we did not think five minutes was enough t!me for him to speak at the end of everybody’s presentations. Thank you. C, T, Schwarz: I will give my time to Mr. Feir. Chairperson Cassel: Can we do that, Debbie? Ms. Cauhle: You do not have to do it. It is up to the commission. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 11 07-09-97 Mr. Schreiber: I might add that it has not been the practice of either the commission or the council to follow that type of meeting procedure. Commissioner Schink: I do have some questions for Mr. Feir after we hear from other members of the public, which may allow him to address some points which he did not have an opportunity ¯ to speak to earlier. Chairperson Cassel: So do you wish to speak; Mr.-Schwarz? ~. T. Sehwarz. 4250 E1 Camino Rea!, Palo Alto: I am a retired junior high school principal, and I came to the Palo Alto Redwoods for peace and quiet, and you can understand why. My unit is one of the tallest in the building. I not only overlook the Cabafia, but I also overlook Dermy’s on the other side, not the most pleasant view, and the potential for problems I know from the Denny’s side, and I anticipate additional problems on the other side. I would like to stress that I have met with our group, and we are interested in coming to an agreement. Our concerns are the use of the road over a prolonged period of time, the noise from the ballroom, the possible devaluation of some very affordable housing in Palo Alto, which Palo Alto does not seem to have very much of, and we just want to be good neighbors. Thank you. Commissioner Schink: A number of speakers have addressed concerns about noise actually coming from the hotel operation or the ballroom. To what extent are those questions appropriate for our consideration tonight? Are those aspects of the operation a part of this application? Mr. Schreiber: If the concern is about the existing operation, that is being conducted under the current zoning and the current approvals. If there are concerns about violation of.the noise ordinance, we need to get the police department involved. The police department has the responsibility for enforcing the noise ordinance. To the extent that you are looking at a new. Planned Community zone and concerns about hours of operation are rhised, you have the potential certainly for adding conditions to try and address that issue. Commissioner Schink: So this PC application would allow us to say, for example, that they cannot dump their trash at 3 o’clock in the morning. .Chaim_ erson Cassel:. Can you ask those questions later.’? Commissioner Schink: The only reason I ask these questions now is that I am trying to make it easier for the public to speak to us. I don’t want people to use all their time talking about something that is not appropriate. ~: Just briefly, as Ken points out, the hotel currently has zoning and use permits to operate the hotel. We can certainly look at reasonable operational conditions that go beyond what staff has recommended, but I think we need to keep in mind that the two key changes the A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 12 07-09-97 hotel is looking for in this application are a reduction in the land area and the correlated reduction in parking, and some changes up at the top level of the building. If conditions are deemed unacceptable by the hotel, they can continue to operate under their existing zoning and use permit without any new restrictions. So we would need to balance out those issues in looking at new conditions. ~h~l~lr.gJ.~: I might add that we have recommended, as staff, that the large meeting facility move from a permitted use to a conditional use, ess6ntially in 1999 after the facility has been in operation for some time. The primary concern there was parking, but if that procedure were put in place, then when a conditional use permit is applied for and reviewed, conditions related to hours of operation and noise, etc., are a reasonably standard part of that process..So that is another way of tryingto address the issues after we have had a little better track record in terms of how the facility is being used and operated. Sue Cahn. 4250 E1 Camino Real. Pa!o..Alto: I live at the Palo Alto Redwoods, and I am also Vice President of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association. I am referring to the staff report #3 that you all have, and on Page 33 of that staff report, it says that the concerns of the residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods have been cited throughout this staff report. We see that they have been cited, but we do not see any solutions in their recommendations..There is a recommendation that all construction vehicles will flow through the service road abutting the Palo Alto Redwoods for a period of two years in the staffreeommendation on Page 6 of Attachment 2B. Also that construction hours allowed are ten to six or ten to eight, depending upon whether we are talking about the hotel or the lots, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. From nine a.m. to six or eight on Saturday, and ten to six on Sunday. This is #18 on Page 7 of Attachment 2B. The other thing I would like to address are the staff’s notices of meetings that we do not feel are adequate. When a meeting was resehedtiled, the meeting dates published in the rescheduled piece were not even the day that the meeting was held. We come late to this process, and we feel some of that is due to our not being informed as well as we should be. In reading the staff report, in reading the recommendations, all of the attachments, it seems that our concerns are not being met in any way at all. There is no give. Mr. Patel and Mr. Carraseo are in business together. They both stand to make a lot of money from this project: We do not benefit in any way, but we are expected to bear the burden of all the noise, all of the construction, all of the vibrations and all of the filth seven days a week. That is to what we are objecting. -Also in the parking study that is cited a lot, how many of those hotels had ballrooms the size of the ballroom at the Cabafia? Thank you. Evangeline Roeha. 4250 El Camino Real. PaloAlto: I am also on the board of the homeowners association. Although my unit does not face on the service road, about a third of the units at the Redwoods are along that road. So it really is a serious inconvenience arid potential value to our A:]PCMins7]pc0709.reg Page 13 07-09-97 property values. To use that service road for this period of two or three years, and I would like to correct something that Sue just said, because according to the attachment that I have, the proposed hours for construction are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9 to 6 on Saturday, on Page 9 of the attachment, and 10 to 6 on Sunday. So we object to the 7-day week, the long. hours, the use of that service road when there is an alternative. There is a road on the south side of the property that may not accommodate the vehicles as easily as the service road on our side of the property, but I think it could be done. To reiterate what Sue said, we are being asked to bear so much of the burden for none of the advantages in this project and it just does not seem appropriate. Thank you. Elaine Findley, 4250 El Camino Real. Palo Alto: I am a member of the board also. I believe that my.concerns have been expressed very well by the other members and our attorney. I had a question on Page 19, the conditional use of the ballroom. I am not clear as tb what conditions we are placing on the Cabafia at this time. I understand that right now, they are allowed to use this room for 800 people. I would like it to be more clear that that limit is not just March.of 1999, but if this zoning goes through and they do lose such a large amount of their parking spaces, that right from that point, that room would be used for no more than 400 people, or whatever is realistic as far as the available parking if the hotel is in full use. That is something I need clarification on. Obviously, the noise we have had to put up with so far has not been very pleasant. Last Saturday night was a real concern as far as the time frame. The guests did not clear out of there until one in the morning, so you can imagine how difficult that is when you are trying to get some sleep. That ballroom is very dose to our property. On this map, these are all of the units that are .. affected immediately by this. Here is where the ballroom is, and it goes up, so the sound bounces up in the Palo Alto Redwood units, so that is a real.eoncem, also. I believe that the Cabafia has an option to run construction vehicles on the creek side. It is more than an inconvenience. It affects.our property values and it affects our ability tti just live peacefully. That is all I have. Thank you. Marion Hill. 4270 Pomona Avenue,...Palo Alto: I live in the Greenacres area. I would’like to put some historical perspective on this project and this ease. Thirty-six years ago when all of you were perhaps in elementary school, the first hotel was built. There are a number of people here who were here at that time. It was a monstrous project, it was a monstrous imposition on our neighborhood, because it was the first time a commercial zone was inserted 600 feet back from El Camino. These people wanted many things. They wanted a heliport, which we fought. They wanted tennis courts with stands and lights fortennis tournaments; and they wanted to have all kinds of things going on. We obviously fought it. We did not win everything. The hotel is there, and the parking .lot is there, but we did get an emergency entrance fence. The hotel operated for several years before the Redwoods was built. Then the Redwoods was built and the units were sold. People came in and looked at the units, and they looked across the service road, and there was a hotel there. To be responsible for their own actions is one of the necessities of a A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 14 07-09-97 purchase of property and succeeding activities. So people bought these units with the warts as they are. It is not correct to say .that if the construction traffic is run along the servic.e road, that they get all of it. If you will look at the map, you will see that the Redwoods do not penetrate back very far beyond the hotel area. Suzanne goes farther back, and of course, the back part of the property is on Los Palos and faces onto the parking lot. They will get construction traffic, too. They will get big machines in there tearing up the asphalt. Evdrybody is going to share the noise, the dirt, etc., so let’s put this into perspective. The hotel was built. The Redwoods came along later. The people were responsible for their own decisions in accepting the warts. The alternative is something that has to be worked out, if there is an alternative, but the single statements that they are getting all of it is just plain not true. Everybody is sharing in this. The Greenacres area does not get much out of this. We have supported the developer because we wanted to get this particular area settled .from now on out. So we will get it, too. Thank you very much. Commissioner Byrd: Where would you like the construction trucks to run in and Out? Mr. Hill: As indicated in the staff report, along the service road. Whether the developer wants to modify the flow or not around the hotel, that is up to them, but the alternative suggested earlier to run it out into a residential area with children, ,with bicycles, with traffic, with people, is ridiculous. Along the service road there are no children. Along the service road there are no bicycles. Along the service road, there is just the traffic servicing the hotel, which has been there year after year after year. Delivery trucks, everything. It has been there. It has been going on all this time. Beth Lueehesi. 4250 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto: Good evening.. I live in the Palo Alto Redwoods, and I am proud to say that my husband and I have bought our first home at the Palo Alto Redwoods, and we are happy to be residents of Palo Alto. We.arb also happy to have the Cabafia development going on in the sense that there Will be a nice hotel next door where we can invite friends and family to stay when they ~want-to come and visit us. Also perhaps there will be facilities that we can enjoy, like restaurants or certain events, such as the art in the lobby that was proposed. So the whole community can benefit from the development, but I do have to reiterate the concerns of my fellow neighbors in the Redwoods. We are very concerned about the noise level and Re intrusion on our quality of life and our property values by the development project using that no.rth service road. I am standing here with bags under my eyes just because of the noise level that occurs already with the day-to-day use of the road for hotel employees and different events that go on. So we ea_n only think that it will get much worse, once the actual construction of the homes in the back begins. So it is with respect that I request that you consider our point of view in that we would like to see the traffic on that no.rth service road be reduced and somehow monitored so that our quality of life during the construction period will remain okay. Thank you. A:lPCMins71pe0709.reg Page 15 07-09-97 Ken Lucchesi, 4250 El Camino Real. Palo Alto: I have to share the concerns of the previous speaker, my wife. What I do want to add is that our bedroom is probably about ten feet away from that access road, and as my wife expressed, we already have concerns about the noise. We consistently are awakened by just one vehicle coming down the street at 5:30 or 6 in the morning, so I can imagine what it is going to be like when we have very large vehicles with many wheels coming down there even as we are awake. It is going to be very, very devastating to our quality of life. We, of course, are very concerned like everyone else about our property values, so I can just say that I share the concerns of everyoneelse at the Palo Alto Redwoods, especially based on the fact that we are so close to thataceess road. Even shutting the windows is no way to prevent the vibration and noise from intruding on our privacy, so I just wanted to bring out that point. Thank you. Marcia Penn. 1176 Laureles Drive, Los Altos: I read the minutes of the June 1 lth meeting, and in those minutes was included a.letter from the planning director in Los Altos, Mr. Larry Fong. It does mention in his letter the concern that we have in our neighborhood presently. I quote a few sentences here. He does say, "We are pleased to see that most of the potentially significant impacts have been addressed, however, one potential impact has been overlooked, and that is creek security." He follows on by saying, "Access to the creek from El Camino Real should be physically prohibited." That is really how we feel in our neighborhood. I did write a letter, and I will go through it quickly. "We are greatly concerned that without the city’s assistance, the gateway to Palo Alto would also become a gateway to Adobe Creek and its neighborhood. Since the gateway plan visually emphasizes the presence of the Adobe Creek bridge and possibility of access to the creek, our concerns are the same as we had when a publicly accessible pedestrian and bike path was proposed. Increased awareness of the creek and accessibility would increase the chances of burglary, fire, the neighborhoods’ liability for personal injury, and could diminish personal safety. We ask that the City of Palo Alto provide an effective method to preveiat physical access to Adobe Creek from this bridge so that we can all enjoy a public benefit. "In addition to that concern, which is our major one, we also have, of course, theair quality. I have chronic bronchitis. We have very young people in our neighborhood with little lungs, and we have elderly. I hope that is going to be taken into consideration. You did mention asbestos a long time ago. I hope that that is being controlled with your reconstruction, etc. That would be very serious, if not. Soil erosion also, and I can couple that with the Palo Alto Redwoods’ concern. It does seem like a great impact on them, however, I am not sure, if you went along the road at Adobe Creek, if that can withstand the heavy trucks, etc., because of the erosion that is already present on the creek. That is something you should be looking into, I assume. Also, I was going to mention soil erosion as a part o.f your concern in the report done by erushi’ng or transferring some of your cement plant in the front and readjusting the soil, as there is a concern for soil erosion there, so that is another concern. Thank you. A:lPCMins7ipc0709.reg Page 16 07-09-97 Howard Belfer, 4275 Los Palos. Palo Alto: My back yard fronts directly on the proposed residential development. I am also a co-chair of the Greenacres Homeowners Improvement Association. I am going to address two issues. The first is a rather emphatic agreement and approval of Points #11 and #30 that is contained in the draft conditions for the tentative subdivision map. This calls for, as previously noted, the construction vehicle access for the first two years to be routed through the hotel site. I assume that this includes both entry and egress, and I would like to see that written in, if at all possib!e. I understand there is concern about the use of the northern service road, and I emphasize "service." We certainly have no objection to the use in whatever way of the southern roadway across the hotel site, however, one point I must emphasize is that we cannot agree to any use of residential streets in Greenaeres for this purpose. This would enormously jeopardize the safety of our children among whom there are many, many pre-teens who regularly bike, walk, roller blade and otherwise use the streets and sidewalks of our neighborhood. Regarding the issue of the one-foot strip, there are a.eouple of points to bring up just in terms of background. The staff report recommends in their Point #15 that the developer provide proof that access and utility extension be provided across the strip, and they go on to reiterate this point as part of their Option B which they suggest you approve, which states that the developer and the Greenacres residents submit an agreement that resolves the use of this one-foot strip. After many, many meetings and not inconsiderable expense on our part, we, in fact, have arrived at such an agreement between ourselves and the developer. As you know, our attomey submitted a very detailed settlement proposal between the neighbors and the developer at your last meeting. There is in a packet that we have the letter from Ms. Cauble dated 6/13 where, in her letter to our attorney, Kent Mitchell, she states that the staff is reviewing his letter which details the settlement, and is going to make recommendations. I don’t know if this has occurred and whether or not the reports that I have cited in thestaff report constitute their final recommendations to you about our agreement, as We have received no reply, either in general or to any specific parts of our agreement. So that is a question I would like answered. I will conclude by saying that I would strongly suggest that this’ commission approve a third option that I will call Option C, which is to accept and recommend to the City Council the adoption of our complete settlement agreement with the project applicant so that we can resolve this issue, and the project can go forward without any further delay or wasteful litigation. I thank you. David Putnam. 4250 El Camino’Real, Palo Alto: I have lived at the Palo Alto Redwoods for five years, and here in town for 27 years, and I am on my 20thyear of specializing in Japanese architecture and carpentry, and also as a performing musician here in town. So decibel units are quite a concern to me. I design by them and perform music by them. Starting times and ending times are important, as they should be next door. I think that you folks need to know an important thing that happened. Last year, there was a house built on Suzanne just behind the D urtit. I pay attention to when I start and how much noise I make on my construction sites, and A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 17 07-09-97 they really broke the rules a lot. There was lumber being dropped offas early as 5:30 in the morning. Carpenters started at 7 and 7:15. The contractor and his boys were there Friday and Saturday nights as late as 9 or 9:30. I called it in at least a dozen times to the police department. It was suggested that I call them after I called the building inspection department. They told me to call the police. I called the police. They eventually wound up walking me around the parking lot and telling me point blank, I am sorry, Mr. Putnam, this has the same priority as a barking dog. Good by. I talked to the contractor. At that point, I really became disappointed in the quality of rapport between the city and myself. I felt helpless. They basically said over the telephone to me that the project is almost finished. In other words, shut up and go away. I think that this could happen again very easily. It is outrageous, and I am very angry that these people have the audacity to even think that they can go 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. with whatever they are going to do, wherever they are going to go, with residential in the back or through the service road. There has got to be some give and take here. Quiet is important for everyone. If one of the cops were building that house next door or was living in my unit, they would be adhering to the rules, believe me. So why shouldn’t that take place next door? There is another route, and it is right next to the creek. Parking is another issue in that they are taking down those tennis courts and they are going to put a.parking lot right there. What happened to underground parking? it is not a new thing. Tony, I think, said to me one time, it would cost-prohibitive. We are going to pay the price, then. They don’t want to pay it. They want us to pay it. Park in the perimeter, and have a nice little soiree in the middle of all the noise. I don’t buy it. I don’t think anybody at the Redwoods buys it. We have all these prices to pay so they can line their pockets with their cute, big time, high roller project. Thank you.. Richard Reitmen. 186 Buekthom. Menlo Park: I lived at the Redwoods for a few years. I want to recount from my own experience that my unit is on the fourth floor in the B unit which faees out towards the hills and ~e Cabafia. My personal experience was that it was liveable but it was annoying..lust the normal trucks moving in and out on that service road created quite a disturbance. I also recognize that they had a right to be there, and the manager of the place and myself seemed to get along and somehow live together. But I’ am kind of aghast at the idea that we are going to plan to make it worse for two to three years. I just heard about this last night, and put all of us into a further stressed out state. It looks like there is an alternative. I have not heard any reasons why they have to use that service road. It seems like, what’s wrong with the creek? I am in favor of seeing the hotel come back into good use, and it is a real asset to the eommuni.ty, but let’s find a way to do it where we are not driving neighborhoods literally up the wall. I, too, have a business that relates to decibel levels.-I.am a Very sound sleeper, but just the normal service vehicles at the Cabafia would wake me up innumerable times. The idea that major construction trucks are going to go up and down that road for extended hours and through the weekend, it will not be liveable. It will be a disaster even for me who is a heavy sleeper. I don’t live there anymore, but I do rent the unit out, and I have had really nice families there. I think I would have a real problem trying to rent a unit, telling them that for the next three years, A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 18 07-09-97 you are going to have to deal with construction trucks marching up and down a few feet off your balcony. So I really ask for some other consideration, such as the creek access. If somewhere tonight, somebody can tell me why that is not doable, I would love to hear it. Thank you. .Michael Higgins. 4625 S. Lakeshore Drive. Tempe. AZ: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.~ I am Mike Higgins and am here from Tempe, Arizona. I am with Crown Plaza Hotels and Resorts. We will become the operator of this hotel later this year. I am primarily here to answer any questions that you might have, but just to take a few minutes and explain a little hit about our vision for the hotel, Crown Plaza Hotel, first of all, is an upscale hotel that caters pdmadlyto the business traveler. While we have heard some tall here about a conference center and such, let me just explain that for this type of hotel, the meeting space that we have, the restaurant, the lounge, are all geared as an amenity toward the sleeping rooms. That is our primary business interest, that is, selling hotel rooms. The way that we do that and remain competitive is by having these amenities and such. Generally, the primary users of the meeting rooms are the same people that are staying in the hotel. Obviously, I am not saying that there will not be functions that are held locally that are primarily geared toward the local residents, but we obviously have an interest, as well, in the residents of Palo Alto and Los Altos in that they are our guests, and we need to make sure that.they are satisfied, as well. So we want to make sure that this whole process of booking the hotel, both the hotel rooms and the meeting rooms, is a very tightly managed process to make sure that everybody is able to get along together with us. Susan Christopher. 4250 E1 Camino Real. Palo Alto: I also live at the Redwoods, and I have the concerns that have been raised by others with regard to the long-term negative impacts on~ property values in relation to noise and parking. I would like to reiterate the suggestion that some accommodation be made during the construction period so as to restrict the use of the .. service road along the north side. I work at home, so I am particularly concerned even" during the Monday through Friday kinds.of hours about the additional construction noise. Travel along that road does seem to be avoidable, Thank you. " ~gLia~Ill!~ 3470 Jartice Way. Pal0 Alto: I do not live at either one of the two places that are directly concerned. I have lived in North Palo Alto and I have also lived as I do now in South Palo Alto. One of the things that you should certainly consider and the council should consider, I know that Los Palos area very well, and I have many friends there both on the Los Altos side and on the Palo Alto side. Everybody keeps talking about children. One of the things at 4250 E1 Camino Real is that there are almost none, yet here you have a lot of homeowners who are paying very high taxes ~to support the City of Palo Alto. As a resident of Palo Alto since 1960, I ’ know the R-1 mentality that dominates this town, but that has to change, and you have to give equal consideration to people who are living in condos, because you are going to see condos and R-1 and commercial back to back, and you are going to face that all the time. So let’s think about how we can solve these problems, because they are going to continue. Chairperson Casse_l: Would the applicant like to have five minutes to summarize? A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 19 07-09-97 Steve Player: I would like to say that the good news I hear from this discussion is that nobody is opposed to.the project as a project. They like the project. I am excited that they do like the project, because I know the applicant is really trying to do an outstanding job to bring the Cabafia back on line and make it a real asset for our community. We are hoping to be able to bring it on line as soon as possible. We hear the concerns, and I would like to add that there is another component here that is going to be bearing this burden. That will be the hotel guests for this period of time and the hotel management. They are another factor in this equation who seem to have been forgotten. No matter how you put construction traffic through this particular configuration, they are going to be impacted also. So there are not just the neighborhoods, but there are going to be people living and sleeping on these premises. To answer some of the concerns regarding dust and vibration, etc., there are some very rigid ordinances already in the staff report regarding watering to keep dust down, keeping speed down, obeying all of the noise ordinances, etc., which the applicant will comply with. In looking at alternatives, I want you to bear in mind that the road along the creek is a relatively narrow road, a twisty road, and is one-way at this point. It cannot really handle two lanes of traffic. I would also like to say that when we get to the questions and answers, we have Mark Spencer from DKS who is our parking expert who would be willing to answer any questions, and Mr. Higgins is here, as well. I do not have anything further to say. Thank you for listening to us, and we look forward to hearing your questions. Hopefully, we will be able to respond to them. Chairperson cassel: Thank you. We have many questions. _Commissioner Bvr~d: Steve, I would like to follow~p with you or someone else from the project team on this issue of what is being called the "southern route," the currently one-way access road to the creek. There has been a.lot of enthusiasm expressed here for its use, and I would like someone on the project team to address in more detail why that could not be the primary access route with, for example, a flag man on either end to control the traffic in and out from the construction vehicles. It would obviously add some complication to the job site, but the question is, is it liveable and workable, and could you still get the job done while minimizing the impact on the Redwoods folks? Mr, .Carrasco: Commissioner Byrd, I think the reason why we did not choose that road is that it is a narrow, curvy, one-way road. To get construction trucks on that road is not easy in the first place. To get them in two directions is almost impossible. It is a fire access road in_ease of an emergency, so we need to keep it open. Also, it is very dose to a natural habitat. Creating noise more than is needed along that habitat is why we chose a service road that is designed for this kind of traffic. The construction of the .service road is different than the construction of the fire access road. It is designed for heavier traffic. I believe a nine-inch concrete bed is specified’for a fire access road on that northern side. A:lPCMins7]pc0709.reg Page 20 07-09-97 Commissioner Byrd: I then have a followup question for. Carl Stoffel. Are there any public safety or civil engineering constraints to the use of that road as a two-way in and out to service the construction? It may be inconvenient, but is it physically impossible or unsafe? ~_.r~Stoffel: If by civil engineering constraims, you mean any structural aspects, I would have to leave that to the owners of the site. As far as the alignment, I have actually been out there only a few times, and I can obviously tell that it is narrow and has a number of curves in it. Certainly, certain kinds of construction traffic can negotiate it ~n one direction or the other. As for the largest trucks, I think somebody would have to go out and look at that in more detail. It is difficult to know that right now. There is the area in front that, depending upon what is out there now or what can be removed, etc., there may be some constraints in getting out to E1 Camino from either of those roads. Some things might have to be removed from the site to allow these bigger vehicles to make those turns to get to the traffic signal, for instance, especially from the southern side. I believe the northem access already goes directly out to E1 Camino, so that could be used in one direction. So there is that to consider, too, that is, getting through the front area. But I think it could be workable in .one direction along the south side, except for some of the largest trucks. Somebody would have to go out and look at that in detail. Structurally and habitat-wise, somebody else would have to respond to that. ¯ ¯ Commissioner Byrd: If we were to spread the pain on this one and have some of the access on the north access and on the south access and some of the construction access through Greenacres into the back for the residential units, what sort of impact, if any, might that have on the pending quiet title action? .~ Ms. Cauble: The pending quiet title action was not filed by us. The bottom line is that the residential subdivision, as currently proposed, involves a public street. This project will not be built unless there is a dedicated public street out to Greenaeres. Public streets can be used by the public for any purpose as long as it is consistent with city codes. We have some city codes that limit truck traffic on certain streets, for example, but other than that, once it is a public street, it is a public street. So’ from a legal perspective, it can be used for any legitimate purpose by the. public. Commissioner Schink: I have a couple of questions for the applicant. The first is for the operator. I am wondering if you would be able to give some assurances to your neighbors that you will be able to run your operation in such a way that the janitors or the bar tenders or whoever it is that needs to dump things at 3 o’clock in the morning will not have that opportunity, and that you might be able to tell them that you will be able to run that operation in such a way that they don’t have to worry about noise after midnight from those sorts of things. A:lPCMins7]pc0709.reg Page 21 07-09-97 Mr. Higgins: If indeed that is what is going on fight now, I can assure you that would not be the case, once we come to the hotel. Commissioner Ojakian: You saw or heard earlier some of the numbers on employment at this particular.operation. Is that what you are expecting to have? Mr. Higgins: I think that would be the expected number. However, what I recall hearing was 80 to 90 employees. I think what people need to remember is that the hotel is open 24 hours a day, and that would be over a 3-shift period. I could possibly see the peiik-employment time at the hotel during the daytime hours, say from 7 to 3 or 8 to 4, 8 to 5, being something like that when you have all of the housekeepers at the hotel. If the hotel is running at full capacity and there were meetings in the meetings rooms, my guess is that during any one shift, you would be looking at maybe 60 employees. That other number would be throughout the entire 24-hour day. Commissioner Ojakian: You are running other operations cross country? Mr. Higgins: That is correct. Commissioner O_iakian: In any of those operations, do you have TDM programs in place? Do you have programs that are targeted at your employees to reduce the number of ear trips they might make? Mr. Higgins: That is correct. We operate a hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, and during the Olympics last year, we had to institute a number of programs like that due to the increased mount of -- traffic during the Olympics period. Just taking a survey of the existing employees at the hotel, of roughly 29 employees, only eight of them are driving to work on a regu.lar basis. There is a study published by the Urban Land Institute on hotel and motel development, and their recommended parking guide for employees is one space for every three to four employees. SO if you take a look at what they are experiencing currently, that is remaining consistent with the publication by the ULI. Commissioner O_iakian: In the Atlanta situation you were talking about, that was for a selected period of time. How many employees did you have in place? Mr. Higgins: At that hotel, there were several hundred employees. Commissioner O’akian: How many did not drive in? ~: Once again, we would be looking at a comparable ratio of employees that take public transportation and employees who are dropped off at the hotel. There are ways to ineentivize the employees to take public transportation, such as premiums can be given, so there A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 22 07-09-97 are a number of things we can do to develop a program within the hotel to address the parking issue, should it become a situation that is abnormal, based upon what we are accustomed to. Commissioner Ojakian: I guess what I am getting at is, since it sounds like you are willing to do that, and I am not sure until we ask the city attorney, could we condition that in here? It sounds like something that you would not object to, sinceit seem~ to be something works and follows along the natural patterns. That is correct. MS. Cauble: To briefly respond, I think the preferred way to deal with it (and maybe we have enough with the testimony tonight) would be for the applicant to propose their TDM program and that it be included as a part of the project conditions. Commissioner Ojakian: Could that be something that is done, Debbie, between now and when this goes to council? Ms. Cauble: Yes. Commissioner Sehmidt: In other hotels that you operate, do you have valet parking? Mr. Higgins: Yes, that is a service standard of a Crown Plaza Hotel. Commissioner Schmidt: Is there kind of a standard proportion of Self-parkedspaces to valet parking spaces? : ’ Mr. Higgins: No, there aren’t. It varies, depending upon flae situation. We have hotels that are located in downtown central business districts. We have resort hotels,;urban hotels, so it just - depends upon the particular situation. Commissioner Schmidt: Is there something comparable to this suburban situation that would say there is an X-valet percentage? Mr. Higgins: I sure there is, but I do not have that information with me tonight. Commissioner Sehink: I have another question for the applicant. Do you have a timeline for your construction period after the final map is recorded? r.~.L__Carrasco: That depends upon how fast the city approves the construction drawings. Our preliminary investigation has shown that we anticipate that it’is going to be three to four months. After the tentative map isapproved, Brian Kangas Foulk gets two months to do the drawings. It will take three to four months for city approval after that. A:lPCMins7]pc0709.reg Page 23 07-09-97 Commissioner Schink: I did not really ask my question right. What I meant to ask was, from the time that you first put a shovel in the ground and start putting in utilities and curbs, etc., what do you expect to be the duration of the predominant construction of the subdivision? Mr. Carrasco: Jon, the lots are being sold, so we do not know how long it would take to construct homes. People might go through an elaborate design process, and it might take awhile to do that. The construction of the street improvemelats should take about six months. Chairperson Cassel: Is all of the construction for the individual houses also going to go across the Cabafia site? So that if you sell a lot, then do the people who buy those lots have a specific amount of time to build that house before that access gets closed off?. Obviously, some order would have to take place for that. : Mr. Carrasco: That is correct. Our proposal to the city says that we would like to use the Cal~afia property for one year. During that time, it is quite conceivable that some of the houses might have construction traffic that would go in along that northerly road. Chaim_ erson Cassel: Once all of the lots are sold, the lots on the Greenacres side, if notbuilt right away, would have to be built later, and access for that house construction would then have to go through Greenacres? Mr. Carrasco: Our proposal is that after that one year, it goes through Greenaeres. I think staff’s proposal to you is that that one year be extended to two years. Chairperson Cassel: So it is six months for the utilities and roads, etc, and an additional year for the construction of the housing units, per your estimate. Mr. Carraseo: The condition states that we have one year after the final map has been approved. It will take about six months to get construction started, and then it will take six months in addition to get the improvements in place. So it will be one year after the final map is approved. Chairoerson Cassel: For the road improvements. I am trying to figure out what is happening to the houses themselves. When do they get constructed and where does the construction traffic go for those? Mr,. Carrasco: Someone could hold a lot open for as long as they wanted to. That construction could happen ten years from now. Hopefully, it will all happen within a reasonable period of time, but I cannot predict when the property owner might build a home. Commissioner Schmid~: I have questions along those lines for clarification, perhaps involving the attorney. I believe the condition, as it now exists, says that consistent with approved construction logistics plans, the first two years following commencement of grading and A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 24 07-09-97 construction, all construction vehicles to the west of the single-family residential subdivision shall be routed thr6ugh the hotel parcel. Ms. Cauble: That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: However, you said earlier that once the public street is in, that is accessible by anyone for any standard purpose, like building a house, just as someone could build a house next to meor next to Tony-and have acbess via the public street. I was thinking that that public road would not be open, once it is built, and if a house were completed, the person would not even have access along that public road? Ms. Cauble: No, and I may have confused you ifI left that impression. Once the road is completed and open, you may have a situation where, for example, a couple of the homeowners had built their homes, and they are going to be using the street for access to their homes, along with their folks coming in to put up wallpaper and curtains and the moving vans, etc. But pursuant to this condition, if the condition remains as written, once construction begins,~there is a two-year time period within which home construction mobilization needs to occur through the hotel site, whether the road is done and open or is not doneand open. We are not controlling the use of a public street. It is a development condition on how you use your property. If you want to build, you build through the hotel for that two-year time frame, once the shovel tums over the dirt. At least, that is what planning staff has recommended to you. Commissioner Schmidt: After that time, if there was One empty lot or five empty lots, .- construction access would be via public streets, which would be Glenbrook Drive. : ~: That is correct, unless the hotel makes some other arrangements. At some point, I think it is going to have to shift to allow the parking plan to work for the hotel site,and it would be like any other neighborhood where you have vacant lots in Palo Alt0. Commissioner Schmidt: Like any construction project anywhere using public streets for access. Thank you. Commissioner Ojakian: Tony, I have questions for you. Obviously, a couple of the issues in here that keep coming up are construction and parking. Let’s take them one at a time. In terms of parking, were other.alternatives looked at? One was suggested earlier about underground parking. Could you discuss what other alternatives you looked at and why you rejected them in terms of parking solutions? ~: First of all, we firmly believe that the 1.25 to one room ratio will work. We were looking at that while staffwas doing their study confirming that ratio. We looked at how many spaces could be accomplished if we did do underground parking at the tennis court location. We would have gotten approximately 30 additional cars if we undergrounded that lot at the top right A:lPCMinsTIpc0709.reg Page 25 07-09-97 hand comer. At the top left hand comer, you would get approximately 60 cars if you undergrounded the parking, both of which we do not feel are necessary. Commissioner Ojakian: Did you have a chance to read Commissioner Bialson’s letter, and do you want to respond to her comments that unlike some of’the hotels that were used in the staff study or even the consultant’s study, that this hotel is unique in the sense that it has large ballroom meeting room areas, therefore, the parking d~ficiency would be significant? ]~r.dT,~Ig.~: Both the DKS study;as well as staff’s study that looked at approximately 12 hotels, had approximately the same ballrooms and meeting rooms, some larger, some smaller. This is going to be a meeting room, not a’ballroom in the way that it used to be. So Commissioner Bialson’s letter does not reflect reality, in our estimation. She has looked at one hotel in Santa Clara, I believe it said, where she experienced some difficulty. I do not know which hotel it was and whether we had studied that one or not. Commissioner O_iakian: Let me ask you about the construction hours. Some people suggested tonight that those be limited from what is our normal construction hours. You know, as a former planning commissioner, that we have done that in the past, especially prohibiting building on. Sundays. We have the City Council that is in the process of.talking abotit that as a blanket rule maybe across the city. What is your reaction to that? Mr. Carrasco: We have been talking to the Palo Alto Redwoods, Commissioner Ojaldan, about limiting the number of days on which building would occur. As you know, this project has taken about nine months to a year longer than the investors thought it would take. They are asking us to speed it up, and our way to speed it up was to construct on Saturdays and Sundays. I have reached one of the investors who is agreeable to not constructing on Sunday. I would imagine that it is really up to you.. Commissioner Schink: I have a question for Mr. Feir. Actually, I have two questions, but I will start out with my more general, polite question, and then I will ask a more pointed question. Mr. Feir: Are you going to go easy on me at first? Commissioner Schink: First the more general question. You have heard a lot of additional comments from the applicant. I know you represent the Redwoods. Do you have any general points that you would like to make at this time in response to their comments? ~: To avoid being totally redundant as the point has been made about what the concerns are, I just want to make it dear io the Planning Commission that we are not here to try and stop this. From the comments I have heard from everyone, it seems to me that we have a development that everybody is pretty much in favor of going forward. We have concerns expressed by Greenaeres and the Palo Alto Redwoods, and somehow, we are hoping that the A:lPCMins71PC0709.reg Page 26 07-09-97 Planning Commission can come up with a solution to solve or minimize the impacts on everyone and see that the development goes through. Yesterday, the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association met with the project sponsor, Tony, and the attorney, and we tried to work out some solutions to the problems. I will present those right now, because what happened at that meeting was that we tried, from the Palo Alto Redwoods standpoint, to come up with good faith alternatives to their proposals. All we did was to make our proposals, and we pretty much got stonewalled and heard nothing in response. So I would like to throw out some alternatives that have been mentioned already. ’ As far as the use of the northern service road, we suggest that the time that that road is open be limited to three months, and that the construction hours not take place on the weekends. Then access be used through the Greenacres road that they are proposing to be developed. As an alternative to that, we suggested ingress or egress one way be used for the northern road and exit out the Southern road. ,But that would also be for a limited time. From what I have heard in Tony’s comments, it appears as if it will take about six months for the construction drawings to be drafted and then to go through the approval process through the city. Then it would take approximately six months for construction to take place. I would like to suggest that in your consideration, we initially said three months. If his comments are correct, six months, that maybe the use of that road be limited to just six months. I am sure the terminology can be worded in such a way that that takes place. I think that would minimize the impact on Pa!o Alto Redwoods, and minimize the impact on the homeowners to the west of this development. A couple of other comments. As multi-family dwellings increase in popularity throughout California, Palo Alto is going to be experiencing the same thing. That is~ as open space gets. gobbled up by construction, with the parcels that are left, you tend to go up and the denkity tends to increase. When that happens, you have more of a conflict between a developer wanting.to develop and the noise and the impact. I don’t think it is unusual that Palo Alto Redwoods should voice their complaints.about noise and traffic and all of that. I would just hope that you could consider that when you make your final decision. One other thing, and that is that I am trying to look at thisfrom not a totally biased standpoint, but hopefully from an objective standpoint. If somehow we balance the influence of Palo Alto Redwoods on the tax base and the voting concerns that they can express versus the hotel guests, and somehow that has to be brought into your evaluationof this process. In other words, the homeowners of Palo Alto Redwoods have influence in terms of voting and paying taxes versus what is the fiscal impact of this development and the hotel in seeing it go through. Ultimately, the concerns of noise, traffic, who is it actually going to benefit in this situation? From what I can ~ee and hear, and hopefully the comments tonight will make you’pause to reflect upon what the staff is recommending, that the hotel is going to benefit, and you are going to leave the homeowners to bear the brunt of what is going on when I think there are alternatives. One more comment. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 27 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: I would like you to simply respond to the question. This is not another public hearing. Mr. Feir.: Okay. Regarding the noise of the ballroom. That has got to be addressed and somehow enforced. I don’t know how you can frame that more closely. Maybe the use of that room cannot be used for parties, wedding parties and anniversaries, and is just restricted to meetings and not parties. , Chairperson Cassel: Are-there any more questions of members of the audience? Commissioner Schmidt: Can anyone from the Palo Alto Redwoods who has lived there for a long time come forward tocomment on noise when the Cabafia Hyatt was fully operational versus noise now in that large conference room facility? Sue Cahn: I am in Unit C-325, which is on the third floor. It looks down into ~e tradesmen’s entrance, garbage area, landscaping area. I don’t have to look at it, but I can hear it. It is the normal operation. I bought into it, as somebody said. I bought my unit, and I knew there was a hotel there, and there is the ongoing noise of the operation of a hotel. The garbage comes in, the garbage goes out, the garbage is dumped. The employees drive in, the employees drive out. Cars for the larger gatherings when the hotel was in big operation would speed along that road. I think the speed bumps are a new addition which were not there before. So there was considerable daily -noise for the general operation of an ongoing hotel. Commissioner Schmidt: So would you Say that the noise now, as a hotel operation, probably is not significantly different? : Ms. Cahn: No, it is much quieter now. There are fewer rooms being used, or so it seems.to me,¯ except for the garbage trucks that are a part of the operation. .: Commissioner Ojakian: I have one more question for Tony. Correct me ifI am wrong anywhere in here. If I understand it right, under code, this site would require bicycle parking for I think it is 25 bikes? When we last met on this, there weren’t any spaces, and what you have come back with is about 20 bike parking spaces, eight for the tenants or eight for the customers and twelve for employees. What is the difficulty in matching up with code? Ms. Poncini: I worked on the bicycle layout plan with Gail Likens of Transportation, and the ¯ code allows for a 25% reduction, which has to be approved by Planning Commission and council. The 20 spaces would be that 25% reduction. Gail felt that number of 20 was an adequate number for this facility, given that the 12 spaces are for employees in a secure area for employee use, and there are eight spaces for the public. In the discussions that we had, the use of bicycles by the public of people coming to meetings and conferences and to stay in the hotel A:lPCMins7[pc0709.reg Page 28 07-09-97 would probably be pretty small. More of these would actually be by the employees. That is how we arrived at that number. Commissioner Schink: I have a question for Tony. I am wondering if you would be willing to offer on behalf of the hotel operation or talk to the hotel people and be willing to provide an evening phone number for whoever is in charge at the hotel. If there are noise problems, the neighbors do not have to call the police directly, and could call someone directly at the hotel to deal with these types of problems. ’ Mr. Carrasco: Jon, in fact, that hotel phone number is for Mr. Alex Benedetto who is here. The Palo Alto Redwoods have his phone number, and they do call and do have a reasonably good relationship, as I understand it. Chairperson Cassel: If there are no other questions for members of the audience, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners? Commissioner Byrd: I have one on an issue that Mr. Carrasco raised in his opening remarks which has not yet been treated. That is that in the conditions for the-tentative map, there i~ #13 on Page 4 that talks about easements for trees on the rear portion of these lots. What is the basis for requiring these easements to prohibit tree removal? What makes these lots different in like and kind from other residential lots elsewhere in the city’ that have large trees in the back that provide benefit beyond merely the property owner, yet we do not condition their removal with an easement. Why is that appropriate here? ._ Mr. Jensen: When we completed the env_i~o _~tal ass¢.~ ~sment for the project, we found that the existing trees, which are mature trees, pr~e~a good buffer betweenthis property and the adjacent residential neighborhood which has its own set of mature landscaping. It was determined at that point that since that buffer was very important in the screen, that the easement was the best approach to ensure that the trees would be protected. Now, the easement does not prohibit tree removal. It just would require that trees be replaced if they are removed, so that the screen and buffer would be maintained in perpetuity. Commissioner Byrd: But once the project is completed, the buffer is between one single-family back yard and another single-family back yard. It is no longer buffering an institutional use in a neighborhood. But the buffer remains as important. Mr Jensen: That is correct. Commissioner Byrd: What kind of trees are they? A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 29 .07-09-97 Mr. Jensen: I believe most of them are pine, so they are not subjec.t to the city’s current tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Schink: I have a question along the same lines. Just so that I understand, if someone needs to remove, a tree for whatever reason, would they use the tree replacement guide that is outlined in the staff report on Page 16, or how would they go about knowing what to do about replacement? , Mr. Jensen: If you look at the conditions of approval, it would be covered in two ways. One is through an easement so that when a person purchases a lot and reads the title and notes that there is an easement in the rear yard area, there is language in their tire and in the description of their property that lets them know that for tree removal, they replace it with a new tree or two new trees. In addition to that, there are the subdivision CC&Rs which, of course, are separate from the easement. So there are two means for someone to know that that is a requirement. Commissioner Schink: And the replacement is what is listed on Page 16 where it says that the planning arborist recommends a two-to-one replacement for every tree that is lost? Mr. Jensen: No, I believe that is specific to’the hotel site. Commissioner Schink.’- Right, but I wondered what standard you used back on the standard for the subdivision? Mr. Jensen: That is Condition #13. Commissioner Schink: When you have imposed a tree or a landscape easement, does that mema that someone cannot dig a swimming pool in that area? Say that they wanted to move trees to one side or the other, under your replacement formula, would the easement be -- did I understand. you to say no swimming pools? Mr. Jensen: The way that the condition is drafted, it would not prohibit other uses within that area. Let’s say, for example, if someone wanted to remove a tree to put in a swimming pool, they would have to replace it .with two new trees somewhere else to maintain that buffer. Commissioner Schink: I am still trying to figure out where we give the formula for replacing the trees. ~: It is listed in Condition #13 on Page 4 of Attachment 2a. Commissioner Oiaki_ an: Debbie, do you want to respond to one of the speaker’s comments about the one-foot strip, so to speak, and the fact that they were waiting for a response or opinion back from you? A:[PCMins7[pc0709.reg Page 30 07-09-97 M~. Cauble: I think we have been pretty clear all along that the resolution of the legal issue rests in the hands of the City Council, not in the hands of staff or the Planning Commission. The City Council early on gave the direction that they wanted to see the whole project before them before they get into that issue and did not want to deal with it off line. So that issue will be going forward to the City Council. We did attempt to correct some apparent misunderstanding about the recommendations that city staff will be making. We are going to be corresponding with council for the other parties right after this meeting, asking for some better information about what the requirements of the neighbors are to resolvd this issue. For example, we are going to be sending out to them the standard language that the city requires for right-of-way easements. We have a concern that their insistence on having ownership of the underlying fee suggests that they think that in some way, they could control the right-of-way, once it is dedicated to the public. So ¯ those are some technical issues on which we will be trying to get information for the City Council so that it can properly evaluate the project. ~ Mr. Schreiber: IfI could follow up on Debbie’s comments and note for the record that in the staff report on Page 25, after discussing the access for the Glenbrook Court and the one-foot issue, we inserted the following wording. "Therefore, city staff, after Planning Commission action on the applications, will not schedule this item for City Council review until either (1) the applicant and the Greenaeres 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 (2) until time has passed and the applicants indicate that they are unable to resolve the issue." This application, if approved by the commission tonight, would be scheduled for the August 4th City Council meeting, but we would pull it from the agenda if this paragraph is not complied with. Our concern is (1) to not hold up the application in the process at this point in time, and (2) to provide more information for the City Council regarding the litigation and potential exposure, of the city in the future to taking actions to secure the one-foot strip, as~ described in the staff report. We would like to have that information available before the City Council takes action on the tentative map so that the council has a veryclear sense of what they are agreeing to or perhaps committing themselves to at some point in the future. So I wanted to note that. Commissioner O_iakian: So staff is still firmly behind Option B, so to speak, which is on Page 25? Mr. Schreiber: Yes. Mr. Schreibe_r: And I might add that resolution of the one-foot strip issue is very important~ Without that issue being resolved, and if the contention is that it is not available for public use, then you have a landlo.eked parcel, and staff would have no choice but to recommend denial of the project. We believe that that certainly is not going to be the ease. We believe this can be worked out between the applicants and the neighborhood association. But again, we want to. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 31 07-09-97 have more information available on that resolution process at the time that the council takes this up. Chairperson Cassel: And the general problem here is that the wording is important so that this site has public access, and that it is recognized that it has public access, so that there is no one- foot, private fight. This gets very detailed legally, but so that there is no one-foot private fight that can then be exercised to close offthat site at some time in the future. Ms. Cauble: Right. Our concern with the material that was presented to the commission the last time (and we may be incorrect in this, which is why we are going to ask for further clarification to present to council) is that there may be some feeling that if ownership of the underlying fee is passed to the Greenacres residents, that in some way, that fee ownership gives them the right to control what use the public makes of the fight-of-way over th.e top. That is fundamentally . inconsistent with the public street. So we want to make sure that if they say they are agreeing to something, they know what they are agreeing to so that everyone has the same base of information. Commissioner Byrd: One more followup, mostly for the benefit of the public. Has the city considered the use of its eminent domain power to acquire the one-foot public strip to put this issue to rest? Ms. Cauble: First, of course, is that any decision to do that would rest with the City Council, not with staff. Let me also say that our legal opinion is that the public owns the fight to cross that strip, so we keep talking about it as if there is a barrier there, while our legal opinion is that there is no barrier. The issue is that it is contested by some 0fthe Greenacres homeowners. As I ’ believe the staff report points out, one of our concerns is that even though we believe the public has a right to cross over it as of this time, should that end up in dispute after the city has already appro;ced the final map, under the Subdivision Map Act, we could be in a position where the city is forced to institute a condemnation action to resolve it. Staff does not want to put the City Council inadvertently in such a situation, so we want to have all of the information on the table for all of the parties. Mr, Schreiber: I would like to take the commission back to the construction issue and construction access issue. I am going to make a couple of comments, and I am going to acknowledge that they may not wish to get pulled into this. Both Mr. Ross and Mr. Schink have considerable experience in construction activities, certainly more so than I do, but it strikes me as I look at the construction issue that in my mind, there are probably five major components to the construction. One is the removal of the paving, assuming this is all approved. -We have a rear parking lot that currently has an asphalt cover of probably three or four inches. There are weeds growing through it, so it cannot be tremendously thick. So there will be paving removed, and that paving will be brought to the front of the site and used to raise the elevation of a portion of A:lPCMins71pe0709.reg Page 32 07-09-97 the from of the site. That is one bit of construction activity that involves ripping up at the back and trucking the material to the front of the site. The second is the construction of the road and the utilities. That is a discrete activity. Third is building houses. We have fourteen lots, and the indication is that they are going to be developed individually, so that activity could spread out over time. Then you also have the hotel construction activity. Much of that is currently under way under the previous approval. This approval involves work on the roof area. -That is a pretty discrete amount of work. Lastly is all of the work associated with the parking lot, the access and circulation system. When I look at those five activities, most of the parking lot work is certainly at the front of the site to begin with. Much of the hotel construction has already been done or is going on now. It strikes me that from the public testimony, I was left with the sense that we were going to have two years of constant truck traffic from 7 or 8 in the morning until 6 or 7 at night, six or seven days a week. When I look at that list of construction activities, I am not sure that there is anywhere near that much actual truck activity. There will be some discrete amounts of that, certainly, in terms of removing the paving, constructing the road and utilities and the houses, especially in terms of those activities needing access to the back, but I am not sure that we have as big an issue as outlined and as feared by some members of the public. Again, I am looking for reactions, in part. Lastly, regarding the south side road. I have some concerns about the south side road. There is interest in using it for some notable amount of construction, especially heavy duty truck activity. I think that what we need there is some additional information regarding the ability of that road to support heavy trucks. My driving around there does not indicate to me that it is probably a very deep bed. It is a service road used by very light vehicles. So I have concern about the ability of the road to handle that and the ability to handle vibrations. I believe it was Ms. Penn who raised the issue of vibration and the impacts of vibration for land Which, in some cases, is right on the top of the creek bank. Therefore, if we get into the issue of using the south side road, I would certainly want to see some additional engineering analysis and some soil and geologic analysis that would indicate that that road can take it without suffering either major damage or even more so, causing some slippage along that side and deterioration of the creek bank. So I have those concerns about the south side road that I wanted to toss out for discussion.. Chairperson Cassel: You have hit on one of my concerns. This commission has spent some time in the past with the previous proposal for this site, talking about how to bring back ~e land uses from that creek, as it is so dose to the edge of that creek, and its edge is fragile. There is not an east coast, hard rock underpinning to that. We have problems with it being eaten away slowly " into the base and eating farther and farther back. So I am not sure whether other commissioners want to put eonditionsinto that if we want to try using that site. It is a very fragile edge, and I suspect it was the reason staff did not recommend construction going that way. A:lPCMinsTIpc0709.reg Page 33 07-09-97 The question I had was on the same side. Maybe Pau! can respond. It has to do with how close those houses can be built to the creek. We have a tree easement there, but how far back from the creek can they build? On some of the creeks, we have had a Santa Clara Valley Water District setback easement that says, you cannot build back so far. We have had our own normal setback of 20 feet from that line before any construction can go on. That tends to give us a 40-foot setback. Our long-range goal is 100 feet, but that will not be in place for this site. So how far back can the single-family homes be built there? ~: The way that the condition currently reads is that there would be a 20-foot setback from the rear property line. If you take a look at the three lines, the line on the bottom represents the top of bank at finish grade, which is the creek bank. This line represents the property line. It is the property line that separates the subject property from the lands owned by the water district. This dotted line represents the 20 feet represented in the tree easement as identified in the staff report, which, by the way, is an identical easement to what would typically be required in an R-1 district as a rear yard setback. What we are talking about here are distances from this 20-foot setback line of about 35 feet to around 50 feet to the farthest point. Chairperson Cassel: To the top of the bank. That is correct. Chairperson Cassel: Do we have conditions in here to indicate that you cannot put accessory. structures in that. area? We have done that in the past also along creek banks.. .: ~: At this time, the condition strictly refers to tree removal. There is nothing other than that, except that the R-1 district would restrict the main structure from encroaching into that area. -, Chairperson Cassel: But they could still put in a swimming pool or other accessory uses in that area. Exactly. That type of a restriction would have to be added to the conditions. CommissionerSchink: I want to ask David Ross to comment on Ken Sehreiber’s questions. Mr. Ross: Ken knows more about construction than he lets on. As I look at the site plan, it occurs to me that it is going to be difficult to’manage construction of houses spread over time over, say, an 18-month period after completion of the infrastructure, particularly if the hotel has been opened and the required parking has been provided. You all know that before final occupancy can be granted, the landscaping and site improvements will have to be complete. The parking lot will have to be striped, and that creates some barriers to entering the residential site from the hotel site. Of course, there is also the issue of which lots a person might buy. I imagine A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 34 07-09-97 there would have to be some control by the project sponsor over the sale of lots that are effectively the short-term access to the residential area. It may be that there is an opportunity here, if this worked out better, for a softening of the occupancy rules in order to allow kind of a geographic alignment of construction access, rather than a timeframe alignment. In other words, allow an access road to continue to be available from the hotel site that continued even beyond the final occupancy of the hotel, allowing access to the rear of the lots that are contiguous with the hotel and allowed the other homes to be constructed from the public street. So there may be other solutions, if they can be handled sort of jointly .that might work better and overcome some of those hurdles. As far as the mount of construction, I agree with Ken that the fu’st six months are going to be rather intensive. The remova! of the asphalt must necessarily be trucked along the service road. There really is no other good way to get it to the front of the site. After that, most of the noise and activity is going to be coming not from trucks from E1 Camino but from the earth moving equipment that is in use on the site. It is relatively fiat out there. It is what we call a balanced site, so it is unlikely that there is going to be a tremendous amount of import or export of materials. A road bed .will be dug out, but the soil from that will probably be spread around the site fairly well, plus a relatively modest amount of engineered fill brought in that could be compacted under the road bed. So I do not see it as a high truck access type of project. The big annoyance is going to be coming from the graders and the earth moving equipment that are on the site. Regarding the house construction, that is really difficult to know about. I made a note to Ken that if a particular developer happened to purchase’three of the lots, just the approval process through the ARB is probably going to put them outside of the two-year time limit for development. So that is a real unknown at this point. If all of the lots are purchased by . individuals, given people’s eagerness to get in quickly, there could be Some real fist fights over who’s got the access road today. But that would be fairly short lived. Otherwise, it is going to be spread out over a very long period of time, and the impact on any given day probably is not going to be really terrible. So it is a big maybe. .o Chairperson Cassel: I have a question about the noise. David, you are dealing with construction all of the time. People come in early. The construction workers are coming from a long distance, and they like to work a shift that starts at 6:30 and goes until 2:30 and go home. How. do you deal with that, and what can be done? Besides working with the City Council and the police department to try to deal with this, since it not just happening on this site, it is a problem throughout town. How do you deal with that? Mr. Ross: I would sa)) that it is difficult even for responsible developers and general contractors to control the activities of all of the subcontractors. That is the best ease scenario. It is typical in construction to start early. The city has a set of overlapping ordinances. One is specific to A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 35 07-09-97 construction, and it specifies construction time periods, but the activities allowed under that are not perfectly defined, so the mere arrival of some workers on a site may not constitute construction, but their activities would still be subject to the overall noise ordinances. One of the r~al difficulties for both residents and the construction industry is that the thresholds for noise levels are set rather high. On the occasions when we have been curious about what kind of noise we are creating, we measured the noise at a property line in the approved measurement method, and we have never found the noise-making activities,to exceed the statutory noise levels. However, they still can be very annoying. In fact, it was quite possible to-perform construction activities on a site at 5 o’clock in the morning and not exceed the noise limit. I think that is why the additional ordinance was enacted to limit the time period for construction. So it is a very difficult issue. Something that fits easily into the noise ordinance may wake somebody up, so it is a difficult one. In order to comply with the construction time limit periods, it requires a real enforcement effort by the contractor and the developer and also some help from the city. Typically, lately on commercial projects, some of this has been handled through the construction logistics plan requirement of the public works department, so there has been greater emphasis on making sure that everyone involved in a project, including the deliverers and tradesmen, etc., are notified that the construction time period is in effect and that there will be some penalties for not complying with it. But yes, it is a very difficuk issue. Chairperson Cass~!l: So we need some clarity here in terms of people understanding what the rules are. Sound early in the morning really is a problem. A typical scenario is the worker arriving early, and he makes enough noise to disturb the neighborhood dogs, who bark and wake up their owners and wake up the neighbors who then complain to the owner. Now you have three or four strangers arriving in the neighborhood early, and people get angry. ~In this case, it will not be quite the same, as it will be construction on a larger hotel site. - Mr. Ross: As Ken poimed out, I suspect that the bulk of the hotel construction will be completed by the time this PC application is approved. ~: We do not have anything to say about the construction now goingon at the hotel site. That is one thing that we need to have the public understand.- A good deal of the construction on the hotel, itself has already been approved by the ARB, and that is going to take place. Period. All we are doing is discussing the 14 units at the back, the parking itself, and the additional pieces on the top of the building. Mr. Ross: Yes, the commercial construction portion that remains for the buildings is rather modest. The site work is mostly in the from of the building, although there is some in the back. The site for the housing will have the most activity, and it is difficult to predict how long a time period that will be spread over. There may well be 14 different general contractors and a total of 400 different subcontractors, all of whom need to obey the ordinances. Chairperson Casse_l: Is there a scheduling of these activities in the conditions? A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 36 07-09-97 Ms. Cauble: The project conditions as currently proposed essentially’restate the existing requirements of the city’s ordinance. So any variation on that would need to be a modification. Chairperson Cassel: I was not referring to the noise. I meant the staging of the construction. You were talking about the various stages of construction. Is that phased so that we know about that? Can they all happen at once? Mr. Jensen_: The condition calls for a-logistics plan tb be prepared. That is where the two years comes in with regard to the use of the access point. But it is not anything more specific than that. It is not broken down by activity at this point. It is something that the project sponsor is generally asked to provide in order to comply with that condition. Mr. Schreiber: To follow up on that, I believe it wasMr. Carrasco who referred at some point in the public testimony to the one-year provision for access to the construction activity from El Camino at the back. The staff recommendation is for that to be a two-year provision. The difference is that we received feedback from the Crreenacres neighborhood wanting a longer prohibition on the use of the Glenbrook Drive access point for construction activity. So that is the difference between the applicant’s proposal for one year versus the staff recommendation for two years. Chairp_ croon Cassel: Any other questions of staff?. " Commissioner O_iakian: Since Dave is here, I want to make sure we get some clarification. IfI heard you correctly, obviously the paving removal piece that Ken was talking about, that is going to involve some larger trucks and-probably needs to use the service access road. The utility and road building does not sound like it requires a lot of trucks moving back and forth in there. It is just heavy equipment that will be on site in the area. The hotel construction is really happening from the front of the lot, basically, so it probably doesn’t affect anybody, really.,I wouldn’t think there would be too many trucks on the service road, or even if we did the south side of the road, because that is all up in front, or the bulk of it is. So going through those, with the housing construction we are talking about, does that really require larger, heavier trucks, and/or is the south side service road that we just got through talking about sufficient enough to handle the types of vehicles and transportation of materials into the site? Mr. Ross: Your recap of my comments is correct. On the utilities issue, putting in.what we call the infrastructure, the road bed and the cables, etc., is done with equipment that is mobilized onto the site typically once, we hope. They work therefor a few .weeks, and then they leave. There will be a few trucks coming and going, bringing in sand occasionally or taking out some dirt, but rather modest amounts. The biggest use of heavy trucks is going to be for concrete. I have been~ on’that access road ba-~k there, and I don’t think it is suitable for concrete trucks, certainly not loaded concrete trucks. Maybe for empty concrete trucks, but it is.really not the kind of road bed that would hold up well under that kind of activity. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 37 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: Do you feel that both the north side and the south side would not handle the cement trucks? ~: I think the north side is a much thicker pavement section. The south side is almost like a paved path, and I believe the asphalt would break up very quickly. A couple weeks of heavy truck access would probably chop it up pretty badly.. Commissioner o.ialdan: The point is just to stay focused here.for a minute~ Other than the pavement moving, which I think most of us would agree, because it does involve heavier tracks, ¯ might have to stay on the north side road. Let’s get focused back on the house construction for a minute, which is really the only other area where we might have vehicles moving in and out. Does that require larger vehicles? Mr. Ross: The foundations for the houses and driveways, etc., will typically require concrete trucks. Most of that work is at the beginning of each of those projects. If they happen more or less as a group, it would be focused towards the beginning of a project. Then as the housing projects continue, you have things like lumber deliveries, roofing materials, etc. Commissioner Ojakian: And plumbing. r]h~lr.~o.~: Of course, on a daily basis, you have people arriving in pickup trucks or ears -- the workers coming to do the work. That is not particularly heavy or much noisier than a standard car, one hopes, going down a road. ~ . ~ ; ~,.’ Commissioner Ojakian: So would it be legitimate to say, Dave, that we could maybe divide up this project between the larger, heavier vehicles going down the main road,’and then as we get into the housing construction that does not require that type of vehicle, some of those could use ingress and egress through the south side road? Does that sound legitimate? ~: I think it is possible to split it up. It is a complicated issue, and one probably best addressed in a construction logistics plan. Having prepared a number of those, they are difficult ¯ to do well, particularly for a long-term project. It is just awfully hard to predict exactly what is going to happen at a given time. This one would also require coordination between contractors working for individual lot owners and the hotel operator, and perhaps with the general contractor for the hotel, as well. So even as logistics plans go, it would be complicated and difficult to work out. One thing to think about is that these requirements, which are made rather quieldy ~after the i.nfrastrueture is put in, have to be imposed on the new homeowners themselves in some way. That is going to be an interesting process. I am not sure how that works. Perhaps when someone applies for a building permit for their house in this development, that would have to trigger some warningbell that says, this requires a special logistics planto be in compliance with the PC approval. So there are some logistical issues for the building department and public works department to have to deal with, also. ’ A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 38 07-09-97 Commissioner O_iakian: I will make this comment at least now because I know this is going on for quite a bit. I am hoping the commission does look at something like that, and maybe the city attorney can think about some of the comments that were just made to help us through how we would do that, because in my own situation, I find it very difficult to have vehicles driving in through the Greenacres area. Although I have heard a lot of comments tonight, the reason why I have that difficulty is, to me, safety comes first over some of the other issues that I have heard. Frankly, I agree with a lot of the people who are living in that neighborhood that there are children in.there, .and the second point that people h~ive not talked about tonight is that the bike corridor that i~ on Charleston and Arastradero Road is one of the more heavily used ones in the whole city. It is used by young people biking back and forth to the middle school and the high school. So frankly, where we can minimize large vehicles going into that area, that I think is something we need to do. Are there any more questions of staff?. If not, we can begin the discussion. .Commissioner Byrd: Phyllis, would you like us to take up these issues, one at a time narrowly, and try to come to closure on them so that we don’t skip all around? Or what would you prefer? Chairperson Cassel: I have narrowed down most of the issues that I came through to about 20 issues. Most of these issues we have not discussed, and they probablywill not be a problem. These are items that came to me as I went down the list. The first question is how to proceed. Do each of us want to make our comments and see if we have consensus? Or do you want me to run down these issues that I have and see if you have any comments on them? Commissioner Schink: I would prefer for each of.us to make our general comments, and see if any major issues rise to the surface. Commissioner Byrd: Jon, I would prefer kind of a hybrid where we make our comments on one subject, see if anyone else wants to wade in, and try to bring that subject to a dose. Then proceed to another. If we each speak to three different issues and we have gone down the row, it would be a mix. Chairperson Cassel: Very well. I will begin since no one else wants to. One of the basic issues before us is parking. We have 284 spaces, which is down from the original number because we l~ave housing on the other side. The question is whether this provides an adequate amount of parking. I toyed with this one back and forth, because we keep talking about not parking to the maximum amount because every time we do that, we cover everything with asphalt, and no one ever makes the effort to do anything else to make a TDM program work. I have toyed with what happens if we have overflow parking and where does it go and how do we work that out. We have in this program an alternative parking plan that is being developed. My sense is that I’am fairly comfortable with what staff has recommended. A:lPCMins71pe0709.reg Page 39 07-09-97 Commissioner Schink: I agree with you. I would only add that the issue is, do we feel that out of the three traffic and parking studies that have been done for this project, do we find anybody obviously to have made a mistake? I think that with having three professional reviews .for this project, i am comfortable that the issue has been well covered. Commissioner Ojakian: I am comfortable with the staff comments and the parking performance plan. The comment I made earlier in the evening I h, ope we somehow can get into place, and that is, try to work towards some TDM program in which the employees are required to use alternate means of transportation, and that can be done through some sort of an incentive program, and it sounds like the Crown Plaza people have done that before, and at least if I understand the comments correctly tonight, are amenable to trying to put something into place like that. So if we can figure out how we can do that, or the city attorney has some idea how that could work, I think that is an important thing to have happen. Chairperson Cassel: The other aspect I did not ask the applicant about is exactly how far these vans are going to go, that is, the shuttle service. That information would be helpful for the City Council as they look at this. Are these vans going to go up to San Francisco to the airport? Or are they going to go to local businesses? That system can be used quite effectively to transport people, but it needs to be’fairly extensive to work well. Commissioner Sehmidt: I would agree with the comments that have been made. I am comfortable with pursuing this approach where we cover less area with asphalt and try to work with other planning efforts to manage the parking. We have the parld.’ng performance plan as a contingency plan if we find we have problems. This project will be watehedvery closely, and if problems do arise, they will certainly come to the.attention of both the owner and the city. Then I trust they will be resolved quiekly,.but I am willing to err on the side of less asphalt. Commissioner B.vrd:- If we have finished parking, let’s go on to the issue of.construction impacts. Why don’t we first talk about the use of the service road and the access. It seems to me that we need to balance the hardships. There are going to be impacts on the guests at the hotel. There are going to be impacts on the Palo Alto Redwoods. There are going to be impacts on the Greenacres folks. If we can craft an equitable solution here that minimizes the impacts in total and then distributes them in some sort of reasonable way~ I think we will be doing the whole community a favor. I would like us to encourage the applicant to make the best use of the southern route that is possible. There was a staff suggestion made that some study be made of exactly What that road bed can take. I was intrigued by Mr. Ross’ description of a construction logistics plan, That is probably too fine grained to be laid out in project e0nditions. I would like us to consider the proposal that the appficant made that the access to the 14 single-family lots through the Greenacres neighborhood be restricted for one year, as opposed to the staff suggestion that it be two years. We have single-family construction going on all the time in all the neighborhoods in A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 40 07-09-97 Palo Alto. If done properly, that does not compromise the safety of the residents, adults or children. It. seems to me to be a reasonable sharing of the burden to reduce that time limit to one year in order to have some portion of that activity routed through Greenacres so as to reduce some of the burden on the folks in the Palo Alto Redwoods who, after all,’living in multiple- family housing are doing us all a favor in how they live in compact housing, making efficient use of the land. I will stop there and see if we can resolve the access route issues before continuing on to the hours of operation. Commissioner Qiakian: I have made my comments already. If I had a preference, it would not be to restrict the ability to go into the Greenacres acres area to one year. It would be extended to three or four years. I think I tried to get to this issue when I was asking Mr. Ross some questions earlier. I think if we try in some way to craft a way to have..the heavy construction vehicles come down on the main access road, which sounds like that would occur for a limited period of time, in fact, it might only be a six-month period of time, I think that corresponded somewhat to what Mr. Feir had actually talked about. If, in fact, for some of the construction that happens after that six-month period of time, which sounds like it will be concentrated in the housing construction, and maybe require lighter vehicles, if the south side road can suffice to handle that type of traffic, then that is what we should do, and avoid going down Arastradero and avoid going into the Greenacres neighborhood. That is in my mind noway of slighting people who might live in the Redwoods. Again, to me it is a safety issue versus some of the other issues that we got into. Chaim_ erson Cassel: The south side, which tends to be such an easy one to do, just happens to have houses on the other side of the creek. When they find out you are nmning trucks down the south side, they are just as apt to be as angry as everyone else. I was surprised, Owen, that you were in Support of running vehicles along the south side because of the closeness of the creek edge. Some of this road is actually on the top of the bank. It is really, really close and these vehicles are heavy. That is my concern. It looks like an easy way out. It is not close to the Redwoods; it is not close to Greenaeres, and it looks real easy. Just run them in in one direction and out the other, but I just don’t think that road is going to handle it. I have been along there many times, and I have walked it. Smaller vehicles yes, but not the larger ones, and it will be devastating on that edge. What it will do is to eat away at the top of the bank, and then we will have new problems and new lines. We are going to need to maintain that road for the long term so that traffic is routed and not going back through continuously after this construction is over on that service road back and forth. The long-term plan is to go around. That is going to take really careful management of that south creek edge. So that leaves us in a difficult bind. This project I think would be easier to manage if it was not sold as single lots. It would be easier to manage as a subdivision. That way, you would then build it from the Greenaeres side out and you would build it more rapidly, and you would have much more efficient use of the tnaeks that are coming in. When this starts to be developed as 14 single-family homes, you are going to have large trucks coming in to deliver 20 pieces of wood. That sounds silly, but I have seen this happen in a house across the street. I couldn’t believe how many large trucks came. It is always A:lPCMins71pe0709.reg Page 41 07-09-97 good to have the experience of what everyone else is having. The house across the street had these great big huge trucks coming down the street, a small residential street, to bring 20 pieces of wood. Then two days later, another huge truck would come down and bring 20 more pieces of wood. I couldn’t believe it. None of the builders’ in this room would build this way, I am sure. At any rate, what I am concerned about is by building this as 14 separate homes, we are really making a mess of this transportation system. We would actually be better if we had a 14-unit subdivision that would then be constructed from one side out consistently. !7ommissioner Sehink: I agree that you have raised a problem, but I think the application in front of us is for the subdivision the way it is, and they are going to sell the lots separately. So we need to try and craft what is the tnost practical solution. I fred myself halfway between where Vie is and where Owen is on this issue. I don’t think it will be practical for more than a year to run the trucks in and out through the.Cabafia. Just in looking at the map and how the subdivision is arranged, at a certain point in time, it is not going to work any longer. I am also very concerned about the idea of running a lot of construction traffic through the adjoining neighborhood. That would be a mistake. Where I am coming down on this is to come up with away that we strongly encourage all construction traffic to run. through the Cabafia for as long as possible. I would prefer to see it for longer than a year, but I am not sure that that is really going to happen. I would share just a few professional observations, t believe that the great majority of the large truck traffic will occur in the early .stages of this project when they are bringing in .the gravel and the concrete for the curbs and gutters, doing the road beds and laying the asphalt. It has been my experience that after that time, you have about ten large truck trips involved in the construction of each home. So if you have 14 homes, you would have 140 large truck trips. That is really all there is for each of the homes. We would be better off if we could get the traffic to run through ’ the Cabafia. I also like the idea of running through the hotel grounds because we know there is a lot of management around, and they are certainly going to be out there enforcing slow truck traffic through the parking lot. So I fall between Commissioners Byrd and Ojakian. Commissioner Schmidt: I fall between Commissioners Byrd and Ojakian also. I, too, would like to see this developed as a subdivision where construction could happen quickly in a more organized fashion. Perhaps if the housing market that we have now continues, the homes will get built rapidly. AsI recall, the owners and developers indicated that some of the partners, some of the people in this rbom, willbe buying some of those lots and building houses there themselves. Perhaps that will inspire quick development of this prbject. It is a difficult problem when you have a 10-acre site surrounded on tl~ee sides by housing. Also, you have an existing site plan that barely gives access on either side of the center of the project, and you want to do something large in back and something in front.~ It is a difficult situation to work with. I know that we cannot figure out the exact logistics of this tonight, but there needs to be logistics figured out. It would be good if some of the traffic could go to the A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 42 07-09-97 south side, but I am very concemed about the creek, also, and want to make sure that the road bed is adequate to support even a number of smaller trucks passing along there over an extended period of time. I would support the staff recommendation that suggests two years from the time of beginning of construction of the roadway and improvements in the subdivision area as the time to access through the Cabafia site. Hopefully, if this housing market continues, the majority of constructionwould be completed in that time. Commissioner Schink: So we have one year, two years, three years, and I said I was somewhere in between. Maybe I could suggest that we all agree on 18 months? Commissioner Byrd: There is the practical question, as well. If we leave it at two years, then Jon, as you say, it becomes pretty difficult or nearly impossible to access the site from the Cabafia, and then, what do you do? You have made it nearly impossible to do construction on the 14 lots until the time runs out, and that seems unreasonable. I wish there were a way to condition this, in part., on the conditions of construction on the Cabafia site, but I don’t think there is a way to do that. In its absence, 18 months may be our best guess on when that point may occur. _Chairperson Cassel_: Yo~ are saying 18 months based on the fact that you estimate the first . portion to be approximately six months, and then it will be roughly a year to access the hous6s? Commissioner Sehink: I actually think the road construction will be only three to four months. Keep in mind that this is a private enterprise operation, not your usual CalTrans working on El Camino. So it could go pretty quickly. Chairperson Cassel: So you are suggesting we maximize it to 18 months? Qommissioner Schink: Yes. _Chairperson Cassel: Is there agreement on that? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, I would go with 18 months. .Commissioner O_iakian: And I will not. ~:. Yes, I will. Chairoers n Ca el: And I will, so that is a majority. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 43 07-09-97 Commissioner B.vrd: Can I then move us on to the hours? Let’s start with the days, and follow that with beginning and ending times. The code allows seven days a week. The Palo Alto Redwoods attorney has said that those folks would like Monday through Friday. It seems to me that there are competing issues here. One is the time value of money. Obviously, the applicant wants to get the project done quickly. By the same token, at some level, I think the residents are served by getting the burden of construction out of the way as quickly as possible. At the same time, we do have it on highest authority that one day of rest a week is a pretty good idea! So on that rarely invoked basis, I will suggest that we go to a six-day limit on this project, and at least allow people not to have to deal with the construction on Sundays. Commissioner Schmidt: I want to ask staff about what we have done on other projects. Did we limit hours on the Stanford construction if that project is approved? Ms. Cauble: I do not believe so, although you do not have the.adjacent neighborhood issues to the same extent. I do recall.that we did have at least one residential project last year where you prohibited Sunday construction. I am trying to recall which one it was. It may have been Everett Court, one of the Classic Community projects right downtown. It seems that there were two, and I am virtually certain that that was one of them. I think both the ARB and Planning Commission recommended eliminating Sunday as a day for construction. Commissioner Qiakian: Now that Owen has invoked a higher authority, who am I to object? But Debbie is correct, and I think we have gone back several years in some different projects over a period of time where we have disallowed Sunday construction. I think that is a reasonable thing to do here, especially given some of the comments we had here tonight .... ~ Commissioner Schink: I would agree. I would also suggest that in’the requirements, it says that a sign must be posted listing the hours. I feel that is very important, and I also think that such a sign should list what the free is for noise violation. It is pretty substantial, and it might help to get the message across to those who violate it. ~: It turns out that the first subcontractor who violates it gets’ a warning, and the second subcontractor comes along and gets the fine. He may not have known about the first one, but the contractor is responsible for all of the subcontractors’ fines. Commissioner Schink: And it is a substantial enough fine that it will get people’s attention. ~: As a point of clarification, which you can do at the time of making a motion. If you go with this question as to whether the Sunday prohibition applies both to construction on the single-family sites and the hotel site, or just one or the other. ~: I am going to suggest that the six-day limit be tied to the 18-month issue. The concern I have is that as time goes on, if we have individual lots coming in for building permits, A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 44 07-09-97 it is going to be very hard, first of all, for staff to track the fact that a lot coming in two or three years down the road has a different construction timeframe on it than every other parcel in town that we deal with. Second, I think it is going to be very hard for the police department to pick up on that enforcement nuance when getting a complaint about Sunday construction. If Sunday construction is allowed, it is going to be very hard to differentiate that complaint from any other complaint. So if you could tie it to the 18 month period, then there is a better basis for the city to effectively be able to implement that. ~: Jon, let me ask you a professional question relating to that. Does the work that gets done on Sundays in the single-family homes tend to be the smaller ld.’nds of things that you are trying to fill in? Some plumbing work that did not get done that has to be done before Monday when something else needs to get done? Is that what tends to happen with single-family residences? Commissioner Sehink: Possibly, but some of it is just people who would have to get the work ¯ done to get on to their next job. So I don’t think you can make any generalizations. Commissioner Byrd: Ken, are you suggesting seven days for 18 months? Mr. Schreiber: No, it is the other way aroma, d, that you consid’er the prohibition on Sunday construction to go with the 18 months. That is a package that has a reasonable chance of being implemented and enforced. .Commissioner Byrd: I would prefer to keep the six days in place longer than .that, but I understand the administrability issue. For that reason, I could live with it. Commissioner O_iakian: I have a question for staff. IfI remember correctly, staff’has a council assignment to look at construction on Sundays. Period. Where are we at in that process? ~d,r.~cdlLe, J.~z~: The Police Department is the enforcer of the noise ordinance and has the lead on that. I do not have a date, and I don’t believe there is a date right now scheduled for that to Come back to the council. If the city did adopt limitations or prohibitions on Sunday construction at some point in the future, that regulation would override whatever you do tonight. So it certainly would apply. Commissioner Schink: Ken raised a point, though, as to.whether we wanted different rules for the commercial site versus th_e residential. I am inclined to exempt the commercial site from the Sunday requirement, because I think it is doubtful that you will get much commercial work on Sundays that would be outside. The commercial work that might occur on Sundays is work that would be going on inside. It would have to be scheduled to fit in with the operation of the hotel, so I.am inclined to exempt the hotel portion from the Sunday prohibition. A:lPCMins71PC0709.reg Page 45 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: We are not considering the interior of the Cabafia Hotel tonight. That came under the ARB approval. We are working with the parking lot. Ms. Cauble: Right. The hotel is undergoing work in the interior, but it does not have much to do with this approval. That is already approved and under construction. Chairperson Cassel: So would this prohibition not affect the hours under which they are now working, since that is under the ARB approval? Ms. Cauble: That is a good question. I will let David Ross respond. Mr. Ross: The question of Sunday construction has come up for me any number of times. The ad hoe ruling I have had from the police department is that if it is in the interior and no one knows you are doing construction work, it is not an issue. The intent of the ordinance, as I understand it, applies to outdoor noise-making activities. If someone is laying carpet on Sunday inside a building, I don’t believe it is considered to fall under that construction ordinance. I have not been by the site on a Sunday, but my guess is that if there is work happening on a Sunday, it is probably not an outdoor noisy activity. I think that the work that would take place after this PC approval would be under a separate building permit. That is one mechanism of control, but it is diftieult for the police to know which permit is bei~ng worked under at a given time. So that is something you need to think about. If you ban Sunday construction in this process, you might be putting the applicant in the position of not being able to lay carpet On a Sunday inside the building under a permit that they already have. On the other hand, if nobody is making enough noise to cause a complaint, it would not get enforced anyway. So it is a very loose kind ofthi. "ng. Chaim_ erson Cassel: Jon, my concern is that they would start rtmning one of those large grading trucks on Sunday in order to lay the road. ° -~’ Commissioner Schink: Most of the road Work is offthe commercial side. There will be some repair work that has to be done afterward in repaying that parking lot, but most of the work is in the back area for the new subdivision. I was not suggesting that we exclude that. ~ommissioner Schmidt: I would think that the reconstruction of the parking lot and transfer of the asphalt from the back parking lot to the tennis court site and moving that stuff around and grinding it up, etc., would be noisy, something we would not want to allow on Sundays. Perhaps if we just not allow exterior workon Sundays and not allow construction on the residential side. mmissioner chink: I do not want to get this too confusing. C mmissi ner B rd: My fear is that it becomes a very difficult thing for the neighbors to interpret.and for.the police to enforce. Jon, I understand the basis for the distinction that you are A:lPCMins7[pc0709.reg Page 46 07-09-97 drawing. I remain very sympathetic to the impacts of this project on the Redwoods folks. I still would feel more comfortable just going with the six days. Chairperson Cassel: I think we have consensus on the six days. And we have it for an 18-month period. ¯ Commissioner B.vrd: The second half of the construction time issue is the hours. I am comfortable with just leaving it as the code states. ’ Chairperson Cassel: On Saturday until 8 (Both talking at once, unclear) Commissioner Byrd: Yes. I think the code is well worked out. ~: Do you want to leave it until 8 o’clock on Saturday nights? Ms. Cauble: It is six on the residential site and eight on the commercial site. Chairperson Cassel: Can we make that six for both sites on Saturday? " " Commissioner Byrd: That is a better idea. Chaim_ erson Casse!: So we have consensus for 6 p.m. on Saturdays. Now for another issue. I am concerned about accessory buildings and the setback along the creek. I would like to see us not building in that 20-foot easement. How do others feel about that? Commissioner.Schmidt: I agree. Commissioner Byrd: Let me ask a clarifying question of staff. A couple of theselots are of sufficient size to accommodate a cottage or granny unit in the back. If we do that, to what extent are we reducing that potential among these 14 lots? Chairperson Cassel: It would not be the 14 lots. Just the lots abutting the Creek. Commissioner Byrd: But two of them are 10,000-square-foot lots, and a third is 8,008 square feet. IfI remember the code fight, 8,000 square feet is the minimum in the R-1 to add a second unit. So we may be overly Constraining the ability to put a second unit on the back of three or- four lots. Chairperson Cassel: But this is along the creek. Remember, we are trying to work in the new goals of the Comprehensive Plan to get 100 feet back. Here we are only getting 35 to 50 feet A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page’47 07-09-97 back. If you are putting extra units in there, in fact, the Planning Commission made a recommendation on one of these on San Francisquito Creek, and the City Council was even more strict than we were to make sure we were not in that setback. Commissioner Byrd: The reason I then want to ask the clarifying question of staff is, if that easement is in place, the lot size continues to govern whether or not a second unit can be placed. So the property owner can work with that constraint adad still try and place a second unit, correct? ~. Jensen: That is correct. You work from gross land area. (~ommissioner Byrd: Then I am comfortable with the setback. Chairperson Cassel: Are there other issues that anyone wishes to discuss? Commissioner O_iakian: Since some people are still here, why don’t we address the one-foot strip that we have spent so much time talking about. Staff has a recommendation which I think was on Page 25, Option B, and they talked about that earlier this evening, saying that they still support that particular option. My feelings are two things on this. One is that I won’t go along with staff, because I want to start to expedite this process, if nothing else. But the second thing is, and I guess this is less of a formal government type of thing and is sort of a plea to all parties concerned that they get this thing resolved before it goes to City Council. I think what we heard tonight from almost everybody who spoke on either side of the issue is that theywant the project to go ahead and they don’t want any delays. I don’t think we want to get to the point where we are talking about public condemnation just to have what I think everybody is agreeing to have anyway. So somehow, I hope that between now and the council, that that is laid out in a way that I guess I would encourage people from Greenacres and the city attorney’s office and the applicant and whatever else can be done so that we do not have some issue that the council necessarily needs to decide on. But in the meantime, I will go along with 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." Chairperson Cassel: Do we have consensus on that? (Yes) We will agree to go along with Option B and support the staff on that one. What is another issue? ~: The issue of the easements on the tree removal and the ratios On tree replacement. This is Condition #13 on Page 4 of Attachment 2A, Draft Conditions for Tentative Subdivision Map. ! propose that we remove Condition # 13. I think we,can rely on the self- interest of the owners of those lots who will probably want to keep those trees in place just to keep the value of the lots: I have trees in my back yard that are not restricted by easements and ratios for replacement. It seems unduly burdensome in this case. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 48 07-09-97 Commissioner Ojakian: I agree with that. Commissioner Schink: I agree. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree. Chairperson Cassel: Then we have consensus on that. Ms_M_~. auble: Owen, does your suggestion include getting rid of Condition #13(a) which involves the creek side tree buffer, or just the buffer between single-family and single-family? Commissioner Byrd: It includes 13(a) for the rationale that I listed earlier, which is that we can rely on the self-interest of the homeowners to preserve those trees. Chai _merson Cassel: But we are not going to allow any accessory buildings or construction in that easement. I have some concerns. That sounds fine to you, but not everyone thinks like you. Different people have different ideas, but the CC&Rs should put some limits in place, do they not? The CC&Rs, in fact, do put some limits in place on the ability to take these down. It depends upon private enforcement, a neighbor complaining to another neighbor, saying, don’t we have a restriction? Do you remember looking back at that, Debbie? ~: I am sorry, but I do not remember that. I am looking at the CC&Rs, and I do not recall a limitation on tree removal in the CC&Rs. - ¯ Mr. Jensen: In Attachment 3a in the staff report which follows the lot inventory, there is some additional language that was proposed by the project sponsor for the CC&Rs, and it does exactly what you were talking about. When a neighbor says, aren’t we supposed to regulate tree removal? Our neighbor over here is removing trees. It is self-enforcing. Chalm_ erson Cassel: So Owen, what you are really saying is, you want to use the CC&Rs that are proposed rather than the staff-- Commissioner Byrd: No, Condition #13 uses the CC&Rs. So I am saying, remove Condition #13. If it is going to remain in the CC&Rs, that is a private, contractual matter that is outside our jurisdiction. I am proposing that we remove Condition #13. Commissioner Sehmidt: I have a question regarding what we typically do and do not allow near creeks. Do we say anything about that, other than you cannot btiild a main structure, and now we are saying you cannot build accessory structures. Do accessory structures include swimming pools? Condition #13A that Owen is proposing’we remove talks about prohibiting tree removal, allowing for minimal grading only, and a two-to-one tree replacement. My question is, do we normally say anything else about land close to creeks? A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 49 07-09-97 Mr. Schreiber: I think what we are dealing with here is that there is not a typical situation. Certainly, when we dealt with San Francisquito Creek and the Stanford West project or the senior housing project, there was great concern about setbacks from the creek and not having construction in that area, etc. But we tend not to deal with many situations like this. Certainly, the Draft Comprehensive Plan, which is not yet adopted policy, encourages using measures like no-build, etc., to protect the top of bank and try to get development as far back from the top of bank as reasonable. , Chairperson Cassel: And farther upstream, we did put some limits on Adobe Creek, didn’t we, for the property that was just north of the cemetery? Ms. Cauble: Right. At 4277 Miranda, that subdivision that recently came through where they originally had approval for four lots, and then they came in for five lots. Because of the new lot configuration, you were concerned about creek impacts. My recollection is that the condition was no building of main or accessory structures. It did not have a limitations on vegetation, but I don’t think that issue came up. It was a no-build limitation within a certain setback from the creek bank. Commissioner Schmidt: Swimming pools, as I recall, are not included as accessory structures. ~: It all depends upon how you word the condition. Commissioner Schmidt: So we could add swimming pools. MS. Cauble: You certainly could. Chairperson Cassel: Did you want to do that? Commissioner Schmidt: I would suggest that we do. Chaimerson Cassel: Any other objections to that? (None) ]31£,_S.~r.gil~: Madam Chair, if you could clarify for the record exactly what agreement you have just arrived at. Commissioner Schmidt: I believe we were talking about deleting all of Condition #13 and adding to the idea that Phyllis wanted to include, on which I believe we agreed --no accessory structures to be permitted in the 20-foot easement, including no swimming pools. ~: Yes, delete the entire condition. Owen, you are not requiring the CC&Rs. "The CC&Rs shall be worded and recorded to include all restrictive use and maintenance A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 50 07 -09-97 measures to ensure the long-term life and continued health of the trees." You are essentially taking out both. Commissioner Byrd: It may not be removed by the CC&Rs, but that is an issue for the Glenbrook Court LLC to work out. That is not within our jurisdiction. I am a big fan of muscular government protecting the creek, but I think that in this case, when we don’t have to do something, we shouldn’t. In this ease, I don’t think a rational landowner is going to remove those trees, so we do not really need to condition the subdivision on it. Chairperson Cassel: So we have consensus on that. At least, four people agree to it. In addition to that, you are saying that we should not allow swimming pools to the additional condition we had about not allowing accessory buildings in the 20-foot setback. Okay,-that is clear. Commissioner Ojakian: about? Do people have other issues they wish to deal with? Commissioner B_vrd: We never reached the issue as to whether the public art component of the public benefit package is appropriate. Chairperson CasseI: I found it to be adequate. T~__Q.T!_Q~: Commissioner Sehink: I would like to-move the staff recommendation, modifying the locations in this document where we call for a two-year timeframe for the construction access down to 18 months, and modifying the hours of construction operation as.previously indicated by consensus. Jon, does that include dropping Condition #13 we were just talking Commissioner Schink: Yes, it does. Does it include the no-build in the creek setback area? Commissioner Schink." Yes, it does include that also. Chairperson Cassel: Does it include the six-day work week tied to the 18-month period, with- 6 p.m. on Saturdays? Commissioner Schink: Yes, that is the hours of construction portion. Commissioner Ojakia~n: Does it tie somehow a TDM program in here, or how do we do that? A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 51 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: I think we have a performance plan proposed by staffwhich I suspect is included. Mr, Schreiber: The performance plan addresses overall parking. It certainly may contain elements of a TDM program in terms of reducing the parking demand from employees, but it would not be an intrinsic; required portion of an overall parking plan. The major parking issue deals with activities on site, the visitors, the meeting rooms and banquet facilities. .Commissioner Schink: I would suggest to you, Vic, that ifI do get a second for rny motion, I would probably be very sympathetic to some friendly amendments. ~: By Commissioner Byrd. Commissioner Schink: Vic, if you would thumb through here and find the fight place to put in that condition, and then bring it up to the seconder and me, I think I would probably include it. Commissioner O_iakian: Let me ask Debbie that one, then, instead of me trying to figure out the fight slot. Where would it be appropriate to put in some sort of a TDM requirement that would restrict, in particular, employees use or provide employees with an incentive plan to use alternative transportation means? ~: What I might suggest is that in the PC ordinance on Page. 5, which is Section 4d of the ordinance that details the parking and loading requirements, Paragraph 2 requires the operator to implement the parking performance plan, which needs to be formally approved by the director. We have one in the packet, but there may be bells and whistles added before Ken ultimately approves it. We could add some language there that adds a TDM parking component to the parking performance plan. Ken, does that make sense? ]~r.~..c, kr.gJ.~: Yes, that basically makes sense. What I react to is Commissioner Ojakian’s use of the word "restrict." I would advise against inserting any wording like that. What-we really would expect is the submission of a TDM program with some type of annual monitoring report back to the city in terms of how well they are doing with that. That mayinvolve the management exercising greater or lesser levels of restrlction, but I would hesitate to have the city require unspecified restrictions on employee access at this time. Ms. Cauble: I would agree with that. ~akian: Okay. So is it ace.eptable to say what Mr. Sehreiber has just suggested? I would make a friend!y amendment that we include under this Section 4 the wording that Ken just used. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 52 07-09-97 Commissioner Schink: I would accept a condition that directs staffto craft some language for a Transportation Demand Management plan with the specific provision that any reporting not occur on more than an annual basis. Chairperson Cassel: Is that acceptable? (Yes) One other issue that is outstanding is the access issue, and we want to ensure that it is clear. So far, we have talked-about times and time limits. We ~ave talked about staff checking out what kinds of routes -- (Member of the public attempts to speak) Chairperson Cassel: You cannot speak at this time. ~: Public comment is out of order at this point unless the commission wants to reopen the public heating. Chairperson Cassel: I.presume what we are doing at this time is that staffwill take a look.at what traffic the south access can handle safely. Commissioner Schink: I did notice that in part of the report, it requires them to develop a transportation logistics plan for the commercial portion, I believe. Mr. Ross had also talked about that, and I feel that those issues will be adequately fleshed out at that time. :I do not feel that we have sufficient information tO try and tie anyone’s hands too tightly on how they should use that road. I am comfortable with leaving that issue open for staff to develop the right solution. Commissioner B.vrd: I feel that staff has heard tonight an interest on ttie part of the commission to make a good faith effort to see what, if any, use that road can be put to without compromising the creek or the road bed for long-term cireulati0n in the project. Chairperson Cassel: Any other comments? Commissioner Schink: I would like to speak in general to one broad issue. I think this is a good project, and it deserves our support. It is nice to see a PC that is going to introduce some more well needed housing in this neighborhood. ¯ I have heard the comments from the resident~ at the Redwoods, and without trying to sound like I am preaching to some of you, I hav6 to say to you that 14 years ago, I was on the Architectural Review Board sitting in the room next to this, and many of your neighbors came to us and said that they were really concerned about the Redwoods project. "We don’t think that our A:lPCMins71PC0709.reg Page 53 07-09-97 neighborhood should be subjected to the noise and the dirt and the confusion and the problems associated with a dense condominium project." We on the Architectural Review Board knew, however, that our community would be enriched by the people who were going to live in the Redwoods. We approved that project. So I say to you today that I know that our community will be enriched by the 14 families that are going to live on this court in a few years, and I know this will,be a better place for it. I hope you can endure the problems that your neighbors endured in the development of your property. Chairperson Cassel: Any other comments? Commissioner Schmidt: I want to reiterate a couple of the things that are more "big picture" things that we talked about the last time. This is our final review, and we have been dwelling primarily on noise and parking and some of the details. This is a reuse of an existing large hotel facility and the addition of residential units, so it is going toward solving a couple of problems that Palo Alto perceives that it has. It has components in it that go toward the ideas of the new Comprehensive Plan, such as the reduced width of the cul’de-sac street which this project proposes. We have approved the idea of allowing it to be 100 feet high to make the building more attractive and hide some of the mechanical equipment. The public benefits that are proposed, the ones that staffhas noted that are actual public benefits, will add a real gateway element to Palo Alto at that location. The project developer has indeed worked with neighbors and is continuing to work with neighbors, so we have not had a lot of residents from Greenaeres here tonight speaking to us, although we may have some present in the audience. We have not had the great outcry that we had for the last project that went through here but was not completed. ’_ I also want to note that I am happy to see the project proponents responding to ARB comments by adding the pathway for pedestrians from E1 Camino to the building and by adding some bicycle parking, although I do not indeed imagine that lots of hotel occupants will use ~he bicycle parking. I believe that employees will certainly be encouraged to use the bicycle parking, so I am glad that we have it in the project. Commissioner Qiakian: The first commentI wrote down that I wanted to make Sure did not go unnoticed is, I want to thank the ARB, because when I looked over some of the things they have included in this project, I thought they did an excellent job. I am appreciative that .Mr. Ross was here tonight. He provided us with a lot of helpful information, so I wanted to make sure that did not go urmotieed. I thought the commen~ that Mr. Feir made earlier this evening was very relevant. Just to say it in a different way, he was talking about the difficulties of infill development, which is really where Palo Alto is at right now. As we do go forward, and I guess as I look in the past, it is not easy to A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 54 07-09-97 have developmems right now in Palo Alto, because they impinge on people’s solitude maybe is the way of saying it. So they are always difficult to deal with, and I think tonight’s issue is difficult to deal with, and I think that is why we are here so long dwelling on a lot of these issues, because I think it is a concern to all of us, and we want to make sure that we do the right thing. Hopefully, in this process, some of the key issues around construction are addressed. I know we talked about them at a certain level, and maybe there is some refining that could still be done there, and we can minimize the amount of truck traffic that comes in and hopefully disperse it a little bit so that the effect on everybody’s life is minimized. I was really happy to hear a lot of Kathy’s comments. I don’t think I will reiterate them, but I feel obligated to at least say that the public benefit which we looked at the last time and said was sufficient is sufficient in my mind. In fact, it has been enhanced a little bit by this notion of public art, and so, I am appreciative of that. ," I like the idea of the gateway. I know we had at least one speaker speak against that, but that is something that Palo Alto has been talking about for a long time. It is something we have tried to get in other parts of the city, and I am really happy that the applicant in this case has stepped forward to initiate that type Of action whereas we have not been able to do it. I think that is indicative of sort of what is going on with this project that we have a quality applicant trying to do some things that are good for the city. One of the items we have not talked about which I have still sort of kicked around which is a very minor thing. I, in fact, like some of the light fixtures that the applicant proposed. I thought they would just accentuate this gateway and really make it stand out. Again,t thinkthat is probably indicative of the fact that Mr. Carraseo has been around and understands some of the ’ things we are trying to aceorhplish here. I am happy that we have resolved a lot of issues. I think that is part of:what the Planning Commission has to do in the process to minimize things as they go on to the council.so the council can address maybe the higher level, more serous issues, so it sounds like we have had resolution of several things like the BMR units and the bicycle parking, etc., without going through them all. I guess to summarize, I am happy that we have this project in front of us. I am glad to see that the housing will be built out. Hopefully, this will be a resolution to some of the concerns that people had in the Greenacres neighborhood, and the return of the hotel is much needed, so I think if you look at this overall, it is a good project, and I will be happy to support the motion. Commissioner Byrd_d: Two brief comments, one directed first at the residents of the Redwoods. I heard your attorney tonight speak to four issues, and I hope you feel that you have been served, at least in part, on some of them. The first was the use of the service road. We have directed staffto do everything they can to figure out how much of that truck traffic can go on the south A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 55 07-09-97 side without impacting the creek or the long-term use of that road. So we have tried to help there. Second, on the hours of construction, we have prevented construction on Sunday, and we have reduced the ending time on Saturday. It’s half a loaf, I know, but I hope you see some movement on that. Third, on your issue of parking reduction, we are satisfied that the parking studies that have been done suggest that the ratio is adequate. I don’t want you to think we skimmed over that. We put a lot of time and effort into it, and the city has, too. Fourth, on the current use of the meeting and banquet room, you want the 1.2 o’clock ending time enforced, and we have encouraged you to work with the police department to do it. There is nothing we can do about it in the context of this application. I know that often, when.you don’t get everything you want, you walk away from these hearings wondering whether the government works to your benefit at all. I hope that you see in this case that we have tried to do what we can. My final comment is to the applicant. It is a terrific project, and I wish you success with it. I hope you will make every effort and go the extra mile to do what you can to minimize the construction impacts on the Redwoods folks. There is a long-term neighborhood relationship there that I think is in your economic self-interest. Seeing who is on the team, I presume good faith, and I hope the Redwoods folks can, as well. Chairperson Cassel: I want to address just one issue that has not been addressed. That is the entrance into the creek. I believe there are certain.legal entrances into those creeks that have to happen. There is an entrance to the creek on the south side, which I believe is in Los Altos. ~ There must be some access for maintenance for the creek through the Santa Clara Valley Water District area. On the north side of the creek, I believe the applicant is i~utting in a fence which. they are trying to make attractive so that it can be seen through. I hope that works out well. That will help visually, and it will provide the protection that we had talked about earlier for the creek itself so that people are not getting down into the creek and hurting the bank. Basically, I support what others have said, and I do not need to repeat it. Are there any other comments? " (None) MOTION PASSES: Chaim_ erson Cassel: All those in favor of the motion, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Beecham and Bialson absent. Thank you very much. I~z._S_c, ht_e.ib~: This item is scheduled for the August 4th City Council meeting, but that is dependent upon. the applicant’s providing the city staff with additional information on. the resolution of the Glenbrook access issue. If that information .is.not available within the next few weeks, the item will be scheduled for a later meeting, probably in September. A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 56 07-09-97 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS 6.Planning Commission Review of Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance Framework. Chairperson Cassel: For this item, we have a report from staff. We will make comments on it and perhaps a recommendation. We are not talking about any specific area of town, so we can all participate in this item. We are talking about a general ordinance. Are there any staff comments? ’ Mr, Schreiber: This is a referral from the City Cbun~il. Very briefly, the concept of coordinated area plans has come out of the Comprehensive Plan process. The city made a commitment in the development agreement with the Medical Foundation to undertake a coordinated area plan for the Medical Foundation/South of Forest area (PAMF/SOFA). That coordinated area plan is supposed to be done in approximately 12 months from the time the Medical Foundation is ready to go. They indicated at the end of May that they are ready to go. So our effort is to get started on the process quite expeditiously. As for the specifics of the coordinated area plan, it is essentially a tool intended to be used in areas where the city would like to see some physical change occur. It is a different way of involving citizens, property owners and other members of the community in a planning process. It is a planning process that is economically based in terms of the product being something that can be implemented, and it is a planning process that is intended to create not only written regulations but visual guidelines and regulations so that ¯ participants have a pretty good idea of what they are going to’ get in terms of actual construction. I could talk a lot longer on this, but I will not do so, given the lateness of the hour. We will be pleased to respond to questions. ~o~sel: Debbie, did you want to comment on the Council Review Draft, Section 1, Item A, "The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public heating held on ,1997 has recommended..." Ms. Cauble: Yes, that is an error. This is a matter that is not legally required to come through the Planning Commission. The City Council very much wants the Planning Commission’s input. That did not need to occur pursuant to a noticed public hearing. It is on your agenda, so the public is aware of it, and the public is invited to come. We will be correcting that preamble clause of the ordinance when it goes to council. ’ Chairperson Cassel: We have one member of the public who wishes to speak. Tony Carrasco. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: Madam Chair and members of the commission, I am representing the Chamber of Commerce in my first time before you in that role. Firstly, I want to say that the Chamber of Commerce supports the idea of a plan that would help the Palo Alto Medical Foundation move its process forward. The next series of questions are some concerns that we have. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 57 07-09-97 The first issue is on Page 7, Item (f), the idea of economic and fiscal feasibility. If you look at any kind of property, especially on the scale as intended, different developers have different ideas as to what is economically feasible. We are concerned that you would define it too narrowly. If you have ten developers, I would imagine you would have five different versions of what is economically feasible. So we hope that in drafting this ordinance, you would allow a wide range of interpretations ~s to what "economically feasible" is. Regarding the issue related to involving property owners, we hope you include a section in there that says that two-thirds of the property owners whose properties are going to be affected should agree to being included in an area plan. Thirdly, we are concerned about a moratorium. That is in Section 19.10.060. It does not permit any development until a coordinated area plan is done. We prefer that you delete that reference to a moratorium under that section. We would also suggest that the coordinated area plan that goes before council and through and after this process have a two-thirds majority of the property owners who are affected by this plan to approve such a plan. We would like to suggest some kind of cost limits borne by the property owners that are affected by this plan or who might have to fund such a plan: I can imagine the plan going on for five years and the cost escalating hundreds of thousands of dollars, with that cost being borne by a small group of property owners which could make the property.uneconomic. Lastly, and probably our most important concern, is that some of the issues that a narrow group of people who might vote on a plan might not consider. Those are sub-regional needs and regional needs. As we see now, during the last hearing, you see a small group of people who are interested only in their needs and ignore needs such as the larger requirements of transportation closer to jobs or additional housing. So those are our concerns, and we would like the process to go forward without much delay. Chairperson Cassel: We have before us an extensive staff report. Most of it discusses previous comments that we have made or that the City Council has made. It does not include Planning Commission comments that we have made on coordinated area plans. What I had hoped, with your consensus, is that we would discuss the council review draft on which they want comments made, Pages 1 - 7. We have’been proposing this as a Planning Commission in informal ways for some time. The first thing that Jon and I did when we came on the Planning Commission was to go to the City Council and say, weought to have a coordinated area plan. We had to talk the rest of the commission into doing that. We were a little surprised at the cost, and we have been working on this for a long time. I suggest that we take it page by page and make comments. A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 58 07-09-97 The only item on Page 1 was already corrected for us by Debbie, Section 1 (A) because this does not require a public hearing. Page 2 discusses the purposes of a plan and why we should have one. On Page 3, we get into some issues we may want to discuss. One is Initiation. This could be initiated by the City Council. It could be initiated by us. We could initiate it based on a recommendation from anyone in the public or by staff. The minimum area size must be at least more than one parcel. Commissioner Schink: On the initiation, where doe~ it cover who hires the person that is going to write the coordinated area plan? Mr. Schreiber: It inherently needs to be the city. I aria not sure if that is called out in the ordinance but is a task that the city has to do. Ms. Cauble: I don’t think it needs to be called out in the ordinance. If you want to, you can, but it is like preparing a Comprehensive Plan. We do not let a developer send us a Comprehensive Plan. We hire the consultant. If you would like to specify it, we certainly can. I feel it is implicit but not called out in the ordinance. Commissioner Schink: I feel that that needs to be clear to people, perhaps in an introduction or somewhere, otherwise you are going to get groups of businesses getting together and saying, here’s our guy, and we want you to have him do the coordinated area plan. Chairperson Cassel: Which would then be more of a master plan. Commissioner Schink: In my experience, it is appropriate for the city to take the lead. Chairperson Cassel: Regarding minimum area size, it gives us quite a bit of flexibility. Council Goals and Policies. Here is where it really implies that it is the city doing this. "Council will establish the goals, objectives and a schedule for each coordinated area plan at the time the plan is initiated or shortly thereafter." That means it has to be initiated by the city. Commissioner Schink: I would like to speak to that. It talks about it a little further that the plan should be completed within a 12- to 15-month period. I would emphasize that any plan that takes more than 12 months quickly loses its value. The economies around here change too quickly, and you need to be able to get in and strike fast, so there should be some emphasis on ¯ that. .~: So you like the idea of the 12-month time frame. Commissioner Schink: Yes, I think it should be 12 months. Keep in mind that you are dealing with 12 months for a plan, and then at least another 12 months, at least, for implementation, and A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 59 07-09-97 thenanother 12 months to build out. Then you find you have something that is three years after it was conceived and the whole world has changed. Mr. Schreiber: I would note that within the framework of city consultant selection and hiring procedures, etc., 12 to 15 months is extremely ambitious, especially when you add a CEQA requirement and almost undoubtedly an EIR requirement into the process. With PAMF/SOFA, we are looking at ways to streamline what would normally be a much longer process than 15 months, trying to get it down to something in the range of 12-15 months. I agree philosophically with Jon that if you can do it in 12 months or less, you should try to do it, but between CEQA on one side and the city’s hiring procedures on the other, it is unrealistic to say you can do something like this in less than 12 months. It will be an ongoing struggle to keep it within 12-15 months. We need to say 12-15 months, because if you make the estimated time longer, it will undoubtedly go longer, and I agree that time is of the essence in this type of thing, but it will be a struggle. Ms. Cauble: I would also say that part of the process, as it is laid out, is that the council sets the schedule. So depending upon the scope of a particular project and the market, etc., the council can certainly set a schedule for a particular planning process that says, this one should be done in nine months. If staff can figure out a way to do it and the council thinks.it is critical for that plan, they can set that schedule. Commissioner Schink: I am just hoping that they listen to our advice. My advice to them is that if we want this to be meaningful, we should do it really quickly. PAMF is an unusual circumstance. They have a place to go to, and they are driven by somewhat different economics. It is predominantly residential. In other areas, if we took South El Camino, and if you want this thing to be effective, we need to be able to strike fast while you know what the economics are coming out the back end. Otherwise, it is just not a meaningful document. Chairperson Cassel: Or your fiscal plan won’t work. Your estimate of costs won’t work. Commissioner Schink: It’s just that the economics change. The world changes. Commissioner O_iakian: Yes, I think Jon has hit on something. It is one of the things .that I marked off. Part of the idea behind a coordinated area plan is, you are taking an area that is in desperate need of change, and trying to put something in place that stimulates or ineents people to create that change. What you don’t want to do is to start up a process that gets so drawn out that it just adds to the problem. The sooner you can develop these plans, the better. They are basically targeted at areas that have been difficult to do something with. Commissio er chink:- Let me give you an example. Residential rents have probably gone up 60 to 70% in a two to two-and-a-half year period of time. Ifyouhad started this process, and someone had tried to develop a component that had some residential rentals, the document would A:lPCMins7lpe0709.reg Page 60 07-09-97 be meaningless today because the numbers wouldn’t work. You need to get in and out quickly to make a meaningful document. hanson Cassel: I would like to leave the numbers wide, but keep your advice. We need to think about this as we go through this. Next is Community Involvement. Here they are talkin, g about a Working Group Formation. .~: I did a Kathy Sehmidt on this one. I wrote out my comments ahead of time, but before passing them out, I will give a little bit of the basis for them. I am proposing some changes to this Working Group Formation section for a couple of reasons. I am very enthusiastic about this coordinated area plan approach. We have all been through this before, ¯ and it is a Motherhood and Apple Pie thing to say that you want more people involved in the planning process. Having said that, there is a caveat to it which does not undercut enthusiasm for involving more people.. If we are going to meet some regional needs, there must be an expression of those regional needs in the process. For someone who is a regionalist, there is trouble enough with the bulkanization of nine counties and 100 cities in this region, and we further divolve planning authority down. to 2,000 neighborhoods, and we are going to end up with an even more fractured land use pattern. So the challenge here is to involve more people in the neighborhood while still having that regional, subregional, countywide, eommurtitywide view expressed. That is why I think the Working Group Formation section is so essential. Whoever is involved here is going to condition what the outcome is. So I looked closely at this, and I have rewritten it somewhat. I have included five new thoughts. What it does is to rewrite this section in order to give more clarity to the composition of the group. What I would like to suggest is that the group be roughly composed of approximately half locals and half others, with the locals being residents and local businesses within the coordinated area plan area, and the property owners themselves, even though at times, the " residents and the property owners may not always be on the same page on this thing. I said "approximately equal numbers" because I am not trying to make it a rigid thing. I would like about half of this group to be composed of people representing¯broader community, subregional ¯ and regional interests. I have added to the list included in the Council Review Draft two interests. One is housing and the other is transportation. For example, someone from the Housing Action Coalition of Santa Clara County’s involvement in a couple of these would bring a wonderful perspective to the process. In addition, I added a sentence that says, "As appropriate [leaving lots of wriggle room], the Working Group may also include members of city boards and commissioners" like us, because it may be appropriate to have one planning commissioner detailed over to traek this thing. I added the thought that we add representatives of relevant public agencies, such as the school district or Valley Transit Authority, because having them involved may also produce a better product. So I do not want to be misinterpreted in this suggestion..This is not an attempt to move this process away from the people most directly affected. It is a’suggestion that we enhance the process and inform it with a wider view so that A:lPCMins71pc0709.reg Page 61 07-09-97 local needs and regional needs are met in a process that creates a product the council can then endorse. Mr. Schreiber: I would suggest that as the commission considers this, that you consider the numbers ~that go in the blanks. "The City Council shall appoint a to member working group comprising residents, business and property owners..." Our sense is that if you have a working group that is certainly larger than 15, the problem you are going to run into is a part of the time problem. The education of the group, the logistics of a large group will inherently drag the process out. The draft ordinance talks about a working group ranging in size up to 15 members. The council certainly is looking for your advice on that. To the extent that working group slots are allocated for the subregional and regional perspective (and philosophically, I agree with where Commissioner Byrd is, although I am not sure I would go 50%) but there needs to be a broader perspective, as well as the local perspective. That also impacts the number of people in the group. Again, I don’t think you can get it much larger than 15 and have it work efficiently. Commissioner B.vrd: I played with some numbers there, and although I think it presumptious to add them here, clearly, I was presuming that you are in the 9 to 11 to 13 to 15 range in order to cover different bases. Chairperson Cassel: My concern here is that it depends upon how big your area plan is. Ifyou are talking about an area plan .that invovles three properties in a small neighborhood, you are not going to want all.of these people in that area plan. It just isn’t going to make any sen. se. You are going to involve three property owners. That is probably not going to happen, either. It is probably not going to be small. It is probably going to involve something larger than that. My sense is that most of these area plans will not be that big. It is not like the Comprehensive Plan. I think the SOFA area is probably as big as you will get, although some on E1 Camino are pretty big. Those areas will need more people. ~ Commissioner Schink: I think you would do best to say an 8-12 member group, and if you have issues that extend beyond that, they can break down into subcommittees and talk to their constituencies or their factions. You really cannot function with more than 12 people, and eight is optimal. If you have a large area, you will have eight people who go back and talk to their subgroups. Chairoer on Cassel: Do you want to make it that size? Commissioner Schink: Yes, I would say to appoint an eight to twelve member working group. Those are the numbers I would put into Owen’s language. Commissioner Sehmidt: I think a bottom number could be seven or eight, and I would tend to stay with staff’s suggestion of 15 as a top number. Some of these area plans may indeed have a A:]PCMins71pc0709.reg Page 62 07-09-97 broad interest for a wide variety of groups. I am happy to see this wording that Owen is suggesting tO bring these things to mind when the groups are being formed. It is easy to talk about them now and say, "Remember these things," but it is important to record this broader thinking in the ordinance. I am not entirely sure about the numbers, but if we perhaps say "approximately equal numbers," that would give us ehough wriggle room. I do not know of another good wording that would give enough wriggle room, unless we just change the rlumber to one-third/two-thirds, or two- fifths/three-fifths. Perhaps just leaving it as it is gives enough flexibility. Chairperson Cassel: I would rather take that percentage number out entirely. I am uncomfortable with a couple of things. I do not mind the concept, but I am having trouble with being as specific as saying the Santa Clara Valley Water District Transportation Authority. I am. very uncomfortable with 50% of it having to be that broad. Within the area plan, I have faith that within that task group, you will end up with more regional interests than you believe. Commissioner Schink: It is my experience that I don’t think you will. I think it boils down to the most narrow focus imaginable. You really need to broaden people’s perspective. Chairperson Cassel: I can understand leaving in the school district, but do you want to leave in something as specific as the Santa Clara Valley Water District or Transportation Authority, or do you think transportation is that important? Commissioner Sehink: It says "such as." Commissioner Schmidt: That is just an example. It does not say they have to be a member of the groups. Chairoerson Casse~: Is there consensus to include this instead of the other? (Yes) Have we reached agreement on the numbers? Commissioner Sehink: I have said eight to twelve. Anyone who wants more than 12 can be in. one of those working groups! Commissioner O_iakian: I thought Kathy said as high as 15. Chairperson Cassel: Eight to fifteen? Commissioner Byrd: I like an odd number for voting purposees. You always get a couple of people who are.not present anyway. So seven to thirteen might be workable. Commissioner Schink: That is fine with me. A:lPCMins71p¢0709.reg Page 63 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: So have we agreed upon seven to thirteen? (Yes) And you want to have it read the way it is? (Yes)~ I presume this will be pan of the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schink: I have another comment to make, but I am unsure how it should be phrased or fit in here. It probably belongs on Page 4 (A) under Initial Public Meeting. It says, "Establish the general parameters of the plan." In some ways, this is a part of the implementation problem. It has been my experience in getting groups together that the biggest challenge you face is knowing what you are starting with. The general parameters need to be a very specific inventory of the buildings and properties involved. I know from personal experience that in trying to do some of these things, we discovered a couple of years down the road where some people may have thought their building was only 10,000 square feet, and it turned out to be almost twice as big. That has a pretty dramatic impact on their planning assumptions. So really the first step you need to take in ths process is to figure out what it is you are working with. I don’t know where that fits into this breakdown. Chairperson Cassel: Does it need to be in the initial public meeting, or does that need to be a pan of a list of things to be done? Commissioner Schink: I think it would actually be better if it were under the implementation so that the city, before even initiating a coordinated area plan, would do an actual survey of the area to determine what buildings were involved. It is a tricky issue, as it could be rather expensive. Chairperson Cassel: What you are saying is, you want an inventory. Can wedo this later? Can we get the general gist of what we want? Ms. Cauble: Yes. If there is something’that you do not like in the language, you need to specify what it is so that council can see what you are talking about. But if there are concepts you feel should be added, I don’t think you need to struggle with figuring out the best place to put it. Struggle with the concept, and we will carry that forward and put it in a good place. If you know where you want to put it, tell us that, but you are not obligated to do that. Commissioner Schink: I have no idea. All I know is that-you have typically a $25,000 or $30,000 problem of inventorying, doing the actual physical survey of this basis in order to make the right planning decisions. I think you must be aware that that is the very first thing that OCCurS. Chairperson Cassel: We need a survey of the area involved. Commissioner Schinki A survey of the buildings and the general, physical area involved, such as the number of parking spaces, etc. A:lPCMins7]pc0709.reg Page 64 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: And site plans. Commissioner Schink: Yes, parking spaces, square footages of buildings, etc. My point is that it has to be the very first thing that is done, or you are likely to go in the wrong direction for awhile. Chaim_ erson Cassel: So you are suggesting that it may need to be done in preparation for the initital public meeeting. .Commissioner Schink: Yes, that would be my recommendation. Commissioner Ojakian: This is very similar to the downtown garage survey when we worked on that. That was made up of a small committee of people. That is the first step, the feasibility study. We looked at all of the various parking lots to determine which ones could actually handle the structure, without my going through the whole thing. I would go step by step, which is basically .what we are doing in here. So it is a process we have been through before, and a lot of those guidelines are in place. What Jon is suggesting was one of the first things we did before we could decide where we were going to build the structure. You have to know what is available to build on. So it is fairly similar to what you are talking about, Jon, and I think it is an appropriate way of proceeding. _Chairperson Cassel: Are there other issues we need to cover here? Does this get fitted in at the initial public meeting or in that list of things that are done? Are there other items? Obviously, there will be regular public meetings (B) and a Community Update Forum (C). There would bb some kind of schedule.. Next is (d) Public Hearings, (e) Planning Commission and other board and commission advice and recommendation; (f) Adoption; (g) Amendments and how to make them, and (h) is Fees. This is where we had public input and how it should be done. The idea, I think~ with this is that the city had hoped that what we would do is to pay for this up front, essentially, and then charge a higher application fee at the time it is used in order to cover the cost of the plan. In theory, that should not cost the developer more money, because some of the work he would need to do for his development would already be done. That is the hope there. Apparently, that is working in San Jose when we originally talked about this, although we may need to do a little checking on that. Here it is, Jon. Section 19.10.040 (a) under Contents of a Coordinated Are Plan, "The distribution, location and extent of land uses, including, but not limited to..." in your. plan. That is what would be in the plan rather than the initial data base. Chaimerson Cassel: Do we have other comments? There is a component in here on Transportation and Utilities. There is a component on Finance. There are some conditions. Also architectural and site design objectives. Then we go on to determining the economic and A:[PCMins7[pc0709.reg Page 65 .07-09-97 fiscal feasibility. This is a part of the comments that Jon has been making, that is, we have to do this rapidly or this is not going to work. Also Tony’s comments that this can vary quite a bit, although it certainly has been a stimulus in some parts of town when we have done some economic studies. It has given people a chance to have a sense of what is happening. The environmental review is then done for the whole area and can be applied to each project within it. We have talked about that previously. Here is a question. A Coordinated Development Permit. They want to know if we are interested in doing such a thing and should use that concept. Can someone explain that a little more? Commissioner B_vrd: I have a suggestion on it. To me, that seems over done. I think we can simply make a finding in approvals that follow in the wake of the coordinated area plan. Make a requirement here that findings be made in approvals that follow. To add another whole permit adds another whole layer to the approval process. It is already cumbersome enough. Chaim_ erson Cassel: So your suggestion is that f’mdings be made -- Commissioner Byrd_: I am suggesting that this section be rewritten so that we do not require a permit, but instead, simply require that findings be made in approvals that trail the plan and are based on the plan for specific projects, and that those projects are consistent with the plan. We don’t need another permit. Mr. Schreiber: One observation, as indicated with the asterisk comment for this section, is that this is a conceptual item at this point in time from staff’s perspective. The fundamental objective is to try and avoid having another layer of approval, and instead, remove existing layers of approval so that if a development comes in that is consistent with the coordinated area plan, there would be a simpler way of getting it through the process rather than ha4cing to rely upon . whatever other mechanisms, design review or whatever else, so that that is the basic concept. Whether that be a permit or not is another question, but the concept is to try and simplify the process for the future developer. Commissioner Schink: I think that is°particularly helpful.- From my perspective, I can tell you that if you are working in an area that is beginning to get a fair amount of attention, it just seems to become more and more difficult to work in that area. While you think that maybe ideas are getting out in a more definitive fashion, in fact, .they seem to be more difficult. So you are probably better if you have a new set of rules and can just follow those, and I think it is a good. idea to leave this in. " Chaimerson Cassel: Leave it in and go ahead and pursue the idea? Commissioner Schink: Yes. A:[PCMins7[pc0709.reg Page 66 07-09-97 Chairperson Cassel: We would see how it fleshes out, and then pursue it? Commissioner Sehink: Yes. Ms. Cauble: Do you have any comments you wish to pass on to the council as to whether this would be a staff-approved permit, or is it something that would go through the Planning Commission, or go through the ARB, go through both, or go through neither? If you have no opinion, that is fine, but if you do,-now would be the time to state it. Chairperson Cassel: Well, once you get the area plan approved by the Plartrfing Commission and City Council, then should it not be able to be done by staff?. Is that not the idea? Commissioner Schink: Isn’t that what your little triple asterisk is saying? Chairperson Cassel: ,Jkre you trying to streamline this? Is that what people are trying to say? What we are looking for is, once you have done all of this extra work, are you then trying to simplify the next level? Commissioner Byrd: Someday, I am going to remind you of this. Commissioner Schink: I hope not. Chairperson Cassel: Let’s go ahead and try it, as we can always rewrite this if we have made a mistake. This is a draft, .so we can pursue this idea a little further and see if we can draft an ordinance that will make it look like that. : Commissioner Schi : I don’t think we have let our guard down too often. Not too many people have sneaked through the process. : _Chairperson Cassel: We are not known for letting them sneak through the process in Palo Alto. Commissioner Schir~: Where was the moratorium point that Tony raised? Mr. Schreiber: I think it was in the triple asterisk. Chairperson Cassel: The question is, should we do that? If we have something coming in for development and we know we are going to be doing a coordinated area plan tomorrow, do we proceed now with what is in sight? We have had this happen a lot. We have said, we are doing something and We are .in process, so we cannot stop someone who is applying today for a building permit. A:lPCMiias71PC0709.reg Page 67 07-09-97 Commissioner Byrd: I can tell you that I am working on a project for another city fight now where staff is throwing up a smoke screen, saying we cannot process you because this area really needs a plan. It is grossly unfair to the existing property owner. If you want a plan, as Jon said earlier, move ahead quickly and do the plan, and implement it. But to create this nether world in between seems pretty unreasonable. I don’t think there is going to be a land rush or stampede sponsored by a suggestion that we do a plan with people rushing in to get under the wire before the plan is created. ¯ Chairperson Cassel: We are going to be seeing one fight now. Commissioner Byrd: But one. is not a land rush. The alternative, I can tell you from personal experience, can be unreasonable. Commissioner Schink: I am concerned in that where I felt the great value generally with coordinated area plans would occur along El Camino and some of the areas that have just been stubborn, with obvious examples that we have the wrong zoning in places where we need to come up with a whole new formula. We talked about PAMF, but that is a different situation. I see this document being applied in many other parts of town where we have this stubborn problem. If some pioneer comes forward with a new idea and wants to charge forward ahead of our plan, it is an example we should follow and let him go. So I would discourage you from any language that implies that moratoriums might comeinto play. It confuses and makes more difficult the development of the coordinated area plan. Chairperson Cassel: Other comments from the commission? My tendency is to say we should not have a moratorium. There are certain built-in fights that people have to use their property, and they ought to have that fight. This will just force us to move the plan ahead faster. Otherwise, it is too easy for the plan to get bogged down, leavingbusiness owners stranded. I think we will get caught wishing that had not happened a couple of times, but I think there are certain fights that owners have for their property. I will probably be sorry I said that tomorrow, but that’s okay. That is my general sense. Any other comments? I believe we have completed this. I am glad we have it before us. Mr, Schreiber: It would be good to have a motion to essentially transmit the comments that you have been making for the last half hour. T~_D_.T.LQ~: Commissioner.Schmidt: I so move. ~: By Commissioner Ojakian. MOTION PAS~E~S: ha’ e_~: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners A:lPCMins7lpc0709.reg Page 68 07-09-97 Beecham and Bialson absent. That completes that. Thank you for a nice job, and we are happy to see this going forward. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIR: During the Planning Commission’s deliberation and decision-making for the Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR, staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed in the order of the Decision-Making Guide, although the commission has flexibility to discuss all aspects of the DEIR and Draft Comprehensive Plan in any order and may make decisions on the two documents in any order. No action. Discussion and setting of additional dates for consideration of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I move that we cancel the meeting of July 16 and set a special meeting for Wednesday, July 23 at 7 o’clock. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSE_S: Chaim_ erson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0. Commissioner B_vrd: At your places tonight, you will find copies of a document called "Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area" published by Urban Ecology. Staff was kind enough to buy a copy for each of us and each City Council member. You will find in there lots of the same values that we have expressed for the new Comprehensive Plan. I commend it to you. (Discussion followed as to which commissioners would attend City Council meetings.) Commissioner O_iakian: I am passing out an article by our own Patrick Sigmund from Stanford. He is a transportation analyst for them. It is a good article about providing employee incentives to use alternative means of transportation and how that reduces parking demands in projects. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. A:lPCMinsTlpc0709.reg Page 69 07-09-97 ATTACHMENT #2E 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 implythat 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 staffand 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 understand 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?. Are the public benefits something we need to approve? 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. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates: Good moming, members of the 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 rbgard, what we are doing is looking at splitting the site for R-1 at the back and aPC 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 ~,ou 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. 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 & A ciates: 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 Stemberg, the manuf~icturer 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 fixture, so we would lik~ 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. ]~r.,_Cdtl~g~: One other point. As we discover issues on this property, we fred 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: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 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 upseale 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 that we 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 ears, where do they go? }~aT~:~dg~: 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: IARBVerbMin[ 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 S,an 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. Peterso_n: 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 the 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. ~: 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 eortferenee 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: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.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 vcas 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. ]~g~t.~9.~: 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. ~_.x.c.__~t~L~: I would !ike to clarify your question. Your concern 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 14290ECR. 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 bicyclewise 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 faras 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 faeelift 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. i apologize 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 existingsteps that A: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.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. Poncini: Correct. Ms. Piha: 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 fighting 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: 8o 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 patli connection, and after studying it, as I indicated earlier, staffhad recommended against that eormeetion. So at this point, there Will be an eight-foot-high wall that separates the Cabafia property from the single-family houses. With a utility easement? Yes, with a utility easement. 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 ehi!d~en 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 property 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. Carraseo: 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, since 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 fmal landscape plan when we determine which trees survive. ~: What are you going to do with all those cypresses? . ]~r.~:a~: Mr. Patel has asked if someone wants 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. ~d,~_~,~a~: Was any consideration given to what happens to the runoff waters fromGlenbrook 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? l~d~.~Cll~: No, we have not considered that. At this po~t, I understand from our civil engineers, Brian Kangas Foulk, that the amount of water decreases about 40% or somewhere around that number. ~: There is a median in this area here. Can you describe in a little more detail how this is going to be designed. A: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 619 Page 9 06-19-97 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. That median right now is paved over with asphak. It rams 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 location. 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 isa crushed rock or something like a lava rock surfaced over the top. Mr. Carraseo 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 the 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. .C¢.k.~~sg_~: I riotice that in the bicycle parking arrangements, there 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 ears. . ~d,~P..oI~: 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 pub.lie transit or by bicycle. I think this will be a ease where the bicycle racks will get well used by the employees. Als0,, 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 employeeson 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. can imagine that the most intensive parking needs are going to be daytime, A: ]ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.619 Page 10 06-19-97 perhaps breakfast type social events or fundraising events where it is likely that the hotel 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 arrive 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 available within the distance that a valet can travel. ~: 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: IARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR.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 flhat it is necessary, we are planning on developing a performance plan for parking. (2hairman 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. Carrasco: 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. Chairman 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? I~:,_C.a~72fl~: 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. C21gil:lXlilL~: 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. M.L..C~!~: It has not been resolved yet. As staff has mentioned, it will become before you with the final landscape plan. I think that was your last condition. Whether that final landscape A: I 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 the 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 flee 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 other 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 fred someone to take the cypress. We are going to strategically locate the magnolias and also add the 24-inch 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 in 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 theCity 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? No, I don’t think so, since that is not recommended. hJL.P_.gg!~: 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 Doektor, the.City’s Planning Arbodst, is present this morning to respond to his reeornmendations 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: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 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 t6 unload, you would make a nice sweep around through the parking lot so that the circulation pattem is improved. A!so, 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 right 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 Doektor 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 Doektor: I am Dave Doektor, and I am the Planning Arbodst, 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 shootgrowth. 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 startand 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 matedal~ 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 axe starting to do quite a bit of stocking A: I.ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 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 losh. 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 ~ransplantable 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, ifI 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 Pistaehe. I agree with Frank that it would be nice to see some different types of irees in the plant palette. There is a good opportunity to create different seasonal moods throughout the project. Thank you very much. Mr. Peter.!gr_S.~: 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 theyare not oaks. They are non-natives, but what we are recommending are tree protection easements. A: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR. 619 Page 16 06-19-97 Mr. Peterso_n.; 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 recorhmendation 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. Peterso__n: 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 e0ncem 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. Wilt 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? ~: 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 6ne is not within our j .urisdietion. If we are firfished with questions, I will open the public heating. Seeing no one who wishes to speak, I will return this to the board for our discussion. A: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.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 realize.that the designers are faced with the dilemma of fitting all these ears 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 El Camino. The number of parking spaces and the issue with regard to that, I think the Planning Commission’s eoneem 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: [ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR,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 som,e 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 corner. Certainly protecting as much as possible .any sound from getting through to the side yard is appropriate. If that will do the triek, 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 with 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 contra~t 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 e0neems, 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 yo.u 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 fight direction. My qualms here are that if a few years down the road, we find that it does not woik, 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 right way, and I support what you are doing. On the parking and traffic scheme in the from, 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 opportunity 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. Yoti are going to have a lot of guests from out of town. It is a.perfeet 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 ctncept. 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 opportunity 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 concerned about the lighting fixture. Cheryl is right that a single lamp there would be less than significant. I am not sure whether the one you are proposing in that situation on E1 Camino will even register. They could just speed fight 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: [ ARBVerbMin [ 4290ECR. 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 p,roject 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 ifa 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 thei’e. 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 arbofist and the~hpplicants 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: [ 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 wall. 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 parking. 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 thi§ question solved, but I think it should be reported on. Regarding the public benefit issues, I have never quite figured out how ~0 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. In 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 pubfie 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 14290ECR.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 flae variance findings for exceeding the height limit, approval of the site and building improvements, and attachment of the staff conditions. !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 arbodst 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: How do we dealing with the public benefits? 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 1 (a)-1 and 1 (a)-2. Primarily, the street lighting, the center median landscaping and the gateway landscaping are improvements. ~L_P~: 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: I ARBVerbMin 14290ECR.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._jt Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6Lot 7 Lot 8Lot 9Lot 10 Lot 11Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Dimensions - Ft. 52x117x88x33x 149 53x149x96x 136 60x136x84x 10655 x 106 x 104 x 104 66x117 x97x12460x124x60x 122 60 x122 x 60 x117 56 x117 x 69 x11542 x 115 x 66 x 143 x 66 39x66x 143x69x 115 57 x 115 x 70 x 11960x 119 x61 x120 61 x120x61 x120 55 x 120 x 83 x 117 TOTAL R-1 Public Street R/W TOTAL SITE 141,123 12/19/96 Area - Sq. Ft.Acreage 10,906 0.250 10,333 0.237 7,666 0.176 :,6,008 0.184 9,593 0.220 7,393 0.170 7,266 0.167 7,256 0.167 9,963 0.229 10,166 0.233 7,391 0.170 7,296 0.167 7,295 0.167 7,969 0.183 118,501 2.720 22,622 0.519 141,123 3.240 ATTACHMENT #3A Ag£1rma~Ive Covenant ~ach Owner of Lots I through 10, inclu.,Ive 4 shall preserve, protect, and ~a|.nta~n any and all existing tree~ his or he~ Lot along the Wester~ property llne to the satisfaction of the ArChitectural Committee of the Association. All site and landscaping shall be designed to preserve and prote~t .,said treeS. Notwlthst~nding the above, any t~@s that are .or healthy may be removed ~pon ~he approval of an arborist’s report by said ArchiteCtUral commlt~ee, Any trees that are remove~ shall repla~d ~i~h trees approved by said architectural Cow,tree so as -to ~nsuroprivacy between the residemts o~ th~ s~Ivision known Tract 792~ Green Acres, referred to h~r~in and ~ts ~ through £nc lu s ire., Equitable So~vltudes Sec~0n 3,04. The covenants and restrictions set forth in this DeclaratiOn shall be enforceable equitable servitudes an~ .sha~l inur~ tO ~he benefit of and bind all Owners. These Serw~tud~. may De enforced by ~n¥ 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 zone~ land: increase zoned l~nd in city of ~ 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 andto 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 tower8 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 3: Removal of larg~ asphalt ~arking lot and replacementwith 9pen land for R-I residential use, 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 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. 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 residentia! backyards. At the Caba~a property, new plantings will be compatible with the existing riparian habitat at the Creek. _Creation of ~’gateway" landscape feature for ~ 92~%D_~_~o Palo,nAlto on E1Camino_~ 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 Creekand 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 E1Camino Real. It also furthers the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan gateway concept for the E1 Camino Real crossins of Adobe Creek. Benefit6: Improve relationship of main site entrance driveway ~o Dinah’s Court and to E1Camino ~ By realigning the main driveway into the Cabana 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. ~-efi~t-7: Con~ribu~-fu~f~g for a street .planting and pedestrian .amenities .design study for both sides of E1 Camino..Real from Adobe 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 El 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 alon~ 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. REVISX0NS TO PUBLIC BENEFITS PROPOSED3/26/97 A. Based upon discussions with City staff, an alternate Public Benefit Nu~%ber 7, as described below,would be accepzable to the Applicant: ~nefit 7L. ~dd trees. _ n i~ n" ’-r’ ’ h ~Li~amino Real in .fr~Q/it of the 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 El Camino median strip with trees and ~round cover, and irrigate the median. A planted median will soften the impression of El Camino and would help to announce entrance to Palo Alto. By planting the median, particularly with trees, the visual scale of E1Camino’s. broad width would be reduced. This would also improve the image for all businesses on either side of E1Camino. If one portion of E1Camino 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 a~ 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 tile P C Zone changeproject in any way; thus, the Applicant would want to work c~osely with the City to determine all the parameters for accomplishing the median planting. B. 6d~itional information r r " I" en f’ : (Add light fixtures to each end of the E1Camino Real overcrossins of Adobe Creek,) The Applicant will coordinate with the U~ili~ies Department (Mr. Taha Fattah) for the types of lighting fixtures which are available through ~he City’s stock of acceptable fixtures. In conjunction wi~h meeting with U~ilities, 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 tl~e bridge ends, then the Applicant would purchase the fixtures and have them installed. It is also assumed that the City would be responsible for~aintenance of the ~ixtures as well as the monthly utility cost for the power. Jun-05-97 Og;20A P.02 p~T~ AL~O C~ =._P C ZONE CHANGE REVISIONS & ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC BENEFITS PROPOSED 4/8/9V A. Based upon constraints related to the median in front of the Cabafia, revisions will be required to Public Ben~fSt Number 7, as described below: ~ternate Benefit 7: Addinfill trees, rejuvena~ shrubs ~Dd repai~ 9~.i~tion in the E1 Camino Real median bei~ween the caba~a ~ntersection and Ricky’s driveway. Background: The Applicant previously proposed to planttrees and shz~bs in the median immediately in front of the Cabafia (from the Caba~ intersection South into Los Altos). Subsequent research has revealed several conflicts with being able to plant this median. 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 landscapin~ in the longer median which runs from the Cabafia intersection north to Ricky’s driveway. This median currently has qu±te a bit of landscape, including 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 the 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 existing planting in the median. The shrubs would be selected fromthe 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!ng maintenance 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 in the median, particularly with trees, the visual scale of E1 Camino’s broad width would be reduced. This would also improve the image ~or all businesses on either side of E1 Cam/no. If a portion of El Camino is upgraded as part 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. JUN- 5-97 THU 10:4~ A~ Jun-05-97 09:20A P.03 2 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 inpolicy 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_Qml_m_m~ their new culvert construction under E1Csmino 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 E1Camino Real overcrossing of Adobe Creek) to keep the light fixtures ~ Palo Alto only. Revision to Public Benei~it #8: Place two decorative s~reet light ~ixtures near the b~ at the E1Camino overero~sin~ of Adobe Creek. 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 larger, more decorative light fixture at one end of each bridge rail such that the light fixtures are across ~rom 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 coordinate 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 AM C.Additional Public Benefit: Public Benefit #9: Construct a new Palo ~lto city limits/welcome 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 Caba~a 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 ElCamino 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 Caba5a and Glenbrook Court DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 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) Construction of Glenbrook Court and Reconstruction of Caba~a parking and landscape RECEIVED JUN ~ 1997 Rev. 6/3/97 DATE 9/30/96 done 10/31/96 done 12/19/96 done 3/19/97 done 3/20-4/30/93 4/10/97 done 4/30 (orig) to 6/11 6/11/97 6/1~/97 7/9/97 8/11197 911197 lO11/97 1213197 12/3197 3/3/98 ~11198 s/~198 s/15/98 6/1/98 start 5/15/99 complete STEPHEN W. PLAYER May13, 1997 Mr. Paul Jensen 55 Mitchell Boulevard, Suite 16 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re:4290 E1 Camino Real (Cabana Hotel.) Public Benefits 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, even 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 pared 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 spaeial 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 publi~ benefit package proposed is fair and reasonable 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 fmds 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 El Camino Real center median. The applicant will also add four street light fixtures along the E1 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 standard~.and in a manner that will be most pleasing and enhance the character of the southern entry to the City on El 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 cc: B.B. Patel Tony Carrasco 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 tile Barron Park Association, we. sub- mitted lrecommendations 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 E! 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 shmllow 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 -main renan ce. As a Landscape Architect with over 30 years expe’rience 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 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 Camin0: Sincerely, Ken un i an AKA Inc. 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 CARRASCO &ASSC~IATF--S ATTACHMENT #4C l 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 , 415 322 2288 ,-’FAX 415 322 2316 o 1~.¢,o,¯ ATTACHMENT #5 PARKING PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR CABANA HOTEL, PALO ALTO prepared for Carrasco and Associates DKS A.~,u~ciates April 9, 1997 DKS Associates PARKING.P]~r’~FORJVIANCE PLAN FOR CABANA HOT’E|, This Parking Performance Plim has been prel~red by DKS A.ssoclatcs as part of the condiLions of approval for a Planne, d Community District Amendmem for the Cabana Hotel Subdivision project, located at 4290 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. I:h’~se.d on tile Trad~c and Parking Study for Cabana HowJ (DKS Associates. December 17, 1996) and subsequent surveys ~nduct~ by the City of Palo Alto, the propose, d p~rking supply of 284 stztls would be adequate to accommodat~ hotel and service f~acilities parldng during non-peak and normal business periods, The City of Palo Alto has recomtneodM a pazking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per hotel-guest room to accommodate peak s~ason conditions. The parking ratio of t .5 spac~ per room would require 296 parking spaoes, or 12 more titan the proposed 284 parking spaces. The Cabana Hotel woa]d he, marketed as an up-scale business/corporate center. Pc4~k meeting occupancy times would be 8:(30 ,~.M. to 5:00 P.M. from Monday to Thursday, with nseetings organiz~ to accommodate hotel guests. Social events at the Cabana Hotel would ,be accomrn~at~ during off-peak mccting hours on Fridays and Satur,’lays. There would be m~ anticipated seasonal variation at the Cabana Hot~|, with Decetnb~r as the peak month. In order to accommodate 284 parred vehicles on-site, this Parking Performance Plan has been developed for those pe’dk tim¢g when a potential parking shortfall may tm realized. The elements of this plan consist of th, following measures’ 1.Yalet Parking There are 37 tandem parking spaces proposed as pa~t of the project, In the event of particularly heavy parking demand, valet parking could be tl~e.~ as ~ way of offsetting a potential parking supply deficit. ~xtended hours of valet parking operation shall be implemented during the Cabana Hotel’s peak season. 2.Scheduling of’ Events In order to avoid parking overlap, the management of the Cabana Hotel shall schedg|~ m~tings, events and acti\:i.ties at staggered intervals, This would ~nsur¢ that p~king turnover is maximized., and ~ons and gusts ~av¢ a~lable p~ng at ~1 ~mes during ~riods Of p~k hole] gust r~m ~cu~ncy. DKS Associates 3.On Demand Shuttle Service The Cabana hotel shall op~rat~ a year-roland vdn/shutt)c service for ho~l guests. The shutt]e ~c¢ sh~ provide service to major ~acJlitJ~ in the at~, County Convention Cenler ~d ol~r m~ting facilities. If~ssibl¢, patrons should bc made awar~ of this ~wicc b¢~or~ ~iv~g at the hotel 4,’On-Site Parking Restrictions No parking shati bc permitted in any of she fire and travel lanes at any tim~. This measure would maintain proper on-site circulation for all vehicles, and cnsure emergency vehicles would have continuous access throughout the sile. Off-Site Parking Rest fictions No hotel parging shall be permitted on neighboring residential streets at any time, including Glenbrook Drive, Los Palos Avenue and Pomona Avenue. 6.Submission Or Hotel Schedule For Review Upon request by City ot’ Palo Alto .staff, the C~bant\ Hote}, sh~ll s~;bmLt a schtd~le of events and aclivitios for ~iry review. This measnre is design~ to ¢,~sure that any overlap in p~k periods at t!~e hotd is minimized. 7.Status Reports on Parking Perfommnce Plan The. Caban~ Hotel sha]l have a traffic engineer prepare two status "~’eports on how successful the Parking Performance Plan has b~n, The first rep0~ shal! bc s~bmitt~ to the City of Palo Alto for staff review following the f~rst full peak season of" opera~ion0 or within seven months of PC District adoption, whichever is fi~t. The second stains report shall bc submiRc.d within 18 reunites of PC Distrim adoption. DKS Associates ~ndit~on is ¢x~rienced, C~ty of Pal~ Alto staff,would refer ~h¢ matter Io the ]’lannin~ Commission along with t~omm#nd~ ~ndngency m~sums (for example, s~uriag additional remote/off-site p~)g spa~s) andio~ f~ommended amendments ~ the PC District, ~.nn¢iuslon The measures of this Parking Performance Plan would alleviate adverse, parking and on-sit~ traff’~c and circulation impacts. These measures ate spe.,cif~cal|)’ r~commend~ for the Cabana Hotel Subdivision project so that large meet’inl~s a~d ful| occupa|=cy o~" t~ucst rooms would not rcsu[t ~n a parking Oct3cit, o~ Lra~t’Jc over~owinl~ onto ]oca! streets. -City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Enviromnent 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 lots 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 PaloAlto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415. 329. 2240 Fax 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 f’mal 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, f’mishing 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 AI the requesl of numerous E.uild,ng officials, Building 3tandards offers lhe follo,.ving building valuation data represenlin8 average co~Is ¯ . ~cause ~esidenBal buildings a~e (he mesl common for man~ c~fi0s. ~o ~eneral classes are considered Iot Ihese. ono lot "average" cons~ruclion and the o~her for "g~d." Adjustments should be made for special archkeclural or structural features and the location o~ lhe projecL H£ghor or lower unit cos~s may ohen resu~L ~he unit cos~s are ia:er.dcd to comply v.i~h ~he definhLnn cf ~y~l}on" in Sec~ th.e 1994 Un;fo:m Building Code’~ and Ihus ~al e~lrlcal. ~ng ~nd mecha~cal ~o[k. excep~ as s~ecifically lis~ed below. The unit co~;~ also includ~ lhe conlraclor’s proflL which sh.ou~d~ dc~e~m~n~hon c~ plan cb, eck ~ces (or pro~ecis revie~ ed hy lhe International Conference o~ Buildm~ O~Gcials will be based c.n vak~fion computed Ggures. ~hich ~ete esta~hshed in Apdl Cos: p~r Square" Occupant’/and T)’p~ 1 APARTMENT HOUSES:~ype I or II F.R." ...............$77.20 (Good) S94.G0 T)pe V~Masonry (or Type I11] ................63.20 (Goed) $77.30T%pe V~Wood F~me .....55.50 (Good) $7 Type l~Basemen~ Gara~o 32.50 ~. AUDITORIUMS: Type I or II F.~ .................91A0 Type 1~1-Hour ..............66.00 Type II~N .......................62.60 Type II1~-Hour .............69.60 Typu IlI--N ......................66.00 Type V~l-Hou~ ..............66.50 ~ype V~N ......................6~.00 3, BANKS:~ypu I or I% F.R ................129.00 Type I1~1-Hour ..............95.00 ~ype %H~l-Hou~ .............104.B0 Type V~I-Hour ..............95.00 Type V~N ......................91 4. BOWLING ALLEYS:Type I1~1 .Hour ..............44.40 Type II~N .......................41.50 Type IIl~l -Hour .............4B.30 yp ....................... Type V~I-Hour ..............32.60 ~. CHURCHES:~ype I or I1 F.R .................66.50 ype I~1-Hour ..............64.80 Type II~N .......................61.60 ~ype IH~I-Hour .............70.60 Ty~ Ilion ...........~ ..........67.50 ~ype V~l -Hour ..............66.00 ~pe V~N ......................62.00 6, CONMAL~SCENT HOSPITALS: Type I or II F.R." ...............121.20 ~ype $~-Hou~ ..............64.00 Type Ill--1 .Hou~ .............66.20 ~ype V~%-Hour ..............B1 .~0 "Add 0,5 percent to Io’.al cosl for each star CoU per SquareOccupancy and T~pe foe.t, 7. DWELLINGS: Type V~Ma~onry ............$ 66.~0 _ (G~d~ $84.a~ ~Type ~’,’o~.. 58.70 ~Semi=Einished .............17.50 ~sherl ..~ ...............12.60 (Good} S ] 5.40 .,,. 8. FIRE STATIONS: Type I or II F.R .................99.80 Type II~1-Hour ..............65.40 T~pe II--N ....................... Type III--I .Hour .............71.80 Type IIImN ......................68.80 Type V~I .Hour ..............67.30 Type V--N ......................64.00 9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY: Type I or II F.R .................90.50 Type II~I-Hour ..............73.50 Type II~N .......................70.20 Type I~I~I-Hour .............?6.40 Type III--N ......................73.30 Type V~1.-Hour ..............74.00 Type V--N ......................71.20 10. HOSPITALS: Type I or II F.R." ...............142.30 Type III~I -Hour .............I Type V~I -Hour ..............I 12.30 11. HOTELS AND MOTELS: Type I or II F.R." ...............88.00 Type lll~l -Hour .............~6.10 T~pe III--N ......................72.70 Type V~I-Hour ..............68.20 Type V--N ......................65.00 12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS: Type.l or II F.R .................49.60 Type II--,1-Hour ..............34.50 Type II--N .......................31.60 Type III~I .Hour .............38.00 Type Ilion ......................35.80 Tilt-up ..........., .................26.00 Type V~I -Hour ..............35.70 Type V--N ......................32.80 Cod pet Squa:eOc(upancy an’{ T)pe f~:~l, 13. JAILS: Type I or H F.R ................S138.60Type III~I-Hour .............126.60 Type V~I-Hour ..............95.00 14, LIBRARIES: Type I or II F.R .................101.40 Type II~I-Hour ..............74.20 Type II~N .......................70.h0 Type III--I-Hour .............78.30 Type IH~N ......................74.40 Type V~I-Hour ..............73.70 Type V~N ......................70.60 15. MEDICAL OFFICES: Type I or ~ F.R." ...............104.00Type I1~1-Hour ..............80.30Type II~N .......................76.40 Type II1~1-Hour .............84.50Type Ilion ......................B~ .00Type V~I-Flour ..............78.60 Type V--~ ......................75.~0 16. OFEICES": Type I o~ I1 F.R." ...............93.00Type II~1-Hour ..............62.~0Type II~N .......................59A0Type I11~1-Flour .............67.40Type Ii1~ ......................64.~0Type V~I -Flour ..............63.00~... 59.40 O~en C~r~n~ .................14.40 lB. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:Type I or II F.R." ...............107.50Type II~I-Hour ..............87.00Type II~N .......................83.30Type III--~-Hour ............." -9D.40Type Ilion ......................87.30Type V~I-Hour ..............82.~0Type V~N ......................79.B0 19. PUBLIC GArAGeS:%,pe I or II F.R.’ ...............42.40Type I or II Open ParkinB" 32,00 %.pc ll~N .......................25.00 T~?e III--I-Hour .............32.20%’pc lll-N ........................28.50%,pc V~1 -Hour ..............29.39 over lh:ee."’D~:ducl 20 percent for shell.only build;nss. 20, REST:\U R,.\~T~: Type II1--1-Flour .............$ ~-1.9,3 Type III--N ......................82.00 Type V--I-Flour ..............77.80 Type V--N ......................74.70 21. SCHOOLS:Type I or II F,R .................97.00 . Type II--]-Hour ..............~6.00 "]~’pe III~I-l-lo~r .............70.80 Type III--N ......................67.30 %’pc V--I-Hour ..............66.20 Type V--N ......................63.20 22. SERVICE STATIONS:Type II--N .......................58.60 Type lll~1-Hour .............61.00Type V~.-~I -Flour ..............52.00 Canopius .........................24.40 2:3, STORES: Type I or II F,R." ...............71 .B0 Type H--I-Hour ..............44.00 Type II--N .......................42.B0 %’pc IH~;-Flour .............53.,;0 %,pe Ilion ......................50.20 Type V~.Hour ..............45.00 , T~p, \ ~N .....................41.50 24. THEATERS: Type I or II F.R .................95.70 Type III~I-Hour .............69.70 ’. Type Ilion ......................66.30 Type V~I-Flour ..............6S.60 Type V~N ......................62.00 2~. \VAREHOUSES’": ,%,pe I orll F,R .................43.00 Type II or V--I -Hour .......25..50 Type II or \t~N ...............2.1,00 Type III~I .Hour .............29.00 Type Ilion ......................27.7(3 EQU IPMENT I AIR CONDITIONING: I Commercial ................ I Residen’,ial .................3.0( SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ...... 1.13( °"De, duel 11 pe:cer, I for mini-,,.;arfhouse.~. REGIONAL MODIFIERS The following m.=.ddiers a:e recommended for use in coniuncHon ’,vi;h the building valuation data. In addi:ion, ce~laln local conditions may regulre fur:her modifications. To use lhese modifiers, merely muhlply lhe listed cost per ~uare fOOl by lhe appropriate regional modifier. For example, |o adiust lhe cost of a Type III One~hcur hotel bullhag of average conslrucllon for l~,e Iowa area, select Regional Modifier 0.80 and unit cost from valualion data, Eastern U.S,Modifier Conneclicut .....................0.95 Delaware ........................0.84 Dislricl of Columb!a ........0.137 Florida .............................0.74 Georgia .................: .........."0.68 Maine ..............................0.81 ,Maryland .........................0,79 Massachusetts ..................0.94 ~ew Hampshire ..............0.82 New Jersey ......................0.91 New York New York Cily ............1.16 O~her ..........................0.87 North Carolina .................0.70 3B 0.80 x 76.20 -- $61.00 (adjusled cost per squa:e foe:) Easlern U,S. (coal.)Modifier Pennsylvania Phdad_,phla ................0,96Other ..........................O.B3 Rhode Island ....................0.94 Soulh Carolina .................0.70 Vem~onl ...........................0,80r, i "\~r8 ma ............................0.73 \~,esl \ ~r~n{a ...................0.62 Cenlral U.S. Alabama .:. .......................0.72Arkansas ..........................0.70Illinois ..............................0.87Indiana ............................0.82 lo;;’a ................................O,OO Kansas .............................0.74 Cenlral U.S. (cont.)ModifierKentuc$.:¥ ..........................0,77Louisiana .........................0,78Michigan ......................... Minnesota ........................0.8,3M.ississippi .......................03Missouri...........................0.7~Nebraska .........................0.75Norlh Dakola ...................0.80 Ohio ................................0.~,0 Oklahoma ........................0.71 South Dakola ...................0.78Tennessee ........................0.72 Texas ................................0.7.1 Wisconsin ........................0.85 Western U,S..Modifier Alaska ..............................1.30 Arizona ............................0.82 California ~ ! o,/,n~r::~ Colorado ..........................O.B I H~v/aii .............................1.1~Idaho ...............................0.~ Monlana ..........................0.79 ~evada ............................O.&9 ~ew Mexico ....................0.76 Oregon ............................ Ulan .....................~,,.~;:,..0.75 , . ,~ ~0.88~%~shm~lon ...................... ~Vyonfin~ ........................0.80 BUILDING srA~DAP, DS/July-A~;gusl I GLENBROOK COURT LLC 120 Hamilton Avenbe, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT #6A May 23, 1997 Mr. Kenneth R. Sehreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Subject: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreementfor Glenbrook Court Dear Ken: Glenbrook Court LLC are in agreement with your "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Agreement for Glenbrook Court as outlined in your letmr 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. ae To the investors at preferred prices (3-6 lots) To the managing members: at cost (2 lots) To the present owner: at cost (! lot) To the~publie 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 BlVIR fee before the Final map. We hope that condition #4 can be modified to give us the flexibility to pay the BMP, ~fee at any of three times: Before Final Map At transfer of Title of each 1o~ At the time a Building Permit is applied for on each lot We hope giving the LLC the fle-,_ibikit3’ ~ Ny th,~ BMR ~e at m~- of these t.twee times ,~-,.es the city adequate controls and as~narznce :5.z: the ,~sess~e. _=ee w£ ;_he paid_ Ptease let me know if our cash =’o,a se~a~ can ~e ~o~.~ withn cit?." processes. Sincerely, Tony AIA Member Member ce:\wpdocs\admins\glenbmo ATTACHMENT #7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.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 Jansen, 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 clo: 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 13/97]96-EIA-32 196-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 1 ENVIR ONMENTA 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: 134,386 sq.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) A required minimum of 575 permanent off=street parking stalls. 2) Landscaped and screened property setbacks of 10 f.eet (northern) and 30 feet (rear and south). 3) No signs shall be permitted on the top of the hotel structure. a:\4290ecr.eia [3197]96-EIA-32 (96oCPA-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 Creak (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 ripariar~ 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 (JZ~IB_tOLtI~ ¯ " 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 s:\4290ecr.eia [3197]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ’ 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE CI IS T 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 Visitore/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. o 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 [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Camino Real. This iandscal~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 1201277 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 ¯ 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/business" 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-ZCo13, 96-SUB-5) The proposed subdivision of the rear (western) parcel would create 14 single- a:\4290acr.eia [31871 96-EIA-32 196-CPA-4, 96=ZC-13, 96-SU~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 c~)nvert 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~)’oe 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 [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-zc-i3, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM fees to comply with the BMR requiremertt. A draft agreement has been prepared and is currently being negotiated 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 from 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 (P/armed 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 100 feet (maximum 50 foot height under PAMC Section 18.68;110(c)). 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: a:\4290~cr.eia |3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oVo3} .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 (~Greenacres 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:\4290ecr.eia |3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 95-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 outfalls 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 out’falls 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 Geological Problems Water Air Quality Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards ~oise Public Services Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance a:\4290~cr.aia [3197] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA,,4, 96-ZC-13, 96,-SUB-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 a 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, inclgding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project; Pa~JI Jansen ~ Project Planner" ¯ X Date Kenneth R. Sc’hreiber Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a:\4290acr.eia [3197] 96=EIA-32 196-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-Vo3) IO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact impact J l..LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with. general plan designation or zoning?28, 2i, 3a, 5, 11, 12, 14, 22 X 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) 2C, 2h 11, 12, 14 1, 3a, 14 Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact 1, 2a, to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 3a uses)? .. X X X Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 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? 1, 2f, 3a, 18 2b, 14 "2b, 14. 1, 2b, 14 X Would the proposed result In or expose people to potential impacts Involving: X b) Seismic ground shaking? X a:\4290ecr.aia |3/97] 96-EIAo32 196-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96oARi~168, 97=V-3) 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significsnt Impact 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. Would the proposal result in: 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 such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or.other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e}Changes in currants, 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 Joss of groundwater recharge capability? 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 14, 16 1, 2d, 3f, 4a 1, 30, 16, 20 I, 14, 16, 20 1, 16 1, 16 1, 14, 16, 20 1,14 X X X X X X X X X a:\4290~cr.eia [3197] 96-EIA-32 196=CPA=4, 96-ZC-13, 96~SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues Potentially I Significant Unless Mitigation Incoqx)mted Less Than Significant Impact 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, 2O 1, 14 1, 14 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2d, 3e, 4b, 16 2d, 3e, 4b, 16 c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? 2d, 3e, 4b, d) Create objectionable odors?2d, 4b, 16 X 6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the pmp~ml result in: e) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 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? ¯ 2e, 3b, 8, 9, 14, 19 1, 6, 14, 16, 19 1, 5c X × X X X X X a:\4290ecr.eis [3197] 96-EIA-32 196-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96QSUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source I Pote’ntie.y Significant Issues Potentiat|y Significant Unless Mitigation Incoq~orated Less Than Significant 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, 8 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,X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,14b, animals or birds)?14c, 14d 1, 10, 11, 13 14c, b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities |e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 1, 10, 13, 14, 14c, 15 c) 1, 3k, 14, 14c d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?1, 16 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the prop~: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?2d X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3197]96-EIA-32 (9S-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96oSUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? x Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigabon 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? 1, 2d, ’3f, 31, 4a 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, ’chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The c~eation 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?~ 3h 3h 3h 3h 1, 16 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 2d, 3d, 4c, 16 2d, 3d, 4c, 16 11. X PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following ames: a) Fire.protection?6, 16, !7 b) Police protection?1.6, 17 c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 2h, 2i, 7, 17 1, 17 X X X X a:\4290ecr.eia [3197] 96-ElA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 15 X X X x X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than ’ Iml~mtSignificant 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?1, 16,X 17 b) Communications systems?1, 16,X 17 c)Local or regional water treatment Or distribution facilities? 1, 16,X 17 d) Sewer or septic tanks?1, 16,X 17 e) Storm water drainage?1, 16,X17 f) Solid waste disposal?1, 16,X17, , g) Local or regional water supplies?1, 16,X17 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?1 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: ,2c, 11, 12, 14, 15 1, 2C, 11, 12, 14, 16 1, 11, 12, 14, 16 X X X a:\4290acr.eia [3197]96-EIA-32 (96oCPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96oARB-168, 97oV-3) issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Significant Issues PotentialJy Significant Unless t~,~igation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact a) Disturb paleontological resources?X impact b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 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? 14, 16 14, 16 1, 3m, 14, 16 1, 31, 3m, ,14, 16 3m, 14, 16 1, 3h, 6, 14 1, 3h, 6,14 23 23 X X X X 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 iissues 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 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 projecL 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 Field Investigations/Site Visits on December 19, 1996 and January 2, 1997 a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]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 Impact 2 4 5 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 B-2, PM Peak Hour Level of Service c. Map B-3, Palo Alto Bicycle System d. Map, B-4, Noise Exposure Contours e. Map B-5, Air Quality Contours and Sources f. Map B-60 Consolidated Geotechnical Constraints g. Map B-7, Flood Hazards h. Map B-90 Hazardous Materials Holders I. Map B-10, Public Schools j. Map B-11, Open Space and Recreation Facilities k. Map B-12, Sensitive Biological Resources I. Map B-13, Historic Resources m. 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 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ~~ a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]19 ~ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 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. i 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 Consultin.g 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. Tree Inventory, Golden State Developers, Inc., prepared by Ray Morneau, Arborist; 1994 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 AREL 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 memorandumto Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote, from Paul Jensen, 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. Answers substantiated through the responses I~rovided in items #1 - #22 a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 2O 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES la,i LAND USE AND PLANNING .1 b,l a - Would the proposal conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? le lb o 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 series of two-stow building elements, which contain guest rooms, dining, conference and accessory facilities. One, eight stow 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. Curren~ height limits under the PC District 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 area (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 eurrent zoning and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive’Plan, any development, and/or redevelopment of the 10.1 acre site requires a review for compliance with the.following: a. PAMC Section 16.48 (Architectural Review) b. El Camino 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: The project would result in a 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 Camino Real area (from 0.28:1 to O.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 the PC 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. The project would create a new 3.24 acre parcel (western) for a single-family subdivision of 14 lots. The project would result in a rezoning of this 3.24 acres to R-i (Single-Family Residential) District and 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 District 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-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 2! I a, lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impact - Continued d. From s land use standpoint, the continuation of the hotel use on the eastern parcel would be consistent wi~h the property frontage along E! Camino Real and contiguous, non-residential uses to the east and southeast. The proposed singieofamily 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 Paio Alto Comprehensive Plan. A summary of this review is provided as follows: Land Use Element 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 E! 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. b. t~.U~LELUZ~JZt Policy I Maintain the general iow-densiW 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 configurations of contiguous single-family residential neighborhoods. Policy 3 Policy 7, 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 Drive. 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 to housing where appropriate. Response: Consistent. A portion of this site 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, 97-V-3) 22 lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impact - Continued b. H u in I nt continued 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. Co Employment Element Policy 2 Encourage the construction of more housing primarily 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 rezoned to accommodate additional housing. Transportation Element 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 Camino 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 hotel entrance driveway at El Camino Real. e. S.S~_chools and Parks Elemellt Policy 4 Provide park sites of different sizes and types to respond to the needs of a diverse population, including park-like natural areas, linear trails, and craekside systems. Response: Partially consistent. Provisions for a 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 trail/path for public, pedestrian or bicycle use along the creek. An alternative site plan, which proposes a pedestrian/bicycle 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 design does not present safe access for pedestrians and cyclists as is it shares paved area with a narrow, one-way vehicular .driveway.- - 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ~ a:\4290ecr.eia [3197]23 =~ lb, le LAND USE AND PLANNING - CONTINUED Impacts (continued): Urban Desian Element Policy I 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 Policy 7, 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) Program 23 Strengthen gateway identity. Plant groves of tall 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 riparian low shrubs and groundcover. go Environmental Resources Elemerlt 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 and replanting/transplanting of existing trees. However, no details have been 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 creek. O~en Space Element - Policy 10 Utilize riparian 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 along 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 driveway 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. 96-EIA-32 |96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) a:\4290ecr.e~a [3/97]24 ~ ! 1 a,i LAND USE AND PLANNING (CONTINUED) 1 e Impacts Icontinued) h. O enS ce I m in 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 (seeresponse 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. 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96=SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) a:\4290ecr.eia [3t97]25 ~: 3b & 3f iGEOLOGIC 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 soft 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 1-4, with 1 being the least constrained and 4 being the most constrained. *The subject p~operty 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. 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 outfall 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 constFuction of the single-family residential subdivision and the improvements to the front (eastern) parking lot for the hotel facility. The primary grading activity involves the removal of the asphalt parking lot surface in the area of the proposed residential subdivision. The asphalt would be removed, crushedand 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-significant 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 facility/parcel 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 material for the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, it shall be placed only in areas that ere 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, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3} 26 ,4b,WATER (DRAINAGEIHYDROLOGY) 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 quality? 4d - Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Setting: The subject property is fairly 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 Palo 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 100-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). During 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 feet 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 Project 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 perking lot and =sheet-flow= spillage onto El Camino Real. The DEIR further notes that the culvert design will be a cooperative effort betweenthe City of Palo 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 resurfacing of the existing hotel facilities pa~king lot. According to BKF, engineers (See Attachment #8)the project would result in the following: ao 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%. c.The majority 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 stdp 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 [3197]96-EIA-32 (96oCPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 27 4b, 4c, 4d WATER (HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE) - CONTINUED Impacts IContinued): The following improvement measures are recommended by Brian, Kangas and Foulk, project engineers, regarding site drainage and hydrology: 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 during 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 along the 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 ouffalls, use of rock rip-rap, rather than sacked concrete dp-rap, is recommended at the stormwater 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-rap is not acceptable to the City. A more suitable biotechnical measure (e.g., planting materials) 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 less-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 ouffall location. 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. Improvementspresented in these plans shall include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek. Detailed drainage calculations shall be submitted with the filing of a 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 outfalls 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 dp-rap for erosion control shall not be permitted. Ultimate design and materials for ouffall erosion control shall be determined based on consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. a:\4290ecr.eia [’3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB~5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 28 AIR QUALITY 5d - 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 ofW. Chadeston-Arastradero Road/El Camin, o Real = carbon monoxide intersection hotspot b. Intersection of San Antonio Rd./Et 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 quality impacts are expected. While the hotel facilities (guest rooms, conference facilities, restaurant) would generate vehicle trips/traffic, 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 and other temporary odors dudng grading and construction. These impacts would be primarily associated with the movement of dirt during 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. Watedng areas of exposed earth surfaces dudng the construction and grading process (eady morning and early evening). b. Avoiding overspilling of trucks so that .potential spillage in the public dght-of-way..is minimized. The contractor shall be required to dean up all spillage in the 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 matedal be transported via El Camino Real; no routing of matedal 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 ~- 68, 6b, 6d, 6e & 6f TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 6a - Would the proposal result in increased vehicle tdps 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 barders for pedestdans or bicyclists? 6f - Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemat!ve transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? Seffing: 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 serving the project site includes El Camino Real (SR82), Arastradero Road/West Charleston Road, Dinah’s Court and Glenbrook Ddve. A brief summary of each roadway is provided as follows: a.El Camino Real (SR82)- provides direct access to the project site from the east; a six-lane arterial road with separate left-tum 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-We~t Charleston Road- located approximately 114 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 dudng the PM peak hour. Dinah’s Court- located immediately east of the main hotel driveway; a local two-lane roadway serving a sedes 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. Glenbrook Ddve - located immediately west of the subject property; a two-lane local residential street extending westward to Pomona Avenue. Glenbrook Ddve connects to Arastradero Road via Pomona Drive and Los Palos Avenue. e.San Antonio Road (Mountain View~ - located approximately ½ 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. Existina On-site Circulation and ParkinqExisting access to the site is from El Camino Real. This access is provided by two driveway connections with El Camino Real. The main access ddveway 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 comer of the site and provides two-way access to/from El Camino Real. The northern ddveway has historically 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 stdp prohibits public, vehicular access. Emergency vehicle access is permitted over this stdp of land. Vehicle access through the property is provided by a ddveway system that cimulates around the site. A one-way driveway provides egress from the rear parking lot to the front lot. This driveway borders the Adobe Creek and has a minimum width of approximately 15 feet. The existing hotel facility is developed with 520 on-site parking spaces. The existing parking meets the minimum parking requirements of Chapter 18.68of 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) 3O 6b, 6d, 6e, & 6f TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - CONTINUED Impacts: Pro)eel Traffi~ - trip oeneration 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 po!nts to El Camino Real. E, xisting traffic from the hotel facility was assessed and assumed in the Citywide Land Use and .Circulation. Studv. A Summary; City of Palo Alto (t990). 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 trips and approximately 14 new trips during the peak hour. The subdivision is designed as an extension of Glenbrook Drive. 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 approximetely seven trips in the AM peak hour and seven trips 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 traffic 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. .0n-site Circulation 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 a 90 degree driveway intersection with El Camino Real, which would require modifications and an extension to the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. The design of this ddvewayaccess 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 St;=ta Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Glenbrook Ddve 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, Title 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 Ddve" 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 Drive is a 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) and’ the Greenacres homeowners may result in a private ownership of the non-access strip. 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ~ a:\4290ecr.eia 13/97]31 j 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (CONTINUED) Impacts (continued): Should it be determined that the non-access strip be maintained in pdvate ownership, it would ~ be appropriate to dedicate the cul-de-sac as a public street. If pdvate, the cul-de-sac will have to be owned and maintained by the 14 property owners within the proposed residential development. .On-site Parking for Hotel Use ’ 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 1.44 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 #9B 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 modit’~ed 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 this hotel facility. DKS Associates has concluded that, based on surveys of similar-sized hotels with conferencetmeeting moms, 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 parking 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 Lisa 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 =Corporate-Business" hotel. The business statement establishes the following variables and parameters 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. b=A mid-sized hotel contains 150-350 guest rooms, 5,000-15,000 square feet of confarence/meeting morn space~ a 100 seat mstaurent and bar, that is pdmadly marketed to serve the needs of the hotel guest. Likewise, the conference/meeting space is m~rketed primarily for use of business guests of the hotel and is not sized for large conventions. c.While 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. 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-Vo3) a:\429Oecr.eia [3/97]32 ~ 68, 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (CONTINUED) Impacts (continued): The perking and occupancy sur~ey 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. While 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. VVhile the parking ratio of 1.25 - 1.44 spaces per guest room is adequate, it is recommended that a 1.5 sp’ace/guest room ratio be provided during the seasonal/peak period demand. In order to ensure that parking overflow is minimized and/or controlled during 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 altemating meetings/banquets during peak pedods of hotel occupancy, mandating valet parking and a hotel van/shuttie 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 wdtten authorization or proof of an approved permit for - construction activities within the Caltrans right-of-way, encroachment permit 6.2 The name of the residential cul-de-sac (Glenbrook Court) shall be changed to Glenbrook Drive. This name change is necessary to minimize confusion and minimize service 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 dudng the peak hotel season, when potential for parking overflow is likely to be expedencad. The performance 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 vanlshuttle 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 Distdct 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., secudng remote/off-site parking spaces) and/or recommended amendments to the PC District. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-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, dpadan or vema! pool) ? Setting: The DEIR for the Proposed Villaqes 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 ripadan 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 during site investigations for the DEIR~ C=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, arbodst 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 that are 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. 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 thisportion of Adobe Creek. Impact: The development of 14 new single-family residential dwellings and continued hotel use would result in substantial removal of non-native/omamental trees but minimal impacts to Adobe Creek and wildlife resources. Project impacts are summarized as follows: The amount of existing pavement would be significantly reduced in the area of the proposed single-family residential development. Therefore, this portion of the project would provide additional area for planting and new tree growth. 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 ouffall would result in minimal impacts to the existing vegetation and slope banks along the creek. The project would result in the removal of approximately 116 trees and possibly an additional 30 trees. Although the . proposed tree inventory/removal 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 [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V=3) ~ 34 7d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - CONTINUED impact - Continued d. The DEIR for the Villaaes at Creekside Project, 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 "fai,~ or "better" condition warranting preservation and protection (trees #050, 05t, 052, 141, 16t, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 174, 181, t83 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 removed. 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 tree/creek 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 storrnwater drainage outfalls into the Adobe Creek shall be designed to avoid impacts to or removal of native and/or dparian trees. All tree removal required for the installation of these ouffalls shall be limited to non-native/ornamental trees and identified on the improvement plans submitted ~ with the final subdivision map. A replanting program shall be require for all non-native tree removal. 7.2 All construction and grading activities proposed within Adobe Creek may be subject to approvals andlor permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water Distdct (SCVVVD), Califomia 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 ihe project sponsor submit, with the Final Subdivision Map, a wdtten determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard streambed alteration agreement has been executed for authod.zed 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 ouffall 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 fromthe SCVVVD, for all construction and grading work within the Adobe Creek and/or properties owned by SCVWD. 7.3 Prior 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-CPAo4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) 35 7d BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - CONTINUED Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 7A 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 & Re. The provisions shall prohibit tree remova! 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 westemboundaries 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, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3| 36 I0== & 10b NOISE 10a o Would the proposal result in an increase in. existing noise levels? lOb - Would the proposal resuff in the exposure of people to sever noise levels? Setting: The project is bounded by El Camino Real on the east, a major artedat roadway that cardes 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 Ddve and Los Palos Ddve, 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 (Wagstaff 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. Westem 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: a. 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. b. Continued operation of the h~tel facility includes use of the northem two-way ddveway for access to the rear parking lot and delivery vehicles. Residents living north of the hotel facilities (Redwood Condomir!iums) 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 !) a valet parking program is being proposed (which would reduce hotel guest access to the parking lot dudng peak pedods of hotel operatioh) 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. c.The rear, westem 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 special noise attenuation measures are required. Furthermore, the proposed single-family development would be compatible with the existing residential use pattem in the surrounding neighborhood. The additional, proposed residential traffic from the project on Glenbrook Ddve would result in less-than-significant noise impacts. d.The project would result intemporary 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 the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, limit constructiDn 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~a" - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in e need for new or altered govemmenta! services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance of public facilities (including roads), or other government services? Setting: The following services are currently provided to the site by the City of Palo Alto: a.Police - 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.~ - The Fire Department maintains a total of eight fire stations, which house a total of eight fire companies. The project site is located within the response district of the Arastradero Station, located within one mile of the site at 600 Arastradero 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.Water- The City has an assured supply of 18,415 acre feet per year of water from the San Francisco Water District (water pumhased 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: ao Police - 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 servicewould 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 project does not propose to develop a public, Pedestrian/bicycle path along the creek and would therefore have no impact on creekside security. Fire protection -The 14 new single-family residences would result in an incremental increase in service calls for fire 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. Alternative mitigation measures are presented below to address cumulative impacts. The Glenbrook Court cul-de-sac’design, 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 maneuvering. 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 automaticspdnkler system. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) 38 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 facilit3, in which water supply is already accounted for). However, there is an adequate supply of water to serve the residents. The City of Palo 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.Wastewater - 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. Schools - 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 t6 offset cumulative impacts on police services. The preferred alternative measure is option =c," which is consistent with the mitigation measures required for other recently-approved development projects in Palo Alto. 11.2 The following are alternative measures for mitigation of Fire Department service impacts 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 Department is currently researching possible systems and/o.r fee schedules for mitigation of anticipated cumulative impacts; or c. Rely on cumulative contributions to the general fund to offset cumulative impacts on fire suppression and emergency medical services. Add additional staff, as needed, on an annual district-wide basis. The preferred alternative measure is option "c," which is consistent with the mitigation measures required for other currently-approved development projects in Palo Alto. 11.3 Require, as a condition of Tentative Subdivision Map approval, that all new development on the proposed single- family residential lots be subject to PAUSD school impact fees. The fees shall be determined by the Disffict, prior 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 ProDosed Vilia(~es at Creekside Project, Wagstaff and Associates (1996) presents the following information on the setting of the property and existing improvements: The project site is located on El Camino Real, at the southerly edge of the City of Palo Alto. The El Camino ReallAdobe Creek bridge, 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 southem "gateway" to the City of Palo Alto. Urban Design Policy 7 and Program 23 state, "Strengthen gateway identity. Plant groves of tall trees and emphasize bridge structure and entrance at Palo Alto’s south gateway on El Camino Real". b.The developed site contains three, primary visual elements. The prominent element of the site is the eight story 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, omamental (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 southem boundary of the site. The channel banks, which are heavily vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs, form a dpadan 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: The project would result in the removal of 116 trees. Most of the tree removal would occur in the front (eastem) 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 rowof Magnolias located along the entry 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 parking lot (as a result of grading and site cleadng 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 stdp along the western 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 materials). The preservation of the trees within these banks would continue to provide moderate to maximum screening of the hotel facilities and the single-family residential development from adjacent residential properties. a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97] 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97-V-3) ~ 13a-b I AESTHETICS - CONTINUED Iimpact (continued): d. The project would result in the construction of new roof features on the stair tower and penthouse elements of the i existing hotel structure. These new roof elements would introduce metal-seam material on hip features and the use of cement piaster (stucco) for siding and trim 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 Drive, 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 ripadan 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 vadety 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 easementsbe 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 trees 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 to depict the proposed hotel structure and site improvements 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). VVhile the general use of the site is not changing and building features and footprints would remain unchanged, the change in character would be substantial due to the combination of the following factors: ao The significant removal of the mature, omamental trees in the front (eastern) pa~king lot (Element #2). VVhile 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. 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. Likewise, 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 addressing Biological Resources and recommended mitigation measure 7.3). Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-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 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 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-ARB-168, 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 archeologica! resources (Reference: Paio 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 preparation of the DEIR - Villages at Creekside (Wagstaff and Associates, published January 1996). A sumrpary of Holman and Associates findings was published in this DEIR, which reads as follows: ~lhe 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 ComprehensivePlan 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 of 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 less-than-significant levels: 14.1 Dudng 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. 96-EIA-32 (96-CPA-4, 96-ZC-13, 96-SUB-5, 96-ARB-168, 97oV-3) a:\4290ecr.eia [3/97]43 15a-b RECREATION 15a - Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional pa~s or other recreational facilities? 15b - Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? Setting: The subject property is located at the southern edge of the City of Palo Alto. The closest neighborhood parks in the vicing" 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 yardarea 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 Plan- 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 dpadan 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- PolicY4: Provide park sites 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 (Sheets 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 not 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 westem property boundary, bicyclists and pedestrians would utilize Glenbrook Court and the new sidewalk through the residential subdivision. A joint path would continue between proposed residential 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, shadng 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 altemative 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 altemative pedestrian/bicycle path has not been designed for maximum public safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and does not provide the best opportunities for m.aximum 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, 97-V-3) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT VVE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED ~:~-~[’-~ "-" ~:~"~ .., PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPER’I~," KNOWN AS 4290 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE 70 IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signatur~Date ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: Attachment #2: Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #SA: Attachment #5B: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Attachment #6: Attachment #9A: Attachment #9B: Attachment #10: Attachment #11: Attachment #12: Vicinity/Location Map Site PianNesting 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 C’arrasco & 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 Brian, 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 Lytle and 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, 96oARB-168, 97-V-3) 45 ATTACHMENT #! Vicinity/Location Map AT ~ AC,HMENT #2 Site Pian/Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet A-3) & Alternative Site Plan with Bicycle!Pedestrian Path (Sheet A-4A) i! |lll#llil!!liit ! 11i lll!!!!!lll,!!t’ .< A~ ~ACHrv~LN ~ #3 ORDINANCE 2006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY FRONTING ON EL CAMINO P~EAL AND KNOWN AS "EL CAMINO REAL ANNEXA- TIO~ ’NO. 3" AND REPEALING OPd)iNANCES 1814 AND 1923 The Council of the City of Pale Alto does ORDAIN as follows: Section i. The Development Plan consisting of Palo Alto Cabana-Ground Floor Plan, Exhibit A; Palo Alto Cabana-Mezzanine Flq4r Plan,.Exhiblt B; and Palo Alto Cabana showing Typical Floor Pl~n~ Southeast Elevation, Typical Lanai Suite and Typical Motel Room, Exhibit C are attached hereto and incorporated herein are hereby approved subject to Section 2..hereof. Section_~. The entire plan shall be subject to the following conditions: :The fo~%owlng plans are a part of’the "Development Plan" -.and all hses and development shall be subs.tantially in . accordance therewith: PALO ALTO CABANA-GROUND FLOOR PLAN with amendment showing auditorium, sea=ing capacity 1,000, i0, 089 sq. ft., ceiling height to conform to auditorium specifications. PALO ALTO CABANA -MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN PALe ALTO CABANA showing: Typlcal Floor Plan Sou~heas~ Elevation _Typ%cal Lanai Suite T~cial Motel Room All ingress and egress Shall be via E1 Camlno Real, except that a gate shall he provided at the stub-end of Glen~rook Said gate shall be locked at all =Imes and shall be for ~=he ~xcluslve use of emergency vehlcles of the City of Pale. Alto. A~mlnlmum of 575 permanent off-street parking stalls shall be provided. Screen plantings shall’be provided as follows: Northerly side property line - a 10-foot screen planting as indicated on the approved plot plan. Rea~ property llne - a mlnlmumof 30 feet of screen pla~ing. Adjacent ~o creek and within 330 feet of rear proper~y llne - a minimum of 30 feet of screen plantlng. Areas between buildings and creek, - 1- 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 1o protect neighborning residential develop. All signs shal! be placed on the front or E1 Caiino side of =he building and no signs shall be permitted on thd top of the structure. 8.AdeouateDrovisions shall be made to insure fire protection, such as fire hydrants, s~andpipe systems, and other require- ments aside=ermined by the Fire Chief. of the City of Paio Alto. 9.Height - 8 stories, not to exceed ~5 feet plus necessary machinery penthouse structure. ¯ Construction of the auditorium shall be substantially =he same. time as construe=ion of the motel, Development schedule - Construction to start within six months-after effective date of approval. 12. ~The machinery pen=house structure shall be appropriately screened or given architectural treatment. Section i. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth herein 9r any condition of a use permit i~sued pursuan~ her~tg~ shall result in the immediate revocation of any such use permi~i.. ". Secnio~4. Ordinance 1814 and Ordinance 1923 are hereby repea: .Section ~, This ordinance shall take effect upon the explrati~ of ~h~r~y:d~s from its passage. INTRODUCED:, .February Z7~ 1961. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO .FORM: City: A~gorne)w ¯" - 2- Mayor ATTACHMENT # 4 GLENBROOK COURT LOT AREAS Site Area Lo._jt Lot 1 Lot 2Lot 3 Lot 4Lot 5 Lot 6Lot 7Lot 8 Lot 9Lot 10 Lot i 1 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 141,123 12/19/96 Public Street R/W Dimensions - Ft.Area - Sq. Ft. Acrea.qe52x117x88x33x!49 ,10,906 0.250 53 x 149 x 96 x 136 10,333 0,237 60 x 136 x 84 x 106 7,666 0.176 55 x 106 x 104 x 104 :,8,008 0.18466 x 117 x 97 x 124 9,593 0.22060 x 124 x 60 x 122 7,393 0.17060 x 1 22 x 60 x 117 7,266 0.16756 x117 x 69 x115 7,256 0.16742x 115 x 66 x 143 x66 9,963 0.22939 x66x 143 x69 x 115 10,166 0.23357 x115 x 70 x119 7,391 0.17060 x 119 x 61 x 120 7,296 0.167 61 x 120 x 61 x 120 7,295 0.167 55 x 120 x 83 x 117 7,969 0.183 TOTAL R-1 118,501 2.720 22,622 0.519 TOTAL SITE 141,123 3.240 CRmWNE PLAZA ATTACHMENT #SA ~ess Statement" for "Cg._.rp_ orate!Bus~ness" ~[ote! Satur~iay, February 01, 1997 B.B. Petal Palo Alto Cabana 4290 El Camino Real Palo 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 than any~hiqg else. The following information should give a clear understanding of how this property will be operated. Paqe 1, Item 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 feet 2,432 square feet 11,027 square feet 3,625 square feet 3,685 square feet24,430 square feet Paqe 2, Item 2 Business Statement: Crowne Plaza Hotels are a collection of upscale properties with services and amenities geared to the needs of the discriminating executive traveler. As such, this i~ote~ will be operated and marketed as an upscale, corporate hotel One oft~e strongest growth curves in the hosp’~ality industry charts the expanding size and influence of a category called "discerning travelers/These are travelers who tell us. right down to lhe smallest detail, that they want the best of everything from a hotel stay. And lhey are willing to pay for that privilege. Crowne Plaza hotels Were 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 an(~ attractively decorated -- catering to the needs of the most uncompromising traveler. The hotel will r~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 a necessary convenience in or0er to rent guest rooms. 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 are the 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 not for local functions that could potentially block out a future group booking. ’ Paae 2. Item 2b The restaurant and lounge are not intended to be stand alone uses, rather, a convenience 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 cerlain 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 pa~king in the unlikely event that demand for parking exceeds the supply. Thisarrangement is standard within the 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 Development, published by The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Laventhol & 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 every three employees. The number of parking spaces you are proposing is consistent with this formula. B.B., should the City l~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 preperties as well as good communky relations. Sincerely, Michael F. Higgins, C,H.A. Regional Vice President - Crowne Plaza Develooment Proposed Public Benefit Statemy~t Development of the si~e under the provisions of the PC District ~Ii result in public benefits not other%rise 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 z_/~D_~d land; increase amount of Z__Q_ng_~__~and in City Of P.alo 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 aestheti~ 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: Removal. of large aspha_!~_~arking lot and replacementwith 9~n land for R-I The community is aesthetically benefittedbyxgj~ 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-i~dividually .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 wi~l be bordered by residential backyards. At the Caba~a property, new plantings will be compatible .with the existing ripar±an hibitat at the Creek. ~_~eation of ~’gat@w~z" landscape feature for ~ ~n r n Pal Alto on E1 Camino Re~_l_~l 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 plant@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 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. Benefit 6: Improve relationship of.~main site entrance driveway to D’ h’ n to E1 Camino...Re~l_~ 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 Qith E1 Camino Real improves traffic flow to and from E1 Camino. B__enefit 7: Prep~_E~T~et plantin~ desi_~n study for both sides~ E1 Camino Re~l from.Adobe creek ~0 ~traderQ.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, 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 ~ould 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 Caminoo 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. ATTACHMENT #6 February 4, 1997 Divisions Tram’~rtation Tony Carraseo Carraseo & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Dear Tony:" Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Glenbrook Court 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 therevised information submitted on December 19, 1996 for the thirteen lot subdivision and hotel improvements at 4290 El Carnino Real. Your proposal followed several me~tings between City staff and the. project applicants, and is proposed in satisfaction of Program 13 of the Homing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Your proposal has been reviewed by City staff and by the Palo Alto Housing Corporatidn Board (PAHC). Staff and PAHC are receptive to your proposal for a mitigation fee in-lieu of the provision of a lot in the subdivision; however, we offer the fol.!owing in revised Agreement in response to your proposal: 1. The mitigation fee will be collected in ta,vo 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. Cost.of the appraisal will be borne by the applicant. City shall be given 60 da.ys. notice prior to date appraisal information is required. 3. The BMK 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. "" 250HamiltonAvenue P.O.Box 10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.329.2404 415. 329. 2240 F~ Tony Carrasco FebruaL 4, 1997 Page 2 5. The mitigation fee on the value of the improvements to each lot shall be based on 5% (five percent) of the 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 improvement.s in the plans submitted to the City for ~,e,...b. uilding permit. 6. The mitigation fee described under item 5 above shall be increased by an additional mount equal to 40% (forty percent) of the ICBO valuation, in order to account for estimated soft costs, fixtures, add-ons, ere 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 improvements to each lot must be paid to the City at the time the fast 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 computed using 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 final map being considered by the City Council. Thank you for your cooperation during the. planning process on this project.. If you agree with this revised proposal, you may 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 Attaehrnent.’-. Draft BMR Agreerdent, December 19, 1996 Palo Alto Housing Corporation Memo dated January 9, 1997 Building Valuation Data, August 1996 Tony Carrasco FebmaD’ 4, i997 Page 3 ! agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at Glenbrook Court (part of 4290 Et Camino Rea!) as described in this letter dated February 4, !997. Tony Carrasco Date co:Linda Ludden Poneini, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto HousingCorporation Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney ~m Gilliland, Assistant Planning Oftieial Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official DRAFT BMR AGREEMEN~T It is the intention of Glenbrook 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 at 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 seven lots’are sold, Glenb~ook Court LLC will..transfer. ($350,000 x 5% x 14) = $245,000.00 to the city’s Bb,¢Rprogram. 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 15uilt on the lot. No subsequent BMR fee will be charged on subsequent permits. ¯We believe that this app.roach is the mrst 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.ed (with a 50% ~0wn 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 the request of numerous building officials, Building Standards offers the following building valuation data representing average costs for most buildings. ~ecause residential buildings are Ihe most common for many cities, h, vo general classes are considered for these, one ~or "average" construction and the mher for "g~." ~justmen~ should be made fat s~cia! architectural o~ structural ~eatures and [he iocalion of th~ projecL Higher or lower unit costs may often resulLThe unit costs are imended Io comply with the de~nltion of ~valuation" in Section 223 of the 1994 Uniform Bu~ldin~ C~e’" and thus include architectural, struc. t~ral, ei¢~ri~l, plumbing and mechanical work, except as specifically listed below. The unR costs also inciude the contractor’s profit, which should not be~ determinallon o~ plan check fees for projects revio~ed by the International Conference o~ Building Officials will be based on valuation computed from these figures, which were es~blish~ in April 1996. Cost per Square I, APARTMENT HOUSES: - .Type I or II F.R,° ............... $77,20 (Good) $94.80 .Type V-,,~asonry (or Type III) ................63,20(Good) $ 77.30Type V--Wood Frame .....55.50(Good) $71,30 -Type i--Basement Garage 32.50 -2. AUDITORIUMS:Type I or I1 F.R .................91.40Type I1--1-Hour ..............66.00Type II~H .......................62,60Type II1--1-Hour .............69.60Type III-.-N ...............; .....66.00Type V--1-Hour ..............66.50Type V--N ......................62.00 3. BANKS:Type I or II F.R.* ...............129.00Type lira1-Hour ..............95.00Type II--N .......................92.00~;pe II1--1 .Hour .............104.80pe III--N .....................1,01.20Type Vll-Hour ..............95.00Type V--N ......................91.00 4, BOWLING ALLEYS:Type II--1-Hour ..............44.40Type II--N .......................41.50Type Ill--l-Hour ............48.30Type III--N .......:. .............45.20Type Vml-Hour ............32.60 5. CHURCHES: TT~y~eI or II hR. ...............86.50il--l-Hour ..............64.80Type II--N .....................61.60Type III .---1-Hou~ .............70.60Type III--.N ...........; .........67.50Type V--l-Hour .........~. 66.00Type V--N ......................62.00 6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS:Type I or II F.R.° ............... 121.20~I1--1-Hour ............84.00Illll-Hour .............86.20Type V~l-Hour .............81.30 Cost per SquareOccupanCy =rid Type Fool, Average 7. DWELLINGS:Type V--Masonry ............$ 66,00~.. 58.70 Semi-Finished .............17.50(Good) $20.20Unfinished ..................12.60(Good) $15.40 ~:.,.8. FIRE STATIONS:Type I or II F.R .................99.80Type I1~1-Hour ..............65.40Type II--N .......................61 .B0Type II1~I-Hour .............71.80Type III--N ......................68.80Type V--1-Hour ..............67.30Type V--N ......................64.00 9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY:Type I or II F.R .................90.50Type I1~1-Hour ..............73.50Type II--N .......................70.20Type Ill--l-Hour .............76.40Type III--N ......................73,30Type V--1 -Hour ..............74.00Type V--N ......................71.20 10. HOSPITALS:Type I or II F.R.° ...............142.30Type III--1 -Hour .............117.80Type V~l-Hour ..............112.30 11, HOTELS AND MOTELS:Type I or II F.R.* ..............88.00¯Type Ill--l-Hour .............76.20Type Ilion ......................72.70Type V--1 -Hour ..............68.20Type V--N .....................; 65.00 12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:Type I or 11 RR .................49.60iy~y~e~I1--1-Hour ..............34.50II~N .....................31.60Ill--l-Hour .............38.00Type ilion ......................35,8013It-up ............, .................26.00Type V--1-Hour ..............35.70Type V--N ..................~.... 32.80 Cost per Squ.=reOccupancy and Type Foul, Averase 1 .~. JAILS:Type I or il F.R ................$138.60Type Ill--l-Hour .126.60Type V--1-Hour ..............95.00 14. LIBRARIES:Type I or II F.R .................101.40Type II--1-Hour ..............74.20Type II~N .......................7’3.60Type 111--I-Hour .............78.30Type III--N ......................74.40Type V~I-Hour ..............73.70Type V--N ......................70.60 15, MEDICAL OFFICES:Type I or II F.R.* ...............104.00 .~Te I1~1-Hour ..............80.30pe II--N .......................76.40Type II1--1-Hour .............84.50Type III--N ......................81.00Type V--1-Hour ..............78.60Type V--N ......................75.80 16. OFFICES-;:Type I or II F.R ................93.00Type I1~1-Hour ..............62.20Type II--N .......................59.40Type II1~1-Hour .............67.40Type III--N ......................64.20Type V~I-Hour ..............63.00Type V~N .....................; 59.40 Open Carports .................14.40 18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:oType I or I1F.R ................107.$0Type II~l-Hour .............87.00Type II--N’. ......................83.30Type II1~1-Hour ........; ....90.40Type III---N ......................87.30Type V~l-Hour .............82.80Type V~N ......................79,80 19. PUBLIC GARAGES:Type I or II F.R ................42,40Type i or II Open Parking" 32.00Type II--N .......................25.00Type II1--1-Hour .............32.20Type III-N ........................28.50Type V--1 -Hour ..............29.30 Cost per SquareOccupancy an~ Type Fool, Average 20. RESTAURANTS:Type Iit--1-Hour .............$84.90Type IlioN ...........~ ..........82.00Type V~I-Hour ..............77.80Type V~N ......................74.70 21. SCHOOLS:Type I or II F.R ..................97.00Type II~l-Hour .............; 66.00 "Add 0,5 percent to loial cost for each sto~, over three."Deduct 20 ~ercent fat shell-only buildings. Type I11--1-Hour .............70.80Type III--N ......................67.30Type V~I -Hour ..............66.20Type V--N ......................63.20 22. SERVICE STATIONS:Type II~N .................~ .....58.60Type Ill--l-Hour .............61.00.Type V--l-Hour ..............52.00Canopies .......................24.40 23, STORES:Type I or II F.R.* ...............71.80Type I1~1-Hour ..............44.00Type II~N ......................42.80Type Ill--l-Hour ............53.40Type IIl--H .....................50.20Type V~l-Hour ..............45.00Type V~N .....................: .41.50 24. THEATERS:Type I or II F.R .................95.70Type Ill--l-Hour ............69.70 TT;pe Ilion ......................66.30pe V~I-Hour ............65.60Type V~N ......................62.00 25. WAREHOUSES’**=¯Type I or II F.R .................43.00 -. Type il or V--1 -Hour .......25.50Type II or V--N ...........~... 24.00Type II1~1-Hour .............29.00Type Ilion ......................27.70 EQUIPMENTAIR CONDITIONING:Commercial ................3.60Residential ................3.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ....I .B0 .- ¯ "Dedhct 11 pe~:em for mlni-warehouses. REGIONAL MODIFIERSThe following modifiers are recommended for use in conjunction with the building valuation data. In addition, cenaln local conditions may require further modifications. Touse the~e modifie~, merely multiply Ihe listed cost per ~luare foot by the appropriate regional modifie(. For example, to adjust the osI of a Type III One..hou.r hater-building of average onstmcllon for the Iowa area, ~.lect Regional Modifier 0.80 and unit Lost from valuation dale, S76.20:o " 0.80 x 76.20 = $61,00’(adjusted osl per square foot) Eastern U.S.ModifierConnecticut ..........: ..........0.95Delaware.........................0.84District of Columbia ........0.87Florida.............................0,74GeorBla ...........................’0.68Maine..............................0,81Maryland .........................0.79Massachusetts ..................0.94New Hampshire ..............0.82New Jersey ......................0.91New YorkNew York City ............1.16Other ..........................0.87North Carolina .................0.70 ¯ Eastern U.S. (cont.)ModifierPennsylvania--Philadelphia ................0.96Other .......................;.. -- 0.83Rhode Island ....................0.94South Carolina,;; ..............0.70Vermont ...........................0.80Virginia ..;. .......;; ...............0.7.3West ~qrglnla ...................0.82Central U.S.¯ Alabama ..........................0.72Arkansas ..........................0.70Illinois ..............................0.87Indiana .............................0.82Iowa ...............................0.O0¯ __Kansas .............................0.74 Central U.S. (c~nt.)ModifierKentucky ..........................0.77Loulslana.........................0.78Michigan .........................¯ 0.84Minnesota ................~ .......0.86Mississippi ...,~ ..................0.71Missouri...........................0.78Nebraska .........................0.75North Dakota ...................0.80Ohio ................................0.80Oklahoma ........................0.71South Dakota ...................0.78Tennessee ........................0.72Texas ................................0.74Wisconsin ........................0,85 Western U.S.ModifierAlaska ........; ....................1.30Arizona............................0.B2California ¯ Colorado ..........................0.81Hawaii .............................1.14 Idaho ...............................0.80 Montana ....................; .....0.7’9Nevada ............................0.89 New Mexico ....................0,76Oregon ............................0.83UIaE ................................0.75Washlnglon .....................0.88Wyoming .........................0.~0 30 ~ ~ L~BUILDING STANDARDS!July-August 1996 Engineers = Surveyors = Plenners ATTACHMENT #7 October 30,!996 BKF No. 960 i 67 Mr. Tony Carrasco Carrasco & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:Tentative Map Grading Plan Cabana Palo Alto Dear Tony: In preparing the subject grading plan between the hotel entrance and El Camino .Real, akey design criterion was to maintain the overflow path from the northern channel bank of Adobe Creek toE! Camino Real for Adobe Creek spills that occur during the ~ 100-year storm event. Provision for this conveyance path is necessary until the existing El Camino culvert is replaced by the Santa Clam Valley Water District. The Federal Emergency Mattagement Agency’s (FEMA) flow ~ate of 2300 cfs for Adobe Creek is based on existing development levels. FEMA’s Flood lmsurance Rate Map (Community Panel Number 060348 0005 D) shows the 100-year event contained within the existing channel of Adobe Creek. For the FEMA design storm, our previous analyses for the Villages at Creekside project indicated that the Creek overtops its banks for a 230-foot long reach immedlmely upstream of E1 Camino Real, even though the I~MA map shows no overtopping. A total qf about 130 cfs flow leaves the Creek (5 percent of the peak flow rate)- and crosses the project ,site, spilling onto El Camino Real. The remaining 95 percent of the flow remains in the channel The d~ign water level in the Creek immediately upstn:am 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 adjacent 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 levation. BKF proposes that the site be graded in a manner that m~intaJns 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 540 Price Avenge ’~ Redwo~ City. CA 94063 ¯ 1415)365.0412 * FAX (4151365-1Z60 Engineers * Surveyors * Planners ~J~. Tony C~,’msco Octobez" 30, 1996 BK£ No, 960167 Page 2 on-siu~ storm drain connects dLrectly to an ouffall at the cre~kl Thus, that potion of r, he parking area which is below the top of bank elevation wi!l be parti~ly inundat~[ by reverse flows and, at the peak flow, the low-lying storage volume will not be fully available. Once the water iv1 in the parking lot exceeds the low point at E1 Camino Real, flow will ~xJt the Very truly yours, BRIAN KANGAS FOULK Engiaeer* ¯Surveyor, , Plaaners February 12, 1997 B~:~ No. 96016%! 1 Ms. Linda Poncini Carrasco & Associates ’ 120 Hamilton Avenue FEB Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:ttydrology 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 AND DRAINAGE Existing Conditions: The hotel site generaIly slopes from west recast, with an elevation of approximately 70 near Glenbrook Drive and elevation 60 at E1 Camino Real. The existing main ent.ry 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 Adob~e 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. Proposed 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 continu& to be routed to the b,vo outfalls. The two outfalls will be reconstructed and designed per Santa Clara Valley Water District Standards. 540 Price Avenue ¯ ,Redwood City~ CA 94063 ¯ (415} 482-B300 ¯ FAX t415) 482-6399 Ms. Linda Poncini BKF No. 960167-I 1 February, 12, !997 Page 2 The single family residential development will 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 runof~ 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. continue-to drainvia 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 2 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 (sO 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 HOTELSITE Location Area*Percent of Area (st’)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 1.78 0.67 5.55 Percent reduction in runoff with proposed development will be: " Paved parking area is approximate. 5% 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 :Landscaped Areas 29,065 21%0.67 100%3.24 Runoff 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 6,7:~0 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- 2/12/97 960167 - AREAS.XLS COMBINED HOTEL S!TE & RESIDENTIAL SITE Existing Hotel Site 438,062 sf EXISTING HOTEL SITE Location Area Percent, of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved Parking 27t,598 62%6.24 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 85,203 19%1.96 Landscaped Areas 81,261 19%1.87 I OO%I O.O6 Runoff Coefficient 0.95 0.95 0.4 C*A 5.92 1.86 0.75 8.53 PROPOSED HOTEL SITE & RESIDENTIAL SITE Location Area Percent of Area (sf)Total Site (ac) Paved 15arking (Hotel)142,000 32%3.26 Hotel Footprint & Lanai 81,713 19%~1.88 Landscaped Areas (Hotel)73,204 17%1.68 Road PJW (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 7.50 Percent reduction in runoff with proposed ~development will be:12% BRIAN KANGAS FOULK o 2/12/97 960167-Areas ATTACHMENT ~9A PALO ALTO CABANA£ C ZON~ C~&NGE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY CITY PARKING ORDINANCE ~Area Occupied Assembly (conference,24,430dining, lobby, bar) Exercise 1,392 Kitchen 1,800 Office 3,729 Storage 11,632 Rooms (197) S. F. per car 60 2OO 2OO 25O 1000 Subtotal 1 car/room Credit for 3/4 of the "room" cars TOTAL 12119/96 No. of Cars 407 7 9 15 12 450 197 -148 499 ATTACHMENT #9B PARKING SUr,,~MARY TYPE OF STALL PROPOSED SIZE QUANTITY AUTOMOBILE UNISTALL 8’-6" X 17’-6"193 STND HANDICAP STALL 9’-0" X 18’-0"6 HANDICAP VAN STALL 9’-0" X 18’-0"t OVERSIZE.(SHUTTLE) STALL 9’-6" X 20’-0" TOTAL SELF-PARK 207 "VALET ONLY" STALLS 8’-6" X 17’-6"58 EMPLOYEE ONLY" STALLS 8’-6" X 17’-6" TOTAL PARKING.284 ROOM COUNT-,,,TO -PARKING RATIO 197 GUESTROOMS 284 PARKING SPACES 1:1.44 RAT.IO ATTA HMENT !0 Municipa| Code Parking Requirements for Hotels in other iocal Cities City/Agency Required Parking for Hotel and Application of Parking Standard to Hotel/Conference Centers Cabana Hotel Project Ci.ty of Palo Alto One space per guest room plus applicable parking for restaurant, banquet, etc., less 75% of the spaces required for the guest room. Minimum of 400 spaces (assumes 407 required for associated and ancillary uses and 148 (less 75%, of 1 space/room) for hotel City of San Jose One space per guest room plus one per Minimum of 197 spaces + employee parking employee City of Mountain View 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 City of Sunnyvale Minimum of 197 spaces + employee parking and required parking for restaurant and associated uses Minimum of 197 spaces City of San Mateo One space per guest room plus one 198 space for manager City of Burlingame One space per guest room plus Minimum of 197 spaces + parking required additional parking for restaurant use for restaurant City of Redwood City One space per guest room plus.Minimum of.197 parking spaces + parking additional parking required for required for restaurant restaurant use at I space/3 seats City of Santa Clara One space per guest room 197 Ci.ty of Menlo Park Six parking spaces/1000 sq.fl, Crross 1047 spaces (based on total gross sq.ft, of floor area, excluding vents, shafts and 174,550)* covered parking* ~ ’ City of San Rafael One space per guest room plus 1 space for manager, 1 space/2 employees, as determined by a parking study and subjeet to a use permit. Minimum of 198 + parking required for employees and parking as required per study *Does not compare with the parking provided for the Stanford Park Hotel (200 spaces provided for 162 rm.hotel) ATTACH~v~ENT #11 Date:February!l, 1997 To."Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle & Lisa Grote _Subject: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner 4290 E! Camino Real (Cabana Hotel); study "corporate/business" hotel facilities, survey and interviews of 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 directed, 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. Surveying existing hotel facilities of similar size and type i(# of rooms, sq.ft..of conference facilities, size of restaurants). The survey is to include a review of parking and interviewing hotel management (to determine adequacy of parking, peak periods of hotel/conference use and occupancy rates). 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. 4 Identifying available parking standards for mid-sized hotels with conference/meeting rooms, restaurant and bar/lounge. Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote February il, 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 #i:"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 ~ea 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. Corporate 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: ao 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 time the 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 similar!y-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 ~ 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 similarities are as follows: The use and square footage breakdown of the various public space areas Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lyt!e and Lisa Grote February i 1, !997 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 E1 Carnino 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 projee~ 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-rotmd. Several of the hotels would not disclose their seasonal occupancy rates. An average of those occupancy rates seemed 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 S,~h.,~b,.r, Nancy L3~le and Lisa Grote Februm~ 11, 1997 Page 4 Task #3:interview of City’s (staff) Where Hote| Facilities Were Surveyed As part of this hotel su~wey, 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: ao 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 pa~king ratio because of their proximity to the airport and high use/demand for a shuttle service (corporate guest). The parking does not aecotmt 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 ballrooms/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) pubhcation, ~. 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 Hemiquez) 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 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 mant~ estimates that mid-sized hotels generate approximately 10 average daily trips. Assuming a 90% occupancy rate for ave.rage peak season conditions, the manual suggests a demand of 4-5 parking spaces per hofel guest room’. This parking ratio is approximately twice the mount of parking that would be required by applying the standard of the PAMC. Ken Schreiber, Nancy Lytie and T ¯,._,1 sa Grote Februa,.~- 11, 1997 Page 5 The Institute of Transpo,’~afion Engineers (IT~_~) Manual identifies par-king demand rates, per guest room, based on average weekend versus weekday conditions. ITE parking rates for hotels range from 0.26 to i.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 eaieulated independently for each use. Task #5:Consultation with Traffic Engineer on Hotel Parking Standards I spoke with both John Dowden of DoMing 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 (.John 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: 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 duringDeeember. 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). bt 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 recommen& 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 TJ:aff/~?tcnerato~ ~, 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 Febmary 11, 1997 P~e 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 (Carolyn 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: The Traffic Generators Manu~l 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- ofiented/conference-orented 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 recommended 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 are designed The hotel operators be required to establish and operate a hotel-airport Co shuttle service. Require that the project sponsor lease 12 parking spaces from a neighboring parce!, which would be utilized when spillover parking is experienced. Require that the project spon.sor 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 Satur0ay, Februar~ 01, 1997 B.B. Patel Palo Alto Cabana 4290 El Camino Real Palo 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 a~ldress some of the questions that the City raised. Parking is more a function of a hotel’s market mix and location 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 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 3,66! square feet 2A32 square feet 11,027 square feet 3,625 square feet 3,685 square feet 24,430 square feet Business Statement: Crowne Plaza Hotels are a collection of upscale properties with services and amenities geared to the needs of the discriminating executive traveler. Assuch, this I~ote! will be operated and marketed as an upscale, corporate 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 te~l us, right down to lhe smallest detail, that they want the best of everything from a hotel =ay. And they are willing to pay for tibet 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 Iocation~ tl~mughout the world, are designed to provide a highly enhanced hotel experience at competitive market rates Crowne Plaza hotels are expertly staffed, comfortably furnished and attractively decorated - catering to the needs of the most uncompromising traveler. The hotel will not be marketed as a Conference Center, nor as a Danquet 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 a necessary convenience in order to rent guest rooms. The peak period of demand for the hotel 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 an~ the prima~y users of the meeting reoms 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 not for local functions th,at 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 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 accommoclations and maximum privacy. Crowne Plaza hotels offer many different guest room choices including the Crowne Piaza Club executive floor. Also, each Crowne Plaza hotel prevides guests with fitness facilities, complete with a pool and a full assortment of exercise equipment. Crowne Plaza stanclards 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 lhe 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 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 Developmenf~, published by The Urban Land Institute (LJLI) and Laventhol & Horwath, they suggest as a generalrule to allow for one space per room, one space for every three or four restaurant seats, plus one space for every three employees. The number of parking spaces you are proposing is consistent with this formula. B.B., should the City have any additional questions or concerns, please give me a call. As an owner and operator ourselves, we continually study and review all aspects of hotel Oeveiopment 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 EXHIBIT ’B’ Survey of Mid-sized, Corporate Hotels (Operations, Parking, Occupancy and Peak Season Use) for proposed Cabana Hotel and Subdivision, 4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. February 7, 1997 Attachment #7A ATTACHMENT #8 Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey 225 Miller Avenue. MilJ Valley. CA 94941 415 383-7900 Fax: 415 383-1433 MEMORANDUM TO: Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates Barbara Lundburg, Lou Alley DAT[: March 26, 1997 RE:PALO ALTO CABAglA - TREE MOVING RHAA 96008 E.Mail- 75570,3126(~ Compu~crve,c.~m RHAA t @AOL.com RHA A ~ lx.Ncrc~m,com There are 31 Italian Cypress, Cupressus sempervirens, existing along the main drive and around the existing tennis courts. The design of the new entry drive and parking 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. c. Each tree will cost approximately $I 5,000 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, fortype.rcent at best. There are six Southern 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 rnatler and consists of: a,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 sevenb/percent. Cost is $6,000 to $7,000 per tree. Memorandum Palo Alto Cabafia Tree Moving March 26, 1997 o Removal of the 31 Cypresses will require rel~lacement 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 more 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: Joe Colonna, Planning Department Jose Jovel, W-G-WW Utilities Engineering October 25, 1996 Subject: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 Pal. 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 ~for 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 andlor 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 FireDepartment’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 irrig,ate the approved ~andscape 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; _ Double Check Detector Check ValVe shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements ofCalifornia 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. o 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, MEMORAND-UM 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 o.r all of the above. bt 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. 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; specificationsand together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. If you have any questions, please contact me at 329-2133 CO:R. Cwiak Senior Engineers Morris White Z ATTACHMENT #10 ATTACHMENT #11 May 19, 1997 lvlx. 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, B.B. Patel c: \wlxtocs\cabana\redwoods 429° El Camino Real ph 4~5 857-o787, Palo Alto. Ca 9,13o6 fx 4t5 496-t939 wwwcabafmhotel corn ATTACHMENT #12 STEPHEN W. PLAYER Me)’ 12, 1997 Mr. K:n Schr~it~r Director of Planning and Community Environment ¯City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 Dczr ICon: 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 respectfully request that the staff recommend against public access along Adobe Creek, As you and I have di~ussed on prior occasions, it is the opinion of the.applicant that this is not an appropriate site for public pedestriaa and/or bicycle access along-Adobe Creek. The Creek bank itself does not have adequate room to allow forthe onstruction of a separate path for pedestrian and bicycle use between the bank an~ the Hotel access road without ~usillg considerable ~amage and disruption to tl~ ar~a immediately adja~nt to ~e Creek. The juxtaposition of such a walkway and the access road will create an inherent dangerous sitaatio~ to all parties attel~ting to use the ~acilities, and would require significant modifica- tions of the riparian habitat withou! any commensurate benefits to the uters of any stt~h paths° A staff re~nunondation against access along the Creek in this instance would not be ir~onsistent with tha applicable Elements of the Comprehensive Plan since the Plan simply ert~urages at:tess along ~’eeks where appropriate, but do~ mot require ~ch across in cach instance. The imposition of this requirement would cause encroachment on the lands of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Adobe Creek right of way as well as the removal of lending and existing lan~lscaping. In addition, one of the conditions of approval for the Planned Community zone is the preparation of a Parking Performar~e Plan which has been prepared by DKS A.o~lates on behalf of the applicant, The Plan ~ads ~cifkaIly to or~ of the conditions of approval and states that "no parki~ ~hall be permitted on aeigh~ri~g residential streets at any time, including Glenbrook Drive, Los Palos Aven~ ~nd Pomona Avenue." The requirement of 2’~OO EL CAMINO REAL, ,~,UITF=.. 410 Mr. Ken Schreiber May 12, 1997 Page 2 public access either along the Creek or at any otl~r location within the development will make it practically impossible for the applicant to comply with or enforce the above parking restriction, since it will invite individuals to park in the adjacent neighborhoods and walk onto the hotel premises. ! feel that such a result runs directly contrary to that which the applicant desires for this development, which is 1o protect the surrounding neighborhoods groin any encroachment into their areas. Based ¢m the foregoing, I re~e, ctfully requeat that the staff recommend against public access along Adob~ Cre~k and against any other access which would allow pedestrian, bicycle or other access into the adjae, ent neighborhoods. Thank you t~r your attention to this roarer. SWP:pw B.IL Patel Tony Carrasco ATTACHMENT #13 Palo Alto Redwoods 4558 El Cam|no Real Palo Alto, CA 94386 June 16, 199;7 Kenneth R. Schreiber JUN.t 8 1997 Oe#artrnent of Planning andC°mrrtuoity ~,ir.O~nent Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4290 El Camino Real (Cabafia Hotel site) Dear Mr. Schreiber: The Board of Directors of the Pale 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 Paio 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 eliminated7 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, Pale Alto Homeowners Association .~ ec: Phillip Woods, Associate Planner, Architectural Review Board Attachments: Pale 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 TOWER STORIES <> Preliminary 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 "lenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 PAUL JENSEN CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 HAMILTON AVE, 5TH FLR PALO ALTO, CA 94301 April 14, 1997 RECEIVED / PR 17 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment Subject: CABANA HOTEL SUBDIVISION SCH #: 97032045 Dear PAUL JENSEN: The State Clearinghouse submitted the aboven~med 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 numberso that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse .MGD 97032045 St~e Ck~r~home Cem~--t Mz. An~l Ho~nll (916) 445-0613 9’7 03 20 45 AQM~A~ ~:~/~" " 97032045 RECEIVF.r) Department ot Planning ano CITY OF LOS ALTOS Community Environment One North San Antonio Road Los Altos, California 94022-3088Tel: (415) 948-1491Fax: (415) 941-7419 April 18, 1997 Department of Planning and Community Development City of Pale Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Pale Alto, CA 94301 Attn: RE: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision of theCabana Hotel Site at 4290 E! 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 seci~rity: 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 E! Camino Real should be physically prohibited. We tnast that the your City’s lighting standards minimize any impacts of glare on adjacent residential properties and look forward to receiving notice ofthe 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, Larry Planning Director Los Altos City Council Rancho Laureles Homeowners’ Association RESPONSIVE - INNOVATIVE - CONCERNED ~~A H T ~ L A R A alley Transportation Authority April 18, 1997 RECEIVEU, APR 2 8 1997 Depar, rnent oi Fiann~ng an~ Comn::mii~ 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) staffhave reviewed the Environmental Assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Subdivision of th6 Cabana Hotel Site. The proposed pr0jeet would subdivide the 10.-]-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 h 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 transitoperations freeof potential traffic conflicts.. We anticipate that the e0mbinatitn of the proposed residential development arid Line 22improvementswould increase transit dernhnd ahd theff~quene~;of 3331 Horth I:irst Street ¯ Sen .lose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Ac~minislralion 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 Teehrtieal 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 staffat (408) 321-5779. ~eSineerely~ Environmental Program Manager TDR:JR:kh Attachments jr4259 k SAWCUT AND EXCAVATE EXISTING PA!/EMENTo INCLUDING CURB & GUTI’ER. REPLACE MITHP.C.C. PAVEMENT -q£CTION AND MONOLITHIC CURB & GUTTER. 5o’s TYP PLAN VIEW ¯ "WHEN PAD IS 75’ OR LONGER. PLACE EXPANSION JOINT AT 1/2 THE LENGTH OF THE P.C.C. PAD. IN LONG PADS. EXPANSION JOINT~ SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY 75-FOOT INTERVAI~ OR AS SPECI.FIED BY THE ENGINEER. SIDEWALK AT 18’ D.C. (OPTIONAL) IO’ - 12’ VARIES ~ ~MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER -. USE LOCAL CIT’V STANDARDS AS REQ’D ., "_ ....s ]/2" CL. A P.C.C./--"."-’."~.:"I W/POLYPROPYLENE EXISTINGr~’..-:. :: :,," "’-’-’=" ~FmERS PAW’MEm" "~’" ~~,S ’ 8" CLASS 2 AGG. ~’’~~ ~ i COMPACTION ~"~ 05~ RELATIVE COMPACTIONON NATJVE SOIL SECTION A-A CONCRETE PAD ~/M(~NOL]THIC CURB & GUTTER i~O DOWElS-J0" LONG SMOOTHBAR @ 18" O.C. LUBRICATE INSTALL 3/4" WIDE FIBER FABRIC TO i/~ BOTH ENDS OF DOWELBELOW FINISHED SURFACE. FILL REMAINDER / WITH APPROVED SEAUNG COMPOUND: / #4 BARS TO ROUND CORNERS TO J/4" R. "~ / ~-~,~TABIIJZ£ J 9 ~DOWELS ,:’? ,...o. DOBIE SUPPORTS DOBIE SUPPORTS 14 BARS TO STABIUZE J 9DOWELS .2" X 1/4" WIDE SAWCUT CONTRACTION3OINT. FILL WITH APPROVED WiTHAPPROVED SEALING COMPOUND ~9 DOWELS-IS"LONG SMOOTHBAR @ JO" B.C.LUBRICATE BOTH ENDS OF DOWEl. SECTION B-B SECTION C-C EXPANSION ,IOIN]"CONTRACTION JOINT NOTE:FOR TECNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RF~ER ~0 ATTACHMENT SANTA. CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS FIGURE 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 1/2 lbs/cy. , ARer spreading and compacting, P.C.C. shall be given a preliminary finish which shall be smooth and true to grade. In advance of curing operations, the pavement shall be given a final rough broom finish with grooves having a depth of 1/8" perpendicular to the ¢~b 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 from the surface and before any diying, shrinkage or craze cracks begin to appear. Curing 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 pet 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 traffic ~ be required to cross over new pavement, and ffdirected by the Engineer, Type B1 Portland Cement shall be used in concrete. When Type IR Portland Cement 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 modulus of rupture of 550 peunds, 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 a~er 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 EC.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 curb and gutter. Joint sealing compound shall be type "A" joint seal and shall conform to theprovisions 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 ~ VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY B US .STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS ATTACHMENT 1 FOR FIGURE 26 Pale Alto Redwoods April 18, 1997 RECEIVED ,PR 1 1997’ Department of Planning Community Environment Paul Jensen Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th floor Pale Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4290 El Camino Real (Cabana Hotel site) Dear Mr. Jensen: The Pale 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 Pale Alto Redwoods? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Very Sinceri~ President Pale Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94301 P.alo Alto Cabana 4290htl.par c/o PML Management o 655 Mariners Island Blvd.,’Suite 301 o San Mateo, CA 94404 ¯(415) 349-9113 KENT MITCHELL RICHARD R. H£RZOG MITCHELL & HERZOG ATTORNEYS AT LAW $50 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-:~O TELEPHONE (,~-IS) 327-7~-76 April 17, 1997 RECEIV ’,’S D APR 1 7 1997 Department of Planr~;,:", ..:rt~~ Community Envirc~,":~,. n: FACSIMILE NUMBER 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-SUB-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 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 G1enbrook Court development to bebuilt 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 the City 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 outsid~ the boundaries of this project. It is not underthe 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 wellestablished 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 byApplicant," pp. 799-800, citing ~unns v. Stenman (1957) 152 C.A.2d 543; 552) Lonqtin 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 11, but only as to lands within the boundaries of its property, and not 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 GoL\G052-O01\Ci tyPt ann. |tl Gloria and Stuart Kreitman 4216 Los Palos Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94036 April 18, 1997 Department of Planning and Community Enviro0ment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner RECE!VED / PR 1 8 1997 Department ot Planning and Community Environment Dear Mr. Jensen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental assessment/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed subdivision of the Cabana Hotelsite at4290 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 17 1997 Department o~ planningcommunity Environment 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 tothe 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 Arastraderoto El Camino Real. An additional a~cess to El Camino is unnecessary. --We agree with the developer that a path across the hotel pi0perty 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 quot.ing 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". The Planning Commission can accept the original plot plan. 5. Note that in the Environmental Assessment, with only 2 exceptions, none of the columns was marked, "Potentially Significant"; most all were marked "Less Than.." or "No Impact:’. Respectfully submitted, R E C E I VED~.~ APR :[ 7 1997, Department of Planning and Community Environment Barbara and Craig Snapp 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 ~the Gre~aeres su-’b~ision to the west of the Cabana~our house wil~,, back up o~elopment. We have some positively" comments to make-Tegnrding-t~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 an. 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 citystaff insistence on the eonstructio~.0f..~bbike- path fro_~he hotel site through the new housing development into’our neig~ t~ developer.s nor the hotel owners nor the Greenacres neighbors want such a path. We-~w it as a majbr security risk. It is not reasonable to open a residential neighborhood to free access from the back parking areaofa major commercial enterprise. In addition to the risks of vandalism, graffiti, and trash there is the potential for injury as well. G-reenaeres 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 El 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 April 10, 1997 Department oH Community Gentlemen: I bought my home ne, 1951 - 46 years ago. For 46 years I have. lived a q. ".e.m~ife_ .h.er~ and I ask that you help to continue living the same quality~rb-tffe in the future. me 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/.ugh.~ur quiet neighborhood, through the new - developmen/ti’and thr.o-~xthe hotel property and none of us want it. There ’is{--~ bike_~ "~lane o"6"m-)/~rastradero, which borders our neighborhood and there i’s~_.hike_Aa~:m/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 Mo~,an 4276 Los Palos Palo Alto Apr, 77, ~997 Pl~ning CommLssion City of PaSo A~to 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Proposed CabaP~ Dev~opme~RECEIVED .1. 8 1997 We tl~nk that you m~t not be, ~J~,are’ of ~he u~afe si~a~on on ~ Glenbrook Drive or you would not even ~onsider i~tal~ng a bike. loath i~ t~’s a~ea. If yo~ e.ould observe ~t, you would be shocked. Department of Planning andCommunity Environment Because th~e is i~fficie~ par~,ng for the JOC and Tc~ma~ Park, o~ str~ is used as .a par~x’.ng lot, Th~ is true day after day afte~ day except possibly when i~ r~i~ or after dark. Because Glenbrook is a dead end ~rect and not a ~u~ ,de sac, th~s ~o~d in a~ inad~q~e space. B~sid¢~ t[~, the~e often a~e ~s parkeod on both side~ of the. ~t~.eet. - oft~.~ in Z~¢9~ f~on ~ on ~.~ side.ks and even. on th~ s~¢~ next ~o fence.~ We ~y to info~ people who p~k ,tl~ way, people ~o~ng here to .p~k ~s 5o~ th¢ JOC ~nd the p~ W~ flare ¢alled the po~e¢ but. they have info~ed us ~hat we wi~. fiave t~ report, t~e offendcr~ - a .dau~ting task - as it is vc~y diffi~u~ to ke.ep monitoring t~:~and a~n9 as po~i¢e. Another problem ~ that ~ have a high sh~re of teenage ~Lvers pan.pate in ~h~ v~o~ ~po~ on the p~yi~g finds and ~ho zoom of h~e ~ a ~h ~ of ~p~d. TI~ is a zoo ~nd e~tain~y no’~°the ~la~e to add ~ore ~os b.q i~c~ad- ing b.L~yctx’~t~ in ~ h~ardous siC, on. We. ~r¢ ww~,.P’~Lm9 you about t~x’~ da~’~ge.~., potential s,eve.re a~cLdents (we. haw witnessed nc~r mlS~ and minor ones) and the po~sibg.e ~abd.lity ’to the. Coplo~ - 3oe Hube~, Mayor, Palo Alto 4-13-97 Plan~qing CommiSsion City of Pa£o Alto ~50 Ha,dAton Ave. P#Io Alto, CA 94~01 Dea~Planners : Proposed Development of the Caba~ Site We w~h to se~d o~r views on the above project. We are pleased .thg~ the dev~oper ha~ l~stened to the ~ona~rns of the. Gre.enAcr~’ ~ome owneAs and has aome up ~th a plan thg~ ho~ addressed th~ e. concerns. We s~rongly objacX to the. in~ion of a bike path. It is a path, that. nobody wangA - not th~ deveZope~/hotel owner b~aausa of not the r~id~ntA of Los Altos across the creek beaa~e of b~gla~y prob- lems and ~tai~y not our n~lghbors who exp~ri~naed a rash of bu~gl~ri~ when the gate at Glenbrook ~ open to E1 Cgmlno and whiah a~sed ly whe.n the .~ate ~s ~o¢.~¢.d. Also, the ~ew re~ide~t~ on Gl~nbrook doubt wo~d ~. ~a°~t ~ "~h~. T~ds would be such an insignificant little path wM.c.h would not aonne~ wi~ any other. Plus w~ already have bike p~hs ~earby that aonneat P~IoAlto to Los AIZos and to Mg. Vi~. These ~oss Adobe C~ek and aonnect tz E1 Camino. We are not opposed t~ bike paths and ao~id~r them an ~×ac2~ent ide~, but in this partiaular aas~, the di~advan~ag~ fa,~ ou~gh any Limlted benefits. would gr~ly appreaiate your h~lp in ~ matt~. M.naerely , RECEIVED APR 1 8 1997 Department of Planning andCommunity Environment Joseph H. Huber, Mayor of Pale Alto and Gary Fazzino, City Council- Pale Alto Sara & Angelo Granzotti GreenAcres Neighborhood Dear Sirs, April 16, 1997 RECEIVED 1 8 1997 De.,partrnent of Plannin an, L ~’Om.rnunity ~.nViron~ngent cl 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 Pale 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 thedevelopment consists of amaximum 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 Pale 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 Carnino 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 repi’esent 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 ofth~ 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 E! 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 t.o 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 dayeare 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, ears 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 G-unn 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 offthe 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. 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 .vandalismon 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 Staffinsists 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, tom PS Please distribute to:City Council Planning Dept 1959 Leghorn Mountain View California 94043 From China, Korea, lndia, Thailand SINCE 1964 RECEIVED APR 1 1997 Department of Planning and Community 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 anapricot 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 in1978. 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: Maintainingthe "green strip" of trees that border our neighborhood with the former Hyatt property. This is 8~ainst 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 a 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, Deanne Morgan Shu~J// 0411811997 18:32 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 02 April 17, 1997 Planning Commission Members City of Palo Alto RECEIVED 1@£ 1 8 1997 e artment o~ pl&nn~r,:~ and ,D ~mmun~ty EnvWonment 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, 97oV-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 havs resided here for over 38 years, We (Greenacres !) 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 will 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 EI.Camino ingress for the proposed path is approximately 0,3 miles from Arastradero Road and 0.15 miles from Los Altos Avenue, The distances ere 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 bicycle 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 84/18/1997 18:32 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 83 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 and 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 4272 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 1 8 199;’ Department of Planning 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 and proposed 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 developers can 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 Camino. 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 cify 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 l~wsuits 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 Pla .rming 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 -- 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 rights? 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 El 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 developer.s 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 ~ar~us to be cooperative with the City’s vision of "good urban planning":,. K~,,,\\ ’~~,~.,~g forced down our throats._ 64:6 Fairmede "NK~ Member, Greenacres ~d Improvement Association 84/1811997 14:19 4154241425 FS KESSLER PAGE 81 Pl~nnin.~ commission, City of P.?lo Alto, 250 Hsm~Iton Ave 94301 SUBJECT: C~b~m_~ Site (Housing Units) RECEIVED We ere in consensus with the ~.evelooer ’;~bo h::~s "gree~ to lceep ~ensity com.o:’tible with the neighborhoods :.nO will minimize the vis~,l imp.~ct these homes will heve on this ares. APR 1 8 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment We ~,re very much ~,g~-.inst ,:~ bike psth 81ong %he creek from E1 C-zinc through our neighborhood. There is r bike p~th from E1 C~mlno ~lon~ ~os Altos Ave th’t connects with the bike ps%h on Ar~str~dero Ro~d. A bike p~th through e. m~jor hot@l drivewo’y is dsngerous -nd will present ~ security risk to the neighborhood. Since residents, esDec~,.lly children, ere not used ~o he"vs’ treffie in our neighborhood, .. constru.ction tr"ffic is of ~re3t concern to us. B’.rb~r~ .’.m:.nd Ernest Guptill 629 Glenbrook D~ive. P:lo Alto 94306 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, Calif., 94301 Gentlemen: RECEIVED ]. 7 1997 F DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION April 10, 1997 ’APIR 1 Department o~ PL~rr~T,. Community ’..( ,~., ,,"1;¢; .", 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 Mob, an 4276 Los Palos Pato Alto JOSEPH HUBER STAFF WILL RESPOND From: To: St~bject: 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@aol.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 andGary 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 thecity’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 inexistence 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 MonroeStreet 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 U~ers of the proposed path: The proposed bike path is clearly redundant. As you can see from the enclosed mapl2), 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 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 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 thewishes 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 415-494-2224angranzotti@msn.com PS Please distribute to:City CouncilPlanning Dept 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 tomorrow April 18, 1997 at City Hall. Page 3 May II, 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 3ensen, Contact Planner Sub3ect: 4290 E1 Cam(no Real (Cabana Hotel Subdivision) Reference:City file #s:g&-CPA-4~ 96-ZC-13~ 9&-SUB-5~ 9&-ARB=I&S~ 96-V-3 and 96-EIA-32 Dear Mr. Oensen : 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 harm’to 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 o+ 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 of 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 o+ 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. Dense landscaping sufficient to prohibit viewing ÷tom one property to another across the boundary of the property to existing homes shall be installed. The fencing and landscaping along the portign o+ 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~ PlanningCommission, and City council to act in the best interest surrounding residents by protecting their rights to the private en3oyment of their properties. These concerns and many others have been voiced many times during the past & years. The only thing that has changed is the ownership o÷ 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 1 5 1997 Department’ of Planning andCorar=~un~ty Environment Dear Paul Jensen: I am writing as fi 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 neighborhoodmfire. The 1993 fire jumped from the.creekside roofs to a house several blocks away and caused over $80,000 worth of damage. Aft6r 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 "Loca| ¯ 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 El PALO ALTO FIRI 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 yoar 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 Fiores, about a quarter mile from the creek, suf- fered themost damage. Owner John Cademartori, 70, was sweeping his garage of de-. bris after firefighters doused the flames. 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 ~bree-b(,dro,)m, singl,, stm’y home. "I was going tu put water oa the roof, but I 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- ments made by several residents. Los Altos fire Capt. Robert Ewart estimated the Cademartori house suffered $60,000 in dam- age 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 report KENT MITCHELL RICHARD R HERZOG MITCHELL & HERZOG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 550 HAMILTON AVENUE.SUITE 230 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-2082 TELEPHONE (415) 327-747e; FACSIMILE NUMBER (415) 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 resolutiQn of the one foot reserve strip dispute. Following a meeting between City staff and the developer of the Glenbrook Court subdivision in May, the degel0per’s attorney wrote me a letter outlining the possibilities for resolution which were agreeable to the Citystaff 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 andalthough 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 officials, the developer, the residents of Greenacres, ~and their respective legal counsel. Very truly/yours, EENT 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: 1. 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 E1 Camino 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 ~avor 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 a11 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 individua~ lot owner in Greenacres. It is only acting in an advisory capacity for the sake of convenience. On June 11th, 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 11th if you have any objection to this. GREENACRES I IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATES Encls. By Gloria.Kreitman RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION Paul Jensen c/o Planning Division, Ci.ty of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California, 94303 Marcia Penn 1176 Laureles Drive Los Altos, California, 94022 July 1, 1997 Dear Patti 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 Carnino, 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 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 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 Kornfield, Los Altos Planning Department Los Altos City Council RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION JUL 07 1,997 Departmem ~. .... .r-.-,q Cornmunl.ty~Cc’~t~a.¢,,m ~ July 3, 1997 Mike & Ann George 1156 Laureles Drive Los Altos, CA 94022 (415) 949 2045 home (415) 604 5881 work mgeorge@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 Jill O’i’ 1997 I:)epa,’l’rnen;~,-.,,.. "-:~,. Cornmunit..L.. ¯ 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 and the gateway plan a public benefit for all of us. Sincerely, Lucia Lee 1193 Laureles Dr. Los Altos, CA 94022 RANCHO LAURELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION JUL 0 9 1997 ’ JUt ’,~ 7 !997 ~NCHO ~URELES PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JtJL 0 8 1997 Departmgr~l ol r-~ann.19 and Community Environment July 8, 1997 AGENDA ITEM #3 Meeting of luly 9,1997 Chair Phyllis Cassel and Members of the Palo Alto 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 supp0ft of new hotel and conference facilities in Palo Alto. Facilities such as those proposed by the Cabafia 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 ~o 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 opportunities---like the Caba~a--that 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, Susan E. President & CEO 325 Forest Avenue l’aloAIto, California 94301-2515 415/324-3121 Fax: 415/324-1215 July 23, 1997 CITY OF LOS ALTOS One North San Antonio Road Los Altos, California 94022-3088 Tel: (415) 948-1491 Fax: (415) 941-7419 Mr. Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Palo Alto 2.50 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Randall Talley, Supervising Engineer Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 RE:4290 E1 Camino Real (Cabana Hotel) Dear Fellow Agencies: I am writing you this letter to bring to your attention to a design detail, which was recently brought to our attention. We believe that a fence security detail may have been overlooked in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the Entry Grove at E1 Camino Real. The current fence plans in this area call for a 4-foot high metal fence along the creek bank (see attached diagram). This allows potential access to the creek and nearby residences on Laureles Drive. This does not adequately address the safety and security impacts of the project. I believe that the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District should work together to require an security fence that discourages access into creek area and is complimentary to the Entry Grove. As you may know, historically this area has been an access point, which has potentially contributed to problems such as fires and theft for nearby residents. We recommend that there be a continuous fence along the entire creek bank. As we stated in previoustetters, we feel that all fencing along the creek should be at least 6 feet high. Furthermore, it should be constructed in a manner that limits its "climability." And, finally, it should be located to prohibit any access point to the creek from E1 Camino Real to the rear of the site. RESPONSIVE - INNOVATIVE - CONCERNED City of Palo Alto Santa Clara Valley Water District July 23, 1997 Page Two I truly appreciate your attention to this matter. Please call David Komfield, Assistant Planner, or me at (415) 948-2790 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Planning Director enc:Plan Diagram B. B. Patel, Property Owner Laureles Homeowners Association I 160+59T 99 + ~7T 9 I I I