Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-01-22 City Council
TO: Palo Alto Medical Foundation Items are scheduled for the January 22, 1996 City Council meeting. C~ of PMo Alto !a ager S mmary Rep r HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: January 22, 1996 CMR:104:96 SUBJECT:Review of Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Project-Related.Applications, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Extension of Urban Lane to University Circle (94-EIA-5, 95-CPA-1, 95-ZC-4, 94-UP-8, 94-SUB-I, 94-ARB-30, 95-DEE- 3, 95-V-17); 795 El Camino Real. REQUEST The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMY) requests CiD.’ approval of numerous applications related to relocation and limited expansion of their current medical and research facilities located near Palo Alto’s Downtown. The proposed relocation would create a new Medical Foundation (i.e.. Medical Clinic and Medical Research facilities) campus on an approximately nine-acre site covering much of the area bounded by Wells Avenue. E1 Camino Real, the rear prope~ line of parcels fronting Encina Avenue and the railroad tracks (see attached area map). Other separate but related agenda-items concern 1) PAMF’s request to vacate Homer Avenue, portions of Urban Lane and a public utility easement at the project site and 2) PAMF’s request to amend the Development Ageement between the city and PAMF covering existing PAMF facilities addressed in the 1991 Downtown PAMF Campus Specific Plan. The intent of the amendment is to preclude reuse of the PAMF buildings (with the exception of the Surgecenter at 400 Forest Avenue, which is an independent medical faciliu~, and a 5- to 10-primary care provider plus support staff office at a location yet to be determined, but which would not be located in buildings on the two main PAMF blocks, i.e., the blocks fronting on either side of Bryant between Homer and Channing). CMR: 104:96 Page 1 of 61 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Request ................................................................1 Recommendations .......................................................5 Policy Implications ......................................................6 Comprehensive Plan Compliance ......................................6 Zoning Compliance .................................................7 Executive Summaw .......................................................7 Building Height ....................................................8 Architecture ......................................................8 Landscaping ......................................................9 Building D .......................................................10 Tentative Subdivision Map and Related Street and Public Utility Easement Vacations ......i .............................10 Circulation and Parking ............................................11 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit ......................................!2 Se~4ce Circulation and Loading/Unloading ............................13 Urban Lane Extension .............................................13 Wells Avenue ....................................................14 PAMF/Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpass .....................14 New Si~alized Connection from PAMF Site to E! Camino Real ............15 E1 Camino Real~mbarcadero/Galvez Intersection .......................15 Alternatives ...........................................................18 Fiscal Impact ..........................................................19 Environmental Assessment ...............................................20 CMR:104:96 Page 2 of 61 IN-DEPTH STAFF REPORT Request ...............................................................21 Recommendations ......................................................21 Back~ound ...........................................................23 Site Information ..................................................23 Project Description ................................................24 Prior PAMF Proposa! and Approval ...................................24 Action by Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board ...........25 Histou of Current Applications ......................................25 Changes to Plans Based on the Value Engineering Process .................27 Reviex~ Authorities for Applications ........................................29 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ....................................29 Rezoning and Zone Text Change .....................................29 Subdivision ......................................................30 Conditional Use Permit .............................................30 Design Enhancement Exception ......................................30 Deferred Parking Approval ..........................................31 Variance ........................................................31 Design Review ...................................................32 Related Actions Considered as Separate Agenda Items ....................32 Policy Implications .....................................................32 Comprehensive Plan Compliance .....................................32 Zoning Compliance ................................................34 Discussion ............................................................34 Building and Site Characteristics .....................................34 Building Height ...................................................35 Building Setbacks .................................................37 CMR: 104:96 Page 3 of 61 Pa~__.~e Floor Area Ratio/Site Coverage ......................................38 Architecture .....................................................39 Landscaping .....................................................39 Site Grading!Transitions ............................................40 Provision of Utilities ...............................................41 Tentative Subdivision Map and Related Street and Public Utility Easement Vacations ....................................42 Transportation Issues ..............................................44 Circulation and Parking .......................................44 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit .................................47 Service Circulation and Loading/Unloading .......................49 Urban Lane Extension ........................................51 Wells Avenue ...............................................52 North-South Connector .......................................52 PAMF/Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpass ...............52 New Signalized Connection from PAMF Site to E1.Camino Rea! ......53 E1 Camino Real~mbarcadero Road/Galvez Intersection .............53 E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road Intersection ......................57 Alternatives ...........................................................57 Fiscal Impact ..........................................................58 Environmental Assessment ................................................58 Steps Following Approval ................................................59 ATTACHMENTS (without page numbers): A.Area Plan Map B.Site Location Map C.Resolution Certi~’ing the Final EIR and Making Findings D.Resolution Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Resolution Amending the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan CMR:104:96 Page 4 of 61 Fo Go I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. T. U. V. Ordinance Amending Section 18.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PF District Regulations) Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Zone Classification Conditional Use Permit Findings and Conditions Variance Findings DEE Findings Deferred Parking Findings Architectural Review Findings and Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Findings and Conditions of Approval Table - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Significant Impacts Table - Conditions for Less Than Significant Impacts Correspondence Regarding Project Not Included in Final EIR Minutes of 11/29/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/6/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/12/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/14/95 ARB Meeting 1/11/96 Letter to University South Neighborhoods Group PAMF Information, Renderings and Plans dated 8/30/95, with 10/16, 11/27 and 11/29/95 Revisions (Council Members only) Tentative Subdivision Map (Council Members only) Final Environmental Impact Report (Council Members and Libraries only) RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council adopt motions, resolutions and ordinances, as tb!lows: Resolution certify;ing that the Final EIR has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental QualiD, Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the project and related mitigation measures, with findings included (Attachment C); Resolution approving an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use desigr~ation for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities (Attachment D); Resolution approving an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Program to provide for modification of Housing Program 1A related to the Downtown PAMF Specific Plan upon occupancy, of the Urban Lane Campus (Attachment E); CMR: 104:96 Page 5 of 61 Ordinance approving an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance’s Public Facilities (PF) text to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medical and medical research (Attachment F); Ordinance approving an amendment of the zoning for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial (CS) to Public Facilities (PF) (Attachment G); Motion approving a conditional use permit for operation of an outpatient medical and medical research use at the proposed Urban Lane campus, with findings and conditions included (Attachment H); Motion approving a variance to allow 31.9 percent site coverage where 30 percent is permitted if and when a deferred parking structure is constructed, with findings included (Attachment I); Motion approving a design enhancement exception to reduce building setbacks along Wells Avenue and the new north-south connector road to Urban Lane. with findings included (Attachment J): Motion endorsing the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of 305 deferred parking spaces in a 5-story garage to be constructed if needed in the future, with findings included (Attachment K); Motion approving the site plan, architecture and related desi~,~ features, with findings and conditions included (Attachment L); Motion approving a design concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane from University.’ Circle to the proposed Urban Lane Campus (Alternatiave 4 in Appendix F of Draft EIR); Motion continuing consideration of the tentative subdivision map to February 20, 1996, when final action for the proposed street vacations and public utility easement vacation is recommended to be on the Council agenda. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Compliance The site is currently designated Service Commercial on the Plan’s Land Use Map. PAMF has applied for redesignation to Major Institution/Special Facilities. This designation is CMR:104:96 Page 6 of 61 intended for institutional, academic, governmental and communi~ service uses occurring on land that is either publicly owned or operated by non-profit organizations. The existing PAMI: facilities are located primarily on lands having this designation. In approving development applications on the long-establlshed downtown PAMF site, the City made the finding that PA_MF’s activities are consistent with the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation. That designation is proposed for the Urban Lane Campus. In addition. modification of Housing Element Program 1A, which was developed when expansion of the downtown PAMF facility was planned, is recommended now that PAMF proposes to develop the Urban Lane Campus and vacate the existing downtown facility. Given the Ci~"s desire to improve and upgrade E1 Camino Real. the proposed PAMF project would be in compliance with this general Comprehensive Plan directive. "ghe project would introduce a modem, relatively large development in an area that was characterized by small. uncoordinated strip commercial type businesses. The project would also provide a deep landscaped setback from Et Camino Real which responds to the Plan’s call for geater ~eenery along E1 Camino Real. The Land Use Map change from Service Commercial to Major institutions/Special Facilities does not conflict with City objectives for E1 Camino Real. Zoning Compliance The project conforms to development standards for building height, FAR and site coverage. A Design Enhancement Exception is needed to permit a reduction in the 20-foot required building setbacks from streets for Buildings A, B/C, and D. In addition, the Architectural Review Board has recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment deferral of approximately 300 parking spaces in a parking structure not provided. On December 14, 1995, voting members of the ARB unanimously supported the DEE and parking deferral applications. A variance application is required for the deferred parking garage~ which would slightly exceed maximum site coverage limitations if built. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The PAMF Urban Lane Campus project involves construction of a new medical clinic and research facility that will replace its existing operations in numerous separate buildings in the downtown area. The new medical campus will consolidate nearly all of PAMF’s health care, health education, medical research and administrative functions in Palo Alto at the new campus. The campus would consist of three separate buildings (Buildings A, B/C and D) totaling approximately 355,300 square feet on a 9.2-acre site (see attached site plan). Design approvals for Building D are not sought at this time. The Foundation’s existing dov, natown Palo Alto operation occupies about 251.000 square feet in 17 separate buildings. While the project would relocate, consolidate, modernize and CMR: 104:96 Page 7 of 61 enlarge the area of PAMF’s downtown Palo Alto facilities, PA_Mt: representatives estimate that neither the number of patient visits nor the number of medical providers would increase beyond current levels at its existing Palo Alto facility. PAMF indicates that the physical improvements proposed (increased research space and parking, improved functional relationships between clinic, research, education and administration) are necessary to function in the new managed health care environment. Any increases in patient care are expected to be provided at satellite facilities in other communities. Note that the Draft EIR assumes, for the purpose of analyzing traffic, that usage of the site will increase commensurate with the increased floor area. The Planning Commission considered the PAMF project applications and Draft EIR on November 29, December 6, and December 12, 1995. Public testimony was taken on November 29 and December 6 and is recorded in the meeting minutes under Attachments. Letters pertaining to environmental issues submitted during the public review period and at the November 29 and December 6 public hearings are incorporated into and responded to in the Fina! EIR Addendum. On December 12, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (Ojakian and Schink not participating due to conflicts of interest) to recommend to the Cib~ Council that the Draft EIR was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and approval of all project applications with conditions of approval. On December 14, !995, the ARB held a public hearing for final review of the PAMY project site plan. landscaping and architectural design after prelimina~ reviews on Apri! 20, October 10 and November 16, 1995. The ARB members, pleased with the direction of revisions made since April, expressed general satisfaction with the project design and building materials, subject to numerous conditions of approval (Attachment L). Conditions require more detailed landscaping, lighting and signage plans, refinements of building colors and materials, and modifications to site and architectural plans proposed by the Planning Commission to be prepared and approved by the ARB prior to issuance of permits. Issues that received particular attention during the Planning Commission and ARB review included: Building Height: The proposed buildings meet the zoning ordinance’s 50-foot height limit. However, because of the slope of the site and a variety of building, site and applicant constraints, the buildings are raised above existing ground elevations, especially toward the rear half of the site. The project does not have smooth transitions to Wells Avenue, the railroad tracks and the properties that front on Encina Avenue (especially the historic house at 51 Encina). These issues will be addressed further in subsequent design refinements and will need to be resolved to the CMR: 104:96 Page 8 of 61 satisfaction of the ARB prior to issuance of any grading, excavation or building permits. Architecture: PAS/K has refined its architectural concept since its original proposal received preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board on April 20, 1995. The exterior design of the proposed project is intended to complement the existing Mediterranean architecture in Palo Alto, including Stanford University, Town & Country, Village and. some downtown buildings. Elevator/stairwell towers with tiled roofs would punctuate the building facades, rising above the main building approximately 17 feet. The three-sto~ buildings will have flat roofs with corbels supporting the three-foot projecting eaves, creating shadow lines. Covered walkways, or loggias, surround most of the building exteriors around the main ent~~ oval. Arches are provided on the ground floor of the Health Services Building. Exterior materials include a cream-colored textured surface, such as stucco: a three-foot stone base; wood windows, many with divided lights; and solar-glazed window glass. The loggia would have plaster columns with a stone base and overhead cedar trellis, if allowed by fire and building codes. Corbels (i.e., the projecting anchors that support the cornice) will be concrete. Landscaping: Landscaping in the form of trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be provided on the west project frontage along E1 Camino Real. Building setbacks along this frontage are substantial and will support large specimen trees, given that the underground parking garage sets back 10 to t 3 5 feet from this frontage. Additional planted areas would be provided inside the main access oval. on the perimeters of buildings and in surface parking lots. In addition, the site plan proposes four open air or outdoor public areas. PAMF would provide street trees along the north-south connector (primarily trees planted in wells above the subsurface parking garage) and along the south side of Wells Avenue in planter strips adjacent to sidewalks. Trees and other landscaping would also line the bicycle path on the east side of the site. Fewer than ten existing mature trees on the perimeter of the project site (oaks and California pepper trees) would remain. Within the interior of the project site, nearly all vegetation would be removed for grading. The Planning Commission and ARB recommended conditions of approval to reduce the visual impact of the southern elevation of Building C and the three- to five-foot wade change between PAMF and Encina Avenue properties by requiring a five-foot planter strip for significant trees and shrubs along the south edge of the southern service drive. CMR: 104:96 Page 9 of 61 Building D: A long time staff concern has been the lack of site plan information for the Building D area in the event that Building D is not built at the same time as the rest~of the campus. Prior to final ARB review on December 14. PAMF representatives provided a plan (sheet 15F) for a pedestrian plaza in the Building D area. As described by the project landscape architect, the plaza is designed as a park- like space; the area will feature very large trees and seating in a landscaped environment. The large trees will perform the function of defining the space while providing shade and screening views to the railroad tracksl Because the space will feature a softer ground plane and more tree cover, it is envisioned that this area will offer the opportunity for staff to exercise, recreate and relax in a softer, quieter environment. The ARB found this design satisfactory and a potential asset to the overall project. If Building D were to be constructed, it is unclear how adequate, convenient parking would be provided. The submitted plans to date do not show a below-grade connection to underground parking, and nearby surface parking is limited. Staff and the ARB have expressed concern about the placement and scale of Building D, which is not part of the current ARB application. A condition of approval makes clear that the use permit authorizes a general intensi~’ of use and a range of allowable uses for the Building D area only. Later ARB approval of the building, its immediate vicini~, and its relationship to on-site parking would be required. Tentative Subdivision Map and Related Street and Public Utitiw Easement Vacations The PAMF project would include the consolidation of the existing thirteen parcels, many previously under separate ownerships, which comprise the proposed campus site. Jurisdictions consider it desirable to minimize the number of parcels in a nonresidential, large scale development, such as the proposed PAMF campus. lCurther. Uniform Building Code restrictions on having buildings cross parcel lines make removal of many of the property lines necessa~,’. In association with the PAMF subdivision application is the proposed vacation of a public utility easement, the existing portion of Homer Avenue west of the railroad tracks on PAMF prope~ and portions of Urban Lane that connect to Homer Avenue. Staff has found and the Planning Commission has recommended that the proposed roadway and public utili~: easement vacations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. as amended, and can be supported by the findings of the Draft EIR so long as the Urban Lane Extension is provided north to University Circle. Without that extension, vehicular circulation in the PAME vicinity for nearby properties would be decreased, particularly for large trucks serving properties to the north, compared to CMR: 104:96 Page 10 of 61 existing conditions. As concluded by the EIR alternatives analysis, a signal would need to be located at Encina Avenue rather than at the PAMF entrance, if the Urban Lane Extension were not provided. As described in the separate staffreport (CMR: 107:96) related to the street and public utili~ easement vacation process, the recommended January 22 City Council action is to initiate a February 20, 1996 public hearing on the street and public utility easement vacations. In late November, PAMF submitted a tentative map application derived from the Preliminary Map (Sheet 17) submitted earlier with the other planning applications. The Tentative Map combines the existing thirteen parcels into a single parcel, with appropriate easements established for roadways, sidewalks and public utilities. The November 1995 Tentative Map submittal was found to be incomplete, and PAMF provided a revised Tentative Map submittal in mid-December. That revised submittal (attached map dated December 11, 1995) still needs some additional modifications. PAMF engineers are in the process of completing those modifications and consulting with Ci~ staff to ensure that the next version of the Tentative Map is consistent with staff, Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission recommendations. There are no major outstanding substantive issues regarding the Tentative Map. Most currently incomplete items are details related to exact dimensions of street cross sections and public utility easements. Staff recommends that the City Council continue consideration of the Tentative Subdivision Map until the February 20 City Council meeting. At that time. the Tentative Map with correct details will be available and the tentative map and street and public utility easement issues can be considered at the same meeting. Attachment M contains proposed Tentative Map findings and conditions of approval that are subject to only minor modifications between now and final Council action on the Tentative Map. Those findings and conditions were reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to the Council for approval. Circulation and Parking: Circulation through the site would be somewhat circuitous. From the main entrance on E1 Camino Real, the north-south connector road can be reached by driving around the one-way entrance oval, turning right at Building A, driving through a small parking lot to Wells Avenue and turning right. Likewise, vehicles on the north-south connector destined to E1 Camino Real, particularly southbound, would utilize Wells Avenue, the Building A parking lot and the entrance oval. Northbound vehicles would also use Encina Avenue or Wells Avenue to reach the Urban Lane extension to University Circle. CMR: 104:96 Page 11 of 61 PA_MF representatives indicate that employees will be directed to access the site via the north-south connector road and the entrance to the parking garage in the southeast parking lot. Patients would be encouraged to use the most convenient point of access to the new campus. Service vehicles would access the site from Wells Avenue or Urban Lane Extension to reach the service dock adjacent to Building A on Wells Avenue and from the north- south connector road to reach the main service dock located on the south side of Building C along the one-way service drive leading from the north-south connector to E1 Camino Real. Deliveries would be made under a system known as supplier ~varehousing, or "just-in-time" deliveD,, thereby eliminating the need for large trucks and substantial on-site storage space. Smaller panel trucks would provide deliveries. These service docks would incorporate areas for trash and recycling receptacles, although the plans do not provide detailed information at this time about such facilities. Service vehicles and all other large trucks would be prohibited through signage from using the main access oval, thereby not having access to the new sisal. However, all on-site roadways ~vould be designed to accommodate the turning radii and support the weight of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking would be provided in a two-level undergound parking garage under much of the site and in surface parking lots at several locations. The undergound parking garage has ~o entrances, from the_ main entrance oval and the surface parking lot at the southeastern corner of the site near the Encina Avenue entrance. Three surface parking lots are proposed in the following locations: in the center of the entrance oval for urgent care patient parking, adjacent to building A. and a!ong the eastern (i.e., railroad track) edge of the site extending from Building D to the southern project boundary. Total parking proposed is 1,116 spaces of which 350 are for patients and 766 are for employees. This amount of parking is 305 spaces fewer than the City code requires. However, the EIR analysis has confirmed that the number of parking spaces proposed is slightly more than the amount necessary," to accommodate projected parking demand. In addition, the plans include desi~ and location of a five-story parking garage at the southeast corner of the site where the additional code-required spaces could be located, if required in the future by activation of a deferred parking approval pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.83.120(e). Pedestrian. Bicycle and Transit: Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and transit access in the revised PAMF campus desig~ have been significantly improved since the original submittal. The lack of many pedestrian and transit improvements and the often circuitous routing of those proposed were serious defects of the original plans CMR: 104:96 Page 12 of 61 and major concerns of staff and the ARB. The revised campus design essentially resolves those earlier concerns by providing a clear pedestrian circulation network and committing PAMF to provision of Marguerite or equivalent shuttle service. The Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) has considered the proposed bicycle parking facilities at several meetings and voted at its December 5, 1995 meeting to endorse the Architectural Review conditions of approval, which require revisions to the location of bicycle parking facilities and minor changes to bicycle circulation and resubmittal of these plans for PABAC review and ARB approval. The only remaining bicycle-related concern pertains to how the currently proposed site grading affects the east side bicycle path. As discussed elsewhere, the southeast portion of the mostly underground par’king structure projects above grade. PAMF has yet to provide detailed topographic information showing the eastside area and the relationships among the parking structure, bicycle path improvements and the adjacent railroad right-of-way, along with final grading and proposed retaining walls. Service Circulation and Loading/Unloading: PAMF can control its own service deliveries and will require that any large service vehicles access the site via the north- south connector road. The proposed service deliver2’ system relies on off-site inventory storage and delivew of goods on a more frequent basis and in smaller quantities than if storage were on-site. Recycling and solid waste pick up vehicles would also need to access the site from the north-south connector. Such vehicles would be restricted from the signalized entrance oval area. Loading and unloading will be divided between Building A. near Wells Avenue, and the rear of Building C, near the rear of properties fronting on Encina Avenue. In addition to a landscape strip of tall trees and shrubs behind the Encina Avenue properties, a retaining wall with a solid fence will be located behind the Encina properties closest to the PAMF entrance on Encina. The solid fence ",’,,ill provide noise attenuation in addition to the time restrictions for service truck deliveries imposed as a use permit condition. As conditioned in the ARB approval and Use Permit, the Buildings A and C loading areas can be used only between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, weekdays, and between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM onthe weekends. Urban Lane Extension: PAMF representatives ac "knowledged that the revised project design required an extension of Urban Lane to the north to meet all the circulation needs of patients and particularly employees. The extension of Urban Lane is required as a condition of project approval, as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. CMR: 104:96 Page 13 of 61 The Urban Lane Extension is not proposed by PAMF as part of its project. Rather, PAMF representatives have informally requested that the City, Stanford University and the Joint Powers Board (JPB) cooperate with PAMF to determine how this new street connection can be provided. The EIR scope was specifically designed to provide preliminary engineering information about alternative ways to configure the Urban Lane Extension (refer to Appendix F in the Draft EIR). If the extension is not provided, PAMF will need to redesign its project so that primary access to and from the site is achieved via a non-signalized right turn in/right turn out entrance on El Camino Real and a southerly connection to Encina Avenue. Encina Avenue would be improved with a signal at E1 Camino Real. The Planning Commission reviewed the Urban Lane Extension alternatives and recommended that the City Council approve the preferred design concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane, as contained in Appendix F (alternative #4) of the Draft EIR. Assuming that the jurisdictional, engineering and other details can be resolved, further City review of the Urban Lane Extension will focus on detailed design issues once the City Council has acted to conclude the broader policy question of the preferred project alternative and preferred design for the Urban Lane Extension. All costs of the Urban Lane extension would be the responsibility of PAMF and the use permit is appropriately conditioned to require PAMF to pay these costs. Wells Avenue: In response to concerns outlined in the letters from Dr. Kenneth Weigel of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital, staff have carefully reviewed the street improvements proposed for Wells Avenue. Dr. Weigel is concerned that on-street parking be preserved to the maximum extent possible for use by his employees and loading/unloading activities associated with the warehouse facilities across the street. Staff analyzed several alternative Wells Avenue configurations and concluded that the planned improvements preserve the most on-street parking, approximately 13 spaces, while providing an adequate cross-section for vehicular circulation. PAMF/Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpass: The Draft EIR evaluates (Appendix G) a pedestrian and bicycle underpass connecting the Urban Lane Campus to Alma at Homer Avenue, although the undercrossing has never been a part of the PAMF project in their submitted applications. Bridge and tunne! options were studied, with information provided regarding right-of-way, engineering and construction considerations. The preferred alternative, a tunnel undercrossing with ramps at either end to connect to existing wades, would be a ve~’ expensive improvement (on the order of $2,000,000). CMR: 104:96 Page 14 of 61 Three funding options for the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing have been identified. Having PAMF pay for a notable percentage of the undercrossing’s cost is not something that the City can require, given the lack of a substantial nexus to identified environmental impacts or infrastructure burdens resulting from the project. Cit)~ staff can not recommend Cit3~ General Fund (i.e., Capital Improvement Pro~am funding) based on the substantial cost of the undercrossing and the scope of other Ci~ infrastructure projects that need funding. The third possible funding alternative would be an assessment district focused primarily on the south of Forest Avenue and UniversiU Avenue business areas, although this possibility has not been thoroughly analyzed. At the December 12 Planning Commisison meeting, PAMF’s representataive committed $150,000 toward the construction costs of an underpass. That commitment, for a 5-year period following approval of the project, has been incorporated into the use permit and ARB conditions of approval. The representative of the Chamber of Commerce indicated at the December 6 Planning Commission meeting business support for the undercrossing. Cib’ staff has asked the Chamber’s Executive Director to attempt to gauge the Chamber’s support for an assessment district prior to the January 22 City Council public hearing. New Si~onalized Connection from PAMF Site to E1 Camino Real: From the earliest discussions with PAMF staff and consultants, it has been very clear that a signalized entD’ from E1 Camino Real with full turning movements has been a very high PAMF priori~. Considerable effort has gone into creating an intersection design that serves PAMF’s needs and functions in a safe and effective manner. The primaD; problem has been traffic from the southbound on-ramp from Palm Drive to E1 Camino Real attempting to weave across E1 Camino Real to t~’ to make a left turn into the PAMF site. The design solution brings the on-ramp to the intersection, so that ramp traffic can not enter the PAMF site. All other left and right turn movements can be made from the new intersection. PAMF-destined traffic using the on-ramp from Palm Drive will continue south and make a U-turn. Most of these turns will be made at Embarcadero Road. It is anticipated that most drivers approaching the PAMF site from University Avenue/PalmDrive will find that the Urban Lane entD, is easier to use than making a U-turn on E1 Camino Real. E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road!Galvez Intersection: The major change at the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero intersection is a substantial increase in traffic using the left turn lane from southbound E1 Camino Real. While overall intersection level of ser~,ice (LOS) in 1998 with an occupied PAMF project remains at LOS D, it comes CMR: 104:96 Page 15 of 61 very close in the afternoon peak period to LOS E. Further, left turn lane peak period traffic increases to beyond capacity and the left turn lane will function at LOS F. Caltrans has indicated in their formal response to the Draft EIR that they would require installation of the second left turn lane as part of the new PAMF ent~ construction work. Subsequently, City staff and the EIR consultants undertook additional analysis of the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez intersection (see the first 13 pages plus the following 11/30/95 letter in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR Addendum). Regarding the impacts of having a second left turn lane, staff and the EIR consultants have reached the following major conclusions: The left turning traffic in 1998 with PAMF traffic will exceed the capacity of the single left turn lane. Traffic will back up, affecting the southbound through lanes and/or Town & Country, Village’s unsignalized E1 Camino Real entrance and create safety problems. Embarcadero Road traffic east of Middlefield, with or without the second left turn lane, will be essentially the same. The PAMF project increases traffic on Embarcadero Road bet~veen E1 Camino Real and Waverley/Middlefield because of the relocated PAMF facilities, and this increase is relatively unaffected by the second left turn lane. Without a second left turn lane, some traffic leaving the PAMF site will be encouraged to use University Circle to University to Alma or High Streets and then either take a route through the SOFA/existing PAMF area to reach Embarcadero or take Alma to Embarcadero. With a second left turn lane, the resulting faster processing of left-turning traffic would improve exiting from Town & Count~; Village into eastbound Embarcadero Road. City staff concurred with the Caltrans conclusions that the second left turn lane will be needed for safety and operational reasons. The Planning Commission included the second left turn lane as part of their recommendations. After the December 12 Planning Commission action, representatives of the Universit-y South Neighborhoods Group (Pat Burt and Don Fitton) requested a meeting with City and PAMF staff. A major concern of the neighborhood representatives was that the EIR analysis might have overstated the amount of traffic and thus might lead to an unneeded second left turn lane. That and other issues are reviewed in the attached CMR:104:96 Page 16 of 61 January 11, 1996 letter to the Group. On January 4, City and PAMF staff met with Caltrans staff to review the traffic analysis and pursue the Group’s concerns. Caltrans staff continue to conclude that the best way of addressing the second left turn lane is by constructing it at the same time as the PAMF entry is constructed. However, they a~eed to accept, if the Ci~, requests, a mitigation monitoring approach so long as the following features are incorporated: All City approvals for the second left turn lane would be made as part of the PAMF approval process; The CiD’ would guarantee that funding for the left turn lane project will be available if and when the second left turn lane is required under the monitoring process; The monitoring would involve a three-day analysis (Tuesday, Wednesday’ and Thursday) conducted two to three months after the PAMF clinic and research buildings open for public use, followed bY one-day monitoring on approximately a quarterly schedule; The monitoring would occur when local schools and Stanford are in session and not during holiday or other unusual times; and The trigger for installation of the second left turn lane would be a combination of more than 300 cars for any one hour using the left turn lane during the 3:00- 6:00 p.m. peak period and cars backing up into and/or beyond the Town & CountD unsignalized median opening a minimum of five traffic signal cycles (or 20 percent of the total cycles) during the peak hour. City staff continue to endorse the conclusion in the November 30, 1995 letter from Caltrans that the second left turn lane be installed as part of constructing the signalized PAMF entry. The staff recommendation is based on the veD. high Iikelihood that initial occupancy of the PAMF facilities will overload the single left turn lane; the problems associated xvith constructing the second left turn lane after the traffic is present and the problems exist; and the negative consequences of encouraging Embarcadero Road-bound traffic to either try to short cut through Town & CountD’ Village or find routes from the PAMF site to UniversiD, Avenue and then through the South of Forest Avenue/current PAMF site/Professorville area. The staff and Planning Commission recommended mitigation measure for the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero\Galvez intersection: CMR: 104:96 Page 17 of 61 "B.3.a: Although the project would not result in overall intersection operations at LOS E or worse, and would not result in an entering volume in excess of the City’s approved 2010 volume, the project would result in a southbound left-turn volume at E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road substantially in excess of the Caltrans 300- vehicles-per-lane standard in the p.m. peak hour, and the City will support Caltrans’ stated requirement for construction of a second southbound left-turn lane at that intersection as part 0fthe construction of the PAMF signalized entrance." If the City Counci! wishes to use the monitoring alternative, the mitigation measure should be reworded to: Mitigation.Measure: Although the project would not result in overall intersection operations at LOS E or worse, and would not result in an entering volume in excess of the City’s approved 2010 volume, the project would result in a southbound left-turn volume at E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road substantially in excess of the Caltrans 300- vehicles-per-lane standard in the p.m. peak hour, and the City will require, as a condition of project approval, that the project sponsor develop construction plans for a second southbound left-turn lane at that intersection as part of the project, that the project sponsor deposit final desi~c~ and construction funds for the second left-turn lane in a Ci~~ escrow account, and that the project sponsor monitor the left-turn volume and construct a second southbbund left-turn lane once left- turning traffic exceeds thresholds to be established by the City and Caltrans. ALTERNATIVES The DEIR addresses a number of alternatives. If the Urban Lane Campus project is either denied by the City or concluded by the Foundation to be too expensive, PAMF representatives have indicated that PAMF will remain at its current location and need to upuade their facilities consistent with the 1991 Specific Plan. A reduced project size alternative would realistically focus on elimination of Building D, the Wellness Center. It has never been clear to City staff the extent to which the Wellness Center is a real and likely possibility. The Center was not part of the plans submitted in early !995 and given preliminary’ review by the ARB on April 20. If the Urban Lane extension from the site to University Circle is not implemented, the signalized access-on E! Camino Real would need to shift to Encina and the main PAMY entry CMR: 104:96 Page 18 of 61 be limited to right turns in and out. There would be substantial site planning ramifications of this change. FISCAL IMPACT Appendix H of the Draft EIR contains a Fiscal and Economic Benefit Analysis of the PAMY Relocation project. The analysis includes estimates of retail spending and City and School District revenues for the relocated PAM2" facilities and two residential redevelopment scenarios for the existing PAMF properties. Under the moderateresidential reuse scenario (142 units on 10.24 acres), residential spending in the downtown is estimated to about equal the loss in Downtown retai! sales (approximately $500,000) resulting from PAMF’s relocation. The relocation will benefit particularly retail sales in Town & count~~ Village. With residential redevelopment, overall Ci~~ (and School District) revenues will increase as a result of higher property values and property taxes. PAMF’s relocation should not result in higher expenditures for the CiB’. Residential reuse of existing PAMY properties will result in some increased City (and School District) expenditures. The DEIR’s economic analysis does not estimate these expenditures. That analysis wilt occur when a reuse planning process is undertaken for the existing PAMF downtown properties. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On October 20, !995, the Cit~~ Council received the Draft EIR. The required 45-day public review period ran through December 4, 1995. The ARB took public testimony on November 16, and the Planning Commission took testimony on November 29 and December 6. All oral and written comments on the Draft EIR area addressed in the Final EIR. The attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progam for Significant Impacts identifies project impacts and their related mitigation measures. Also attached is a list of Conditions for Less Than Significant Impacts, which summarizes additional project conditions identified in the DEIR. The DEIR concludes that all but three of the impacts can be mitigated to the point where, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, they are insignificant. The three impacts that can not be mitigated to the point of insi~ificance are: IV.H.2 - Air Quality - The project would result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions. IV.H.6 - Air Quality - The project would contribute to a cumulative increase in emissions in the region. IV.J.! - Noise and Vibration - Project construction would temporarily generate increased noise at the project site and in its vicinity. CMR: 104:96 Page 19 of 61 CEQA provides that projects with significant environmental impacts can be approved providing that certain findings of overriding considerations can be made. Staff concludes that the PAME project is such a project and the appropriate findings are in Attachment C for review and adoption by the Council. As noted on pages 53 and 54 of the attached in-depth staff report, PAMF has objected to inclusion of a mitigation measure for cumulative traffic impacts at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection. If mitigation measure B.9.b is deleted by the City Council, the cumulative traffic impact at this location would also require findings of overriding considerations. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City Manager CMR:104:96 Page 20 of 61 C ty a ager’s Report SUBJECT:Review of Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Project-Related Applications, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Extension of Urban Lane to UniversiD~ Circle (94-EIA-5, 95-CPA-1, 95-ZC-4, 94-UP-8, 94-SUB-I, 94-ARB-30, 95-DEE- 3, 95-V-17); 795 El Camino Real. REQUEST The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) requests Cit5~ approval of numerous applications related to relocation and limited expansion of their current medical and research facilities located near Palo Alto’s Downtown. The proposed relocation would create a new Medical Foundation (i.e., Medical Clinic and Medical Research facilities) campus on an approximately nine-acre site covering much of the area bounded by Wells Avenue. E1 Camino Real, the rear propert) line of parcels fronting Encina Avenue and the railroad tracks (see attached area map). Other separate but related agenda items concern 1) PAMF’s request to vacate Homer Avenue. portions of Urban Lane and a public utility easement at the project site and 2) PAMF’s request to amend the Development A~eement between the city and PAMF covering existing PA_Mt: facilities addressed in the 1991 Downtown PAMY Campus Specific Plan. The intent of the amendment is to preclude reuse of the PAMF buildings (with the exception of the Surgecenter at 400 Forest Avenue, which is an independent medical facility, and a 5- to I0-primaD~ care. provider plus support staff office at a location yet to be determined, but which would not be located in buildings on the two main PAMF blocks, i.e., the blocks fronting on either side of Bvant between Homer and Channing). RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council adopt motions, resolutions and ordinances, as follows: CMR:104:96 Page 21 of 61 Resolution certifying that the Final EIR has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality., Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the project and related mitigation measures, with findings included (Attachment C); Resolution approving an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial to Major Institution!Special Facilities (Attachment D); Resolution approving an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Pro~am to provide for modification of Housing Progam 1A related to the Downtown PAMF Specific Plan upon occupancy of the Urban Lane Campus (Attachment E); Ordinance approving an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance’s Public Facilities (PF) text to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medical and medical research (Attachment F); Ordinance approving an amendment of the zoning for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial (CS) to Public Facilities (PF) (Attachment G); Motion approving a conditional use permit for operation of an outpatient medical and medical research use at the proposed Urban Lane campus, with findings and conditions included (Attachment H); Motion approving a variance to allow 31.9 percent site coverage where 30 percent is permitted if and when a deferred parking structure is constructed, with findings included (Attachment I): Motion approving a design enhancement exception to reduce building setbacks along Wells Avenue and the new north-south connector road to Urban Lane, with findings included (Attachment J); Motion endorsing the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of 305 deferred parking spaces in a 5-story garage to be constructed if needed in the future, with findings included (Attachment K); Motion approving the site plan, architecture and related design features, with findings and conditions included (Attachment L); Motion approving a desi~ concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane from University., Circle to the proposed Urban Lane Campus (Alternatiave 4 in Appendix F of Draft EIR); CMR: 104:96 Page 22 of 61 Motion continuing consideration of the tentative subdivision map to Februaw 20, 1996, when final action for the proposed street vacations and public utility easement vacation is recommended to be on the Council agenda. BACKGROUND Site Information The site of the proposed Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus is located immediately southwest of Palo Alto’s downtown business district in a predominantly commercial area. The site comprises 9.2 acres bounded generally by E1 Camino Real to the west. Wells Avenue to the north, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) right- of-wav adjacent to Alma Street to the east, and a line parallel with, and about 120 feet north of. Encina Avenue to the south. The site consists of 13 separate parcels that the project sponsor proposes to assemble into one parcel via the subdivision process. These parcels are all designated "Service Commercia!" in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and are similarly zoned CS Service Commercial. Presently. the site is largely vacant with one metal warehouse building, which is to be removed, at the northeast corner. A chain-link fence, which would be demolished prior to project construction, extends along the perimeter of the site. Most structures were demolished in 1994 and early 1995. Former uses at the site included a Chevron gas station (where contamination remediation is currently underway), a Hubbard and Johnson hardware store, and several small commercial and warehouse uses. Surrounding uses are primarily commercial, including retail, office and automotive services. The northwestern boundary of the project site is adjacent to a pet hospital, located at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue. Across Wells Avenue to the north are an auto upholstery shop, a sports bar and a series of warehouses. Beyond these uses to the north are the Holiday Inn, including a parking lot, and another parking lot that is used by CalTrain riders, as well as some people doing business in downtown Palo Alto. To the east of the CalTrain right-of-way are various commercia! uses along Alma Street. To the south of the project site along Encina Avenue are an auto repair shop, a residential unit (the historic Greer house, 51 Encina Avenue), and retail, office and light industrial uses. Further south, across Encina Avenue, are a car wash and the Town & Count~’ Village shopping center. Stanford University campus property is located west and northwest of the site across E1 Camino Real. Comprehensive Plan designations for the Wells Avenue commercial uses and the Holiday Inn are Service Commercial. The Holiday Inn is zoned Planned Community and the Wells Avenue businesses are zoned CS Service Commercial. The CalTrain parking lot to the north. CMR: 104:96 Page 23 of 61 is designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned PF Public Facilities. To the south, properties along Encina Avenue are designated Service Commercial and zoned CS Service Commercial. The Town & Count~ Village shopping center has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Regional/Community Commercial and is zoned CC Community Commercial. Project Description The PAMF Urban Lane Campus project involves construction of a new medical clinic and research facility that will replace its existing operations in numerous separate .buildings in the downtown area. The new medical campus will consolidate nearly all of PAMF’s health care, health education, medical research and administrative functions in Palo Alto at the new campus. The campus would consist of three separate buildings (Buildings A, B/C and D) totaling approximately 355,300 square feet on a 9.2-acre site (see attached site plan). Desi~ma approvals for Building D are not sought at this time. The Foundation’s existing downtown Palo Alto operation occupies about 251.000 square feet in 17 separate buildings. While the project xvould relocate, consolidate, modernize and enlarge the area of PAMF’s downtown Palo Alto facilities, PAMF representatives estimate that neither the number of patient visits nor the number of medical providers would increase beyond current levels at its existing Palo Alto facility. PAMF indicates that the physical improvements proposed (increased research space and parking, improved functional relationships betnveen clinic, research, education and administration) are necessa~~ to function in the new managed health care environment. Any increases in patient care are expected to be provided at satellite facilities in other communities. Note that the Draft EIR assumes, for the purpose of analyzing traffic, that usage of the site will increase commensurate with the increased floor area. Prior PAMF Proposal and Approval In 1989, the applicant proposed a specific plan to enlarge the existing PAMF facili~; located in downtown Palo Alto. The plan proposed a total expansion of 45,000 square feet, reconstruction or renovation of 182,283 square feet and replacement of 21,059 square feet. This would bring the total square footage at the existing Palo Alto campus to 248,342 square feet. An EIR was prepared and certified in late ! 990 and the specific plan was approved in 1991. A development ageement was also formulated and approved. Subsequent to approval, the EIR was legally challenged but was found to be adequate. The Specific Plan was approved by the voters after submittal of a Referendum Petition. The applicant is seeking approval for the relocation of the PAMF facilities rather than implementing the still valid Specific Plan-related approvals. The applicant has indicated that if relocation is not approved or is otherwise infeasible, the approved Specific Plan will be implemented. CMR: 104:96 Page 24 of 61 Action by Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board The Planning Commission considered the PAMF project applications and Draft EIR on November 29, December 6, and December 12, 1995. Public testimony was taken on November 29 and December 6 and is recorded in the meeting minutes under Attachments. Letters pertaining to environmental issues submitted during the public review period and at the November 29 and December 6 public hearings are incorporated into and responded to in the Final EIR. On December 12; the Planning Commission voted unanimously (Ojakian and Schink not participating due to conflicts of interest) to recommend to the Ci~ Council that the Draft EIR was prepared consistent xvith the California Environmental Quality Act and approval of al! project applications with conditions of approval. The Planning Commission also made recommendations to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) regarding design issues concerning the massiveness of the proposed buildings, especially the south elevation of Building C; the need to minimize loss of on-street parking along Wells Avenue; changing the proposed retaining wall along Wells Avenue adjacent to Building A to a landscaped slope; recommending PAMF provide electrical outlets in the parking structure for use by electric vehicles; and encouraging PAMF representatives to involve professional artists in the current design of the campus and to coordinate with the Public Arts Commission. On December 14, 1995, the ARB held a public hearing for final review of the PAMY project site plan, landscaping and architectural design after preliminary reviews on April 20, October !0 and November 16, 1995. The ARB members, pleased with the direction of revisions made since April, expressed general satisfaction with the project design and building materials, subject to numerous conditions of approval (attached). Conditions require more detailed landscaping, lighting and signage plans, refinements of building colors and materials, and modifications to site and architectural plans proposed by the Planning Commission to be prepared and approved by the ARB prior to issuance of permits. Histor-, of Current Applications PAMF acquired and assembled 13 parcels in the Urban Lane area for the current proposal. In March of 1994, the applicant made a submittal of the following applications: A Comprehensive Plan land use amendment changing the site designation from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities; A zone change from CS (Commercial Service) to PF (Public Facilities); CMR: 104:96 Page 25 of 61 A zone text change to the PF district to allow outpatient medical use and medical research as conditional uses; A conditional use permit to allow outpatient medical and medical research uses on the site; A subdivision to assemble the current 13 parcels into one parcel; A variance for site coverage in excess of the 30 percent allowed in the PF district; Environmental review of the project; Design review of the project; Planning Director approval for deferral of some of the required number of parking spaces; and Ci~~ Council approval of vacation of portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane on the project site. Most of these applications were found to be incomplete. Several revisions were made to the plans in August and October 1994 and February 1995. The final submittal, other than the tentative subdivision map, was made on March 2~, 1995 and deemed complete April 4, 1995. The ARB reviewed this proposal on April 20, !995. The project at that time was to construct a 285,000-square-foot medical research and out-patient clinic campus. The project design reviewed by the ARB, although similar in concept and massing to the present proposal, had several significant differences that staff and the ARB found problematic. The April site plan called for two main buildings for research and medica! clinic uses, similar to Buildings A and B/C, with access from a new signalized entrance on E! Camino Real via an oval-shaped drive. Parking was to be provided primarily at the rear of these buildings adjacent to the CalTrain right-of-way in a four-sto~ parking structure with one level below grade. The scale and visual impact of this parking garage structure were major concerns. A secondary concern was the proposed architectural design, which had a Mission style emphasis. Due to several factors, including PAMF’s need to update its facilities programming, City staff comments, ARB comments at the April 20 preliminary review, and preliminary PAMF and City traffic analyses. PAMF substantially modified its proposal and submitted revised plans to the Cit?" in July and August, ! 995. The Draft EIR and staff analyses of the project applications are based on this reviewed proposal. Revisions included: Expansion of the project from 285,000 to 355,331 square feet, with the addition.of a new 60,000-square-foot freestanding Wellness Center (Building D) and enlargements of other functional elements of the project; Elimination of the parking structure along the railroad right-of-way and provision of significant amounts of underground parking on two levels, in addition to surface parking; CMR: 104:96 Page 26 of 61 Relocation and redesign of the E! Camino Real signalized entrance and "oval" area to provide better traffic flow with patient drop-off and pick-up areas, urgent care parking and access to the undergound parking structure entrance and exit ramps; Modification of project circulation, including incorporation of the proposed north- south connector road between Encina Avenue and Wells Avenue and connection to the proposed Urban Lane northerly extension to University Circle; Modification of the architecture to a Mediterranean style without Mission Revival elements; and 6.Provision of a new preliminao~ landscape plan. The revisions to the project design resulted in two changes to project applications. A site coverage variance was no longer required to the basic project because of elimination of the above-~ound parking structure. However, the alternate proposal for deferred parking in a significantly smaller parking structure at the southeast corner of the site does require a coverage variance. A Design Enhancement Exception is requested as part of the new design to allow adjustments to calculation of building setbacks given the inclusion of the new north- south connector roadway and widening of Wells Avenue in the project area. Applications pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, conditional use permit, subdivision, environmental, review, design review, Planning Director approval of deferral of required parking, and Council vacation of existing roadway easements remain parts of the overall project. It is important to emphasize that elimination of the parking structure in the previous PAMF proposal is dependent upon approval of undergound parking. Information provided by PAMF and the Draft EIR analysis indicate that there are constraints upon the depth at which the undergound parking structure can be located, for soil stability and related seismic safety and economic reasons. Changes to Plans Based on the Value Engineering Process In October, PAMF completed a value engineering process which resulted in numerous changes to the project, the vast majority of which affect building interiors (e.g., changes to floor plans and equipment) which are not related to project applications under review by the Architectura! Review Board, Planning Commission or City Council. The plans provided in the Attachments reflect the following changes. CMR: 104:96 Page 27 of 61 Building A basement was removed and the third-floor conference center relocated due to higher construction costs for this building. The conference center was relocated to the top floor of Building B and research uses now occupy the third floor of Building A. Building A will be used exclusively for research purposes. Its area was reduced by the size of the basement, approximately 11,800 square feet. The three-sto~~ link that connected Buildings A and B in earlier plans was changed so that it connects only as a covered walkway (i.e., loggia) at the ~ound level. This change is reflective of the exclusive research use in Building A, which no longer involves general public access to the conference center. The surgery center, lab and pharmacy, formerly planned for the top floor of Building B. were relocated to Level A in the vicinity of the "court." This move allows the conference center to be located on the third floor. PAMF feels that relocating these functions to the A level improves convenience for patients. The court no longer opens at Level A (which provided natural light into the undergound parking area) but has been relocated to the first level in the same area and remains an open air pedestrian area. o One structural bay on all four floors of Building C was eliminated, moving the building face 27 feet further away from E! Camino Real and reducing the building size .by approximately ! 2,000 square feet. This change reduced overall project costs, increased the landscape area along this portion of El Camino Real and created a larger buffer from the street for a larger pediatric play court, and allowed a more gadual ~ade change from E1 Camino Real. Project delivery systems were reorganized and the Buildings A and C service docks redesigned. The Building A sen, ice dock now serves only Building A as opposed to being the reception point for all site deliveries and some pick up, as previous planned. It is therefore smaller and rises up four feet from the Wells Avenue driveway to serve the first floor, rather than being depressed to serve the basement level. The Building C service entry was widened about ten feet on either side to accommodate an increased number of trucks providing pick up and delive~~ at this location for both Buildings B and C. Two small deliveo, trucks will be able to park tandem at the widened service entry. Most recycling and garbage pickup activity would be at the Building C service dock. The cornice and roof edge were modified to eliminate the metal railing and balustrade but still maintain a projecting cornice and shadow line at the roof edge. CMR:104:96 Page 28 of 61 PAMF submitted a revised set of plans dated November 27 and November 29 which reflect these and other changes to site plan, landscaping plans and architectural elevations. These plans were used in preparation of the ARB staff report and conditions of approval for architectural review. At the ARB’s December 14 meeting, PAMF’s architect and landscape architect presented new exhibits, including a sun/shade analysis, updated architectural renderings reflecting the value engineering changes to architectural design, and colored landscaping plans which depict the new Urban Lane Park at the Building D site and changes to the Urban Lane Plaza. Additional material samples were provided, including enriched paving materials for the ent~ oval and East Plaza areas. In addition, a new,. partially complete, larger scale project and vicinity model was provided for ARB review. A revised Tentative Map was submitted by PAMF in mid-December for final review by City staff. Modifications required by City staff are being incorporated into a revised Tentative map. scheduled for approval with final Council action on the related street and utility easement vacations. REVIEW AUTHORITIES FOR APPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Amendments PAMF proposes to change the land use designation to Major Institution/Special Facilities, as the proposed campus project does not conform to the Service Commercia! land use designation for this site. A second Comprehensive Plan amendment (of Housing Progam 1A) is proposed to address the "phase out" of the current approvals for expansion ofPAMF’s downtown facilities. Adoption of the proposed amendments involves a Ci~." Council public hearing, consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, and subsequent approval of resolutions containing findings that the changes are in the public interest, health and welfare and are for the benefit of the regional welfare. Rezoning and Zone Text Change Rezoning to PF Public Facilities from CS Service Commercial is proposed consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan designation of Major Institution/Special Facilities. The proposed campus project does not conform to the existing CS Service Commercial zoning of the site. The City Council would hold a noticed public hearing, consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and take action to approve the change via adoption of an ordinance. CMR: 104:96 Page 29 of 61 Zoning Ordinance Section 18.98.080 states that initiation of changes to zoning regulations other than district boundaries may be initiated by motion of the City Council or21anning Commission. On October 10, 1995, the City Council recommended that the Planning Commission consider a zone text change to the PF Public Facilities district tO permit medical research and medical clinics as conditional uses. Approval of the proposed zone text change would occur in the same manner as for the zoning district change. Subdivision Reassembly of the existing 13 parcels into one 9.2-acre parcel would be accomplished by a subdivision map. PAMF has submitted an application and Tentative Subdivision Map. City Council review includes a noticed public hearing and consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation prior to taking action on the tentative map. Approval of a tentative map is subject to conditions, after determining that it complies and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and all other provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Conditional Use Permit Although the PF district permits nonprofit hospitals, the proposed medical clinic and medical research uses must be added as conditional uses through the zone text amendment cited above. In this case, the effective date of approval would be conditioned upon City Council approval of the PF zone text amendment allowing this conditional use in the zoning district. Findings are that the proposed use at the proposed site will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience: and that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the use permit can not be effective unless and until the Zoning Ordinance text change is in effect. Design Enhancement Exception Proposed building setbacks from Wells Avenue and the north-south connector road are less than the 20-foot minimum required from streets, resulting in the need for a Desi~ Enhancement Exception (DEE) application. Building A would be only 15 feet from the edge of the improved Wells Avenue right-of-way. The eastern edge of Building B would have an approximately 15-foot setback and Building C, a 10-foot setback from the north-south connector road sidewalk. Building D would also have no setback at one point. Section 16.48.135 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for exceptions to site development and other requirements to enhance the design. Minor changes to the setback and other CMR: 104:96 Page 30 of 61 requirements are permitted after a noticed public hearing by the Architectural Review Board which recommends action to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. On December 14, 1995, members of the ARB recommended support for the DEE application. Approval of the design enhancement exception is subject to findings, as follows: (1) There are exceptional or ext~aordina~ circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone; (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and standards for review; and (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The ARB recommendation for approval of the DEE has been referred to the City Council by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.City Council action would be consideration of a motion approving the DEE. Deferred Parking Approval Section 18.83.120(e) of the Zoning Ordinance permits deferral of meeting the full requirement for parking. The Director of Planning and Community Environment, upon recommendation of the ARB, may authorize that construction and provision of not more that 50 percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not less than 25 percent of the bicycle parking stalls be deferred. The Director mav set conditions, if necessary, to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces. On December 14, the ARB recommended approval for the parking deferral. The ARB recommendation has been referred to the Ci~~ Council by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. City Council action would be consideration of a motion approving the parking deferral. Variance Related to the proposal for deferred parking is a variance application due to the fact that construction of the deferred parking structure would result in 31.9 percent site coverage, exceeding the 30 percent maximum site coverage standard. Section 18.90.050 provides the required findings for approval of a variance, as follows: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to propert3~ in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessa~, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessa~ hardship; and (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the CMR: 104:96 Page 31 of 61 vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Staff concluded that these findings could be made, and appropriate findings were recommended by the Planning Commission on December 12, !995. City Council action, after the public hearing and consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation, is consideration of a motion approving the variance consistent with the attached findings. Design Review As provided in Section 16.48.050, the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the PAMF project’s site plan, landscaping and architectural desi~on on December t4, 1995. The ARB included numerous conditions requiring more detailed landscaping and architectura! design information and some specific modifications prior to issuance of permits. The Director of Planning and Community Environment has referred the ARB action to the City. Council. CitT Council action is consideration of a motion approving the attached ARB- recommended findings and conditions. Related Actions Considered As Separate Agenda Items The Januaw 22, 1996 City Council agenda contains two separate but related items to the actions addressed in this staff report. The Planning Commission- and ARB- recommended PAMF project includes the vacation of two public street segments (Homer Avenue and a portion of Urban Lane) and a Public Utility Easement (PLY). As described in a separate staff report (CMR:107:96), the initial Council action on the vacation request is to adopt a resolution indicating the intent to vacation the public street se~m-nents and PL~ and set a public hearing, recommended for February,; 20, 1996. The second Council action (CMR:!15:96) is a Planning Commission- and staff- recommended amendment to the Development Ageement between the City and PAMF adopted in conjunction with the 1990 City approval of PAMF’s Downtown Specific Plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Compliance The site is currently designated Service Commercial on the Plan’s Land Use Map. PAMF has applied for redesignation to Major Institution!Special Facilities. This designation is intended for institutional, academic, governmental and communiDr service uses occurring on land that is either publicly owned or operated by non-profit organizations. The existing PAMF facilities are located primarily on lands having this designation. In approving development applications on the long-established downtown PAMF site, the City made the CMR: 104:96 Page 32 of 6! finding that PAM~’s activities are consistent with the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation. That designation is proposed for the Urban Lane Campus. In addition, modification of Housing Element Program 1A, which was developed when expansion of the downtown PAMF facili~’ was planned; is recommended now that PAMF proposes to develop the Urban Lane Campus and vacate the existing downtown facility. Housing Element Program IA reads: "’Allow the Palo Alto Medical Foundation new development, up to a maximum increase of 45,000 square feet of floor area. on sites in Medical Foundation use and on nearby sites in residential use in order to enhance health care facilities and services for residents of Palo Alto and nearby communities and to enhance the Foundation’s ability to conduct medical research. "Expansion and development of new Palo Alto Medical Foundation facilities will require redesignation of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map of approximately the northern half of the block bounded by Homer Avenue. Bryant Street, Channing Avenue and Ramona Street from Multiple-Family Residential to Major Institution/Special Facilities. New deve!opment and expansion of Medical Foundation facilities is expected to occur on this block and on the block where the principal facilities of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation are located, that is bounded by Homer Avenue, Waverley Street. Channing Avenue and BrTant Street." The Planning Commission recommends amending this program with the following paragraph: "’In t996 the Palo Alto Medical Foundation obtained City approval of a new medical clinic and research facili~, on E1 Camino Real (known as the ’Urban Lane Site’). as an alternative to continued use and expansion of the Foundation’s existing facilities in the downtown. Upon occupancy of the alternative location, this Program 1A shall be of no further force and effect." The existing Comprehensive Plan was written well before PAMF contemplated relocating its current medical facilities to the Urban Lane area. The Plan recognizes the commercial nature of E! Camino Real as reflected by the land use and zoning shown for the Urban Lane area (Service Commercial). The Plan ac’knowledges the visual chaos that now characterizes certain portions of E1 Camino Real and encourages landscaped setbacks and greater control of signs, lighting, colors and parking screening along E1 Camino Real. CMR: 104:96 Page 33 of 61 Given the City’s desire to improve and upgrade E1 Camino Real, the proposed PAMF project would be in compliance with this general Comprehensive Plan directive. The project would introduce a modem, relatively large development in an area that was characterized by small, uncoordinated, strip commercial type businesses. The project would also provide a deep landscaped setback from E1 Camino Real which responds to the Plan’s call for greater greenery along E1 Camino Real. The Land Use Map change from Service Commercial to Major Institutions/Special Facilities does not conflict with City objectives for E1 Camino Real. The EIR assumes that decisions regarding reuse of PAMF’s existing downtown land will be determined through a subsequent planning process after PAMF has gained approval of the Urban Lane Campus and after PAMF determines that development of the new campus is feasible. The EIR, for the purposes of cumulative impact analysis, assumes the existing PAMF facilities will be redeveloped with residential uses at a total density of 282 units (the maximum under RM-30 zoning). The planning process for determining an actual reuse is outlined in the Amendment to the existing development agreement (CMR: 115 :96). There is a widespread assumption on the part of PAMF, Ci~ staff and neighbors of the downtown campus that the primary reuse of the downtown properties wilt be residential. As such, development of the Urban Lane Campus is quite likely to facilitate City housing objectives. Zoning Compliance Staff prepared an analysis of PAMF project compliance with development standards in the PF Public Facilities zone which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. The project conforms to development standards for building height, FAR and site coverage. A Design Enhancement Exception is needed to permit a reduction in the 20-foot required building setbacks from streets for Buildings A, B/C, and D. In addition, the Architectural Review Board has recommended deferral of approximately 300 parking spaces in a parking structure not provided. On December 14, 1995, the ARB unanimously supported the DEE and parking deferral apt~lications. The project provides 1,116 parking spaces, but the City code requires 1,421; 305 spaces is the difference. Related to this, a variance application is required for the deferred parking garage which would slightly exceed maximum site coverage limitations if built. DISCUSSION Buildings and Site Characteristics Building A, with approximately 39,500 square feet, would house the Research Institute. Health Services are in Buildings B and C, which function as one building. Building B/C CMR: 104:96 Page 34 of 61 would contain about 256,000 square feet for clinic and administrative areas, and specialized uses such as a surge~, center, urgent care, a pharmacy, and the Health Education facility. Building D, not proposed for final design approval at this time, is intended to be a 60,000- square-foot Wellness Center devoted to research and physical therapy uses. PAMF intends to develop this facili~~ as a joint venture with another financial partner. Given that there are no definite plans nor financial agreements for this facility at this time, PAMF has agreed to provide plans for interim use of this area as an outdoor public amenity. The site slopes to the southeast at about 8 percent, with ground elevations ranging from approximately 56 feet at the western edge (El Camino Real) to about 50 feet at the southeast comer. PAMF proposes to have the lowest level of the underground garage at elevation 37 feet, with m’o to three feet of concrete mat foundation below. This level is considered safe in terms of water table levels and soil bearing capacity. The upper level of the garage would reach 58 feet of elevation. The proposed finished floor elevation of Buildings A, B and C would be 62 feet. Streets and roadways above the subgrade parking garage would be at an elevation of about 59 to 60 feet. There would be a 5 percent upgrade entering the site from E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue, and a 3.6 percent upgrade at the Encina Avenue entrance. From the proposed Urban Lane extension, there would be an approximately 5 percent downgrade to Wells Avenue, with a 3 percent upgrade on the north-south connector as the road approaches the subgrade parking garage. Because of the lower elevations at the site’s southeastern area, a retaining wall up to five feet in height would be necessau along a portion of the southern frontage, just west of the Encina Avenue entrance. Grade differentials along the southeastern edge of the subgrade parking garage would require that the garage protrude approximately five feet above ground, also allowing light and air into the subsurface structure. The eastern edge of the bike path along its southern extent would also require a four- to six-foot retaining wall due to the lower adjacent elevations along the CalTrain railroad tracks. PAMF has indicated it will seek Joint Powers Board permission to place fill in the CalTrain r.ight-of-way to lessen the ~ade change and need for retaining walls. Building Height Applicable Code Sections" 18.32.050(g) Height. The maximum height shall be 50 feet. 18.04.030 (67) "Height " means the vertical distance above grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof... !8.04.030 (64) "Grade" means the lowest point of adjacent gound elevation of the finished surface of the ground paving, or sidewalk, excluding areas where grade has been raised by means of a berm, planter box, or similar landscaping feature, unless CMR:104:96 Page 35 of 61 required for drainage, within the area between the building and the property line, or when the property line is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the building. One of the major components of the PAMF project redesign after the April 20, 1995 ARB Preliminary., Review was to eliminate the parking structure and create two levels of parking, largely underground. For several reasons, the applicant proposes to establish the lowest level of the parking garage at 37 feet elevation, with 2-to-3 feet of foundation below. Factors include a variety of physical, regulatory and programmatic constraints such as soil bearing capacity., (on-site water table, at 20.1 to 22.4 feet elevation in 1995, has the potentia! to rise 4 to 6 feet above this level), 50-foot height limitation, 30 percent coverage maximum, on-site parking requirements, sloping existing terrain (from 56.3 feet of elevation at the northwest corner of the site to 49.6 at the southeast corner), applicant-determined budget, and research/clinic floor area desired. This elevation places the roof of the two-story garage at 58 feet. The finished first floor of buildings A, B, and C would be four feet higher at 62-foot elevation. PAMF identified a finished ground elevation between 55.5 to 56.0 feet for the western portion of the project since this is approximately the elevation adjacent to E1 Camino Real. The smaller portion of the project east of the new north-south connector road has a lower finished ground elevation of 53 to 54 feet, the approximate grade of Urban Lane in this vicinity. The 56-foot finished ground elevation plus 50 feet establishes the maximum height at t06 feet of elevation at the top of the roof coping. Along the southeastern and southern boundaries, the project, with its two stories of underground parking, does not transition smoothly to adjacent properties at lower elevations. On the southeastern portion of the site. the parking garage wilt protrude above finished grade approximately five feet, permitting light and air to enter the garage, but creating a wall and visual discontinuity from adjacent areas. On the southern boundaD,, a 3- to 5-foot grade change occurs at adjacent properties. PAMF’s proposal to create a uniform finished ground elevation of 56 feet from which to measure building height stretches the intent of the zoning ordinance, which is to permit minor grade adjustments so that flat sites can properly drain to City streets. The architectural site plan (sheet 8), shows that the finished ground elevations within five feet of Buildings A, B, and C range from 57 to 61.5 feet. Thus, all buildings are shown to conform with the fifty.- foot height limit. However, the scale of this site, intensity of the project and desire for underground parking prevent smooth transitions to the south and east. These issues will be substantially resolved through sensitive design adjustments and conditions of approval. Resolution of these design issues to the satisfaction of the ARB will be required prior to issuance of any grading, excavation or other building permits. CMR:104:96 Page 36 of 61 Building Setbacks Applicable Code Sections 18.32.050(d) Yards: The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the P1= public facilities district shall be equa! to the respective front, side. and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less that 20 feet, and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. o 16.48.135 (a) Exceptions to site development, parking and loading requirements to enhance the design of development subject to architectural review: ...the architectural review board may recommend that the director of planning and community environment approve minor exceptions to the site development, parking and loading requirements set forth in Title ! 8, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review under this chapter. The project site is adjoined by properties zoned CS Service Commercial, CC Community Commercial and PC Planned Community. None of these districts require yard setbacks (PC district setbacks are established on a project-specific basis). Therefore. the yards required are 20 feet from streets, in this case, Wells Avenue, the north-south connector and E1 Camino Real. The southern service drive will be private; therefore, a 10-foot interior vard from the property line would be required there. The project does not meet the setback requirements along Wells Avenue adjacent to Building A nor for Buildings B and C along the north-south connector road. Along Wells Avenue, Building A provides a 15-foot setback from the edge of the proposed public right- of-way (back of sidewalk). The building is set back 20 feet from the northern property line (and thus 20 feet from the existing right-of-way), but staff. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board have recommended that street improvements required by the City require dedication of an additional five feet of easement to achieve the desired cross section. The cross section includes curb, gutter and five-foot buffer on the north side and curb, butter, landscape strip and sidewalk on the south side (except no landscape strip next to the veterinary hospital). This design would allow on-street parking only on the north side. Along the north-south connector road, provision of a 27-foot street plus sidewalks and planter strips on both sides has limited the area for setbacks for Buildings B and C. The applicant and staff ageed that the character of this street should be urban and pedestrian- oriented to facilitate connections between the project site, the transit center, and downtown businesses. Having varied building setbacks for these three-sto~ buildings (from 0 to 15 CMR:104:96 Page 37 of 61 feet) would create an urban feel, although punctuated by landscaped plazas and parking lots at several points. The surrounding commercia! properties have typically minimal setbacks from internal streets, and Planning staff has been promoting a more urban rather than suburban design for the interior of the PAMF campus, particularly along the north-south connector. Findings to support a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) were adopted by the ARB and are attached to this report. Floor Area Ratio!Site Coverage Applicable Code Sections 1.18.32.050 (e) Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area ratio shall be 1.0 to 1.0. t 8.32.050 (f) Site Coverage: The maximum site coverage shall be thirty percent of the site area. 18.83.050 (b)(2) Schedule of Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements: For purposes of this Chapter, gross floor area shall not include ¯ enclosed or covered areas used for off-street parking or loading, or bicycle facilities. The proposed floor area ratio. 0.99:1, and site coverage, 26.3 percent, conform to the code requirements. The project FAR and site coverage have been calculated by taking the total site area. which includes existing public right-of-way to be vacated (portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane), and deducting roadway easements for the north-south connector! Urban Lane extension to establish net site area (8.22 acres). Underground parking area has not been included in the total square foot area used to calculate FAR and site coverage. The project alternative with a 5-floor, above-ground parking garage, provided in order to meet the Cit’,~ off-street parking standard under a deferred parking application, would exceed the 30 percent maximum coverage. Coverage for the alternative would be 31.9 percent. In order for this parking structure to be approved as future deferred parking, a variance for site coverage must be approved as part of all project approvals. A variance application was submitted for the deferred parking site coverage of 31.9 percent. Staff concludes that construction of the parking garage will be a very unlikely event for several reasons. First, PAMF has a strong need to satisf?~ patients and make the on-site parking arrangements function effectively. Second. the cost of constructing a garage is such that PAMF will be strongly motivated to aggressively reduce employee parking in the event that parking demand exceeds the projections identified in the DEIR and City triggering of the construction of deferred parking becomes a possibility. However, the City needs to act on the variance at this time if deferred parking is to be allowed as an option for the project. CMR: 104:96 Page 38 of 61 Findings for the variance were recommended by the Planning Commission and are provided in the Attachments. Architecture PAMF has refined its architectural concept since its original proposal received preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board on April 20, 1995. The exterior design of the proposed project is intended to complement the existing Mediterranean architecture in Palo Alto, including Stanford University,, Town & Country. Village and some downtown buildings. Elevator/stairwell towers with tiled roofs would punctuate the building facades, rising above the main building approximately 17 feet. The three-stor?’ buildings will have flat roofs with corbels supporting the three-foot projecting eaves, creating shadow lines. Covered walk~’ays, or loggias, surround most of the building exteriors around the main entry oval. Arches are provided on the ground floor of the Health Services Building. Exterior materials include a cream-colored textured surface, such as stucco; a three-foot stone base; wood windows, many with divided lights; and solar-glazed window glass. The loggia would have plaster columns with a stone base and overhead cedar trellis, if allowed bv fire and building codes. Corbels (i.e., the projecting anchors that support the cornice) will be concrete. Landscaping Landscaping in the form of trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be provided on the west project frontage along E1 Camino Real. Building setbacks along this frontage are substantial and will support large specimen trees, given that the underground parking garage sets back 10 to 135 feet from this frontage. Additional planted areas would be provided inside the main access oval, on the perimeters of buildings and in surface parking lots. In addition, the site plan proposes open air or outdoor public areas in four places: the open court within Building B/C, located between the lobby at the main entrance .and the east ent~,: the East Plaza; the Urban Lane Plaza; and the Northeast Ento, along the east side of the Urban Lane extension. Most of these areas combine decorative hardscape and seating with landscape plantings. In addition, PAMF has provided plans for the interim use of the Building D site as an outdoor public use area on sheet 15F. Called Urban Lane Park, this plan provides significant greener?’ and walkways. The Conceptual Landscape plan also provides additional landscape areas along E1 Camino Real, a portion of the southern property, line, and along the proposed bike path that would run paralle! to the north-south connector road along the eastern property line. CMR:104:96 Page 39 of 61 PAMF would provide street trees along the north-south connector (primarily trees planted in wells above the subsurface parking garage) and along the south side of Wells Avenue in planter strips adjacent to sidewalks. Trees and other landscaping would also line the bicycle path on the east side of the site. Fewer than ten existing mature trees on the perimeter of the project site (oaks and California pepper trees) would remain. Within the interior of the project site, nearly all vegetation would be removed for grading. The Planning Commission and ARk3 recommended conditions Of approval to reduce the visual impact of the southern elevation of Building C and the three- to five-foot grade change between PAMY and Encina Avenue properties by requiring a five-foot planter strip for significant trees and shrubsalong the south edge of the southern service drive. Site Grading/Transitions City., staff have discussed with PAMF and its architect (Ellerbe Becket) the need to provide sensitive transitions bem’een the project site (which will be established at 56 feet of finished ground elevation and rise to 60 to 62 feet at the buildings and over the parking garage) and the surrounding properties to the east and south which are at lower elevations, approximately 52 to 54 feet. Staff is comfortable at this time with the Wells Avenue at Building A transition and the maximum 5 percent grade from E1 Camino Real to the entD’ oval area. Converting a retaining wall into a landscaped slope on the north side of Building A and redesigning the entrance oval and moving Building C back from Et Camino Real improved those transitions. The Planning Commission and ARB concurred. Transitions on the east and south perimeters of the project remain concerns, concurrently addressed through A~ conditions of approval. Staff, the Planning Commission and the ARB have stressed that careful attention must be paid to appropriate retaining wall location and design along the southern extent of the north- south connector road near Encina, as it passes the adjacent historic house, necessitating provision of adequate privacy and preservation of a large Pepper tree. The treatment of the southern service drive along the south side of Building C, which will be located three to five feet above the rear yards of Encina Avenue properties, will include a row of new trees and retention of existing trees where possible, both to buffer the imposing view of Building C from below as well as enhance the views from PAMY offices to these adjacent properties to the south. Attention must also be given to noise attenuation measures at this location, with time restrictions for service deliveries and refuse pickup imposed in the conditional use permit and ARB conditions. Along the eastern property line, a significant grade change is necessary to accommodate the bike path, originating offsite at an approximate elevation of 52 feet, rising quickly to meet the 59- to 60-foot elevation alongside the parking garage and the plaza entries, and then CMR: 104:96 Page 40 of 61 transitioning more gradually back to the approximately 56- to 57-foot elevations north of Building D. The potential to fill in the lowest area on Joint Powers Board land at the southern propem2 edge, which would ease this transition, is being explored by PAM~. Until further design studies are conducted in this area, the impact of fill and location of the bike path upon existing trees is not fully ~known. The oaks to the south and north can most likely be saved; however, the trees near the center of the propert); along the eastern edge are at risk due to possible filling. Detailed plans will be reviewed by the ARB prior to issuance of any grading, excavation or building permits. Provision of Utilities The proposed PAMF campus is obviously a major new intensive development proposed in the Urban Lane area. As discussed in the Draft EIR, PAMF facilities would require large amounts of ener~~ and water and generate large amounts of wastewater consistent with a specialized medical clinic and research facility. PAM1= representatives have not yet provided sufficiently detailed utility demand information for City staff to determine exactly how the PAMF campus will be served. Recently, PAMF representatives have indicated they are re- evaluating whether to use natural gas or electricity for heating the buildings. PAMF representatives seem concerned that the Campus project will be required to upgrade and provide utili~ improvements that w6uld directly benefit additional properties in the area. Utilities staff have indicated that, consistent with recommended mitigation measures in the Draft EIR and standard City practice and adopted procedures, only those utility improvements required by the PAMt= project would be needed. In any case, where there would be benefit to other properties above and beyond PAMF’s utility demand, PAMF’s obligation would be to fund its proportionate share of the improvement costs. Planning staff is concerned about the tardiness of PAMl:’s utility engineering because of its design implications. Utili~’ locations and improvements need to be integrally planned with most other aspects of a major development project. Communities that do not require such an integrated approach to utilit3~ planning often have development sites with unattractive utility structures placed after buildings, streets and other aspects of project design have been determined. Staff has no information available to judge whether such a situation can be avoided at the PAMF campus site. As a result, some utili~~ location issues were not resolved by the ARB’s final action on December 14. The ARB-recommended conditions of approval require that the location and design of all utility facilities be approved by the Board prior to issuance of any gading, excavation or other building permits. CMR:104:96 Page 41 of 61 Tentative Subdivision Map and Related Street and Public Utility Easement Vacations The PAMF project would include the consolidation of the existing thirteen parcels, many previously under separate ownerships, which comprise the proposed campus site. Jurisdictions consider it desirable to minimize the number of parcels in a nonresidential, large scale development, such as the proposed PAMF campus. Further, Uniform Building Code restrictions on having buildings cross parcel lines make removal of many of the property lines necessa~,. In association with the PAMF subdivision application is the proposed vacation of a public utility easement, the existing portion of Homer Avenue west of the railroad tracks on PAMF property and portions of Urban Lane that connect to Homer Avenue. Currently, Homer Avenue provides direct northbound and southbound access to and from E1 Camino Real at an unsignalized intersection. Wells Avenue to the north and Encina Avenue to the south cannot be directly accessed by southbound E1 Camino Real traffic nor provide outbound traffic access to southbound E1 Camino Real due to the median islands at those locations. When previously developed, much of the relatively light traffic generated on the site and in its immediate vicinity utilized Homer Avenue for easy access to and from E1 Camino Real. The PAMF project and the proposed street vacations would change circulation at the proposed campus site and in the immediate vicinity. The plans show an additional five feet of public easement for Wells Avenue. The existing Urban Lane from the north propert?’ line to Wells Avenue is widened and connects to a new north-south connector road (i.e., Urban Lane) that extends through to Encina Avenue. Note that the service drive south of Building C will not be a public easement. The proposed roadway easements would provide circulation somewhat more circuitous than that currently provided by Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. Like current Homer Avenue, the new signalized entrance would be the only location be~,een University Avenue and Embarcadero/Galvez where southbound E1 Camino Real traffic can enter the site/viciniD~ and southbound site/vicinity traffic can enter El Camino Real. The Urban Lane Extension north to UniversiD, Circle would ser-,,e primarily to substantially improve overall circulation in the area and to and from the JPB parking lot. There is no discernible reduction in non-truck access to and from the properties immediately north of the PAMF site. (Those properties are currently occupied by T-Trim Auto Upholster,, the Holiday Inn Warehouse, a Stanford University warehouse, a Smith & Hawkin warehouse, a DNAX warehouse, the Minimal Space Warehouse and Precision Fastening on the north side of Wells Avenue and the Palo Alto Pet Hospital on the south side. In fact, general vehicle circulation options are increased for those properties if Urban Lane is extended north to University Circle. CMR:104:96 Page 42 of 61 Large trucks coming from or going to southbound E1 Camino Real, however, no longer would be able to utilize the convenient Homer Avenue intersection and would access those properties via the Urban Lane Extension to University. Circle. Exiting southbound trucks could also proceed north on E1 Camino Real to University. Avenue to reverse direction on E1 Camino Real. The Draft EIR and staff have concluded that this minor inconvenience for large truck traffic would be more than offset by the benefits of the Urban Lane Extension to University Circle. The Extension would enhance circulation for general vehicular traffic in the vicinity, access to/from the JPB parking lot would be increased, and a potential two-way route for the Marguerite shuttle would be provided between the University campus and the University, Circle transit hub/downtown. Plus, the Marguerite shuttle would be able to better serve activity centers like the existing Holiday Inn and the proposed PAMF campus. Circulation for properties south of the PAMF site would also be changed. (Those properties include a mix of commercial, warehouse and office uses in addition to the historic home at 51 Encina Avenue.) Currently those properties have no access to the north other than via E1 Camino Real. The PAMF project would provide these properties with new vehicular access to/from the north via the proposed north-south connector linking Encina Avenue to University Circle if the Urban Lane Extension is also provided. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation would also result. The circuitous circulation network that would be created by the PAMF campus would not be conducive to Town & Countw site traffic using the new signal as an alternative to existing Town & Countu driveways and the E1 Camino RealYEmbarcadero-Galvez intersection. Staff has found and the Planning Commission has recommended that the proposed roadway.’ and public utility easement vacations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and can be supported by the findings of the Draft EIR so long as the Urban Lane Extension is provided north to Universi~T Circle. Without that extension, vehicular circulation in the PAMF vicinity for nearby properties would be decreased, particularly for large trucks serving properties to the north, compared to existing conditions. As concluded by the EIR alternatives analysis, a signal would need to be located at Encina Avenue rather than at the PAMF entrance, if the Urban Lane Extension were not provided. As described in the separate staff report (CMR: 107:96) related to the street vacation process, the recommended JanuaU 22 City Council action is to initiate a February.’ 20, 1996 public hearing on the street and public utility easement vacations. In late November, PA_MF submitted a tentative map application derived from the Preliminary, Map (Sheet 17) submitted earlier with the other planning applications. The Tentative Map combines the existing thirteen parcels into a single parcel, with appropriate easements established for roadways, sidewalks and public utilities. The November 1995 Tentative Map submittal was found to be incomplete, and PAMF provided a revised Tentative Map CMR: 104:96 Page 43 of 61 submittal in mid-December. That revised submittal (attached map dated December 11, 1995) still needs some additional modifications. PAMF engineers are in the process of completing those modifications and consulting with City staff to ensure that the next version of the Tentative Map is consistent with staff, Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission recommendations. There are no major outstanding substantive issues regarding the Tentative Map. Most currently incomplete items are details related to exact dimensions of street cross sections and public utility easements. Staff recommends that the City Council continue consideration of the Tentative Subdivision Map until the February 20 City Council meeting. At that time, the Tentative Map with correct details will be available and the tentative map and street and public utility easement issues can be considered at the same meeting. Attached are proposed Tentative Map findings and conditions of approval that are subject to only minor modifications be~,een now and final Council action on the Tentative Map. Those findings and conditions were reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to the Council for approval. Transportation Issues Circulation and Parking: Primary access to the site would be from a new signalized intersection at E1 Camino Real approximately 350 feet north of Encina Avenue. Secondary access would be via Wells Avenue, Encina Avenue, and a proposed extension of Urban Lane from the PAMF site north to University Circle. The Urban Lane extension would provide a connection to downtown Palo Alto and the CalTrain Station (Transit Center) for vehicles and pedestrians and bicvclists. In the Draft EIR, the Urban Lane Extension is reviewed in Appendix F. The extension of Urban Lane through the PAMF site via the "north-south connector" would connect Encina Avenue with Wells Avenue and the proposed Urban Lane extension to University Circle. Homer Avenue between E1 Camino Real and the existing Urban Lane would be vacated as part of the project and Urban Lane would be vacated be~,een Wells and Homer Avenues. PAMF proposes to gant a street easement on Urban Lane as far south as Wells Avenue to widen the existing Urban Lane stub adjacent to the site to 30 feet. PAMF would gant a public access easement on the north-south connector road and a five-foot right-of-way to allow a sidewalk along its Wells Avenue frontage. Circulation through the site would be somewhat circuitous. From the main entrance on E1 Camino Real, the north-south connector road can be reached by driving around the one-way CMR:104:96 Page 44 of 61 entrance oval, turning right at Building A, driving through a small parking lot to Wells Avenue and turning right. Likewise, vehicles on the north-south connector destined to E1 Camino Real, particularly southbound, would utilize Wells Avenue. the Building A parking lot and the entrance oval. Northbound vehicles would also use Encina Avenue or Wells Avenue to reach the Urban Lane extension to University Circle. PAMF representatives indicate that employees will be directed to access the site via the north-south connector road and the entrance to the parking garage in the southeast parking lot. Patients would be encouraged to use the most convenient point of access to the new campus. Patients arriving through the main entrance oval could use urgent care parking located in the center of the oval, if appropriate, or drive down the parking garage ramp in front of Building B to find parking and elevator access to Buildings B and C. Surface parking along the north-south connector road or the rear ent13~ to the parking garage would also be available to patients. (The EIR provides geater detail about access and parking in Section III. Project Description). Service vehicles would access the site from Wells Avenue or Urban Lane Extension to reach the service dock adjacent to Building A on Wells Avenue and from the north-south connector road to reach the main service dock located on the south side of Building C along the one- way service drive leading from the north-south connector to E1 Camino Real. Deliveries would be made under a system ~known as supplier warehousing, or "just-in-time" deliver’, thereby eliminating the need for large trucks and substantial on-site storage space. Smaller panel trucks would provide deliveries. These service docks would incorporate areas for trash and recycling receptacles, although the plans do not provide detailed information at this time about such facilities. Service vehicles and all other large trucks would be prohibited through signage from using the main access oval, thereby not having access to the new signal. However, all on-site roadways would be desi~,~ed to accommodate the turning radii and support the weight of emergency vehicles. Off-street parking would be provided in a two-level undergound parking garage under much of the site and in surface parking lots at several locations. The undergound parking garage has ~;o entrances, from the main entrance oval and the surface parking lot at the southeastern corner of the site near the Encina Avenue entrance. Three surface parking lots are proposed in the following locations: in the center of the entrance oval for urgent care patient parking, adjacent to building A, and along the eastern (i.e., railroad track) edge of the site extending from Building D to the southern project bounda~’. Elimination of tb.e above gound parking structure and provision of two levels of mostly under~ound parking were among the most significant, and beneficial, changes made to the PAMF project after the initial April 1995 ARB review. Staff and the ARB had expressed significant concerns about the appearance and functioning of the four to five level parking CMR:104:96 Page 45 of 61 structure originally proposed along the railroad right-of-way to the east. It is important to stress the depth of staff and ARB concerns regarding the parking structure. Placing most of the project’s parking below ground leads to a number of site planning problems and concerns, including the transition between the project and Encina Avenue properties, especially near the proposed Urban Lane connection to Encina; the transition between the project and the railroad track and bicycle path area: the reduced potential for landscaping, given the portion of the site located above the parking structure; and the visual impact of the south face of Building C. To a considerable extent, these issues are a trade off for eliminating a very large above ground parking structure. Total parking proposed is 1,116 spaces of which 350 are for patients and 766 are for employees. This amount of parking is 305 spaces fewer than the City code requires. However, the EIR analysis has confirmed that the number of parking spaces proposed is slightly more than the amount necessary to accommodate projected parking demand. In addition, the plans include design and location of a five-story parking garage at the southeast corner of the site where the additional code-required spaces could be located, if required in the future by activation of a deferred parking approval pursuant to Municipal Code Section t 8.83.120(e). A long time staff concern has been the lack of site plan information for the Building D area in the event that Building D is not built at the same time as the rest of the campus. Prior to final ARB review on December 14, PAMF representatives provided a plan (sheet 15F) for a pedestrian plaza in the Building D area. As described by the project landscape architect, the plaza is designed as a park-like space; the area will feature very large trees and seating in a landscaped environment. The large trees will perform the function of defining the space while providing shade and screening views to the railroad tracks. Because the space will feature a sorer ground plane and more tree cover, it is envisioned that this area will offer the .opportunity for staff to exercise, recreate and relax in a sorer, quieter environment. The ARB found this design satisfactory and a potential asset to the overall project. If Building D were to be constructed, it is unclear how adequate, convenient parking would be provided. The submitted plans to date do not show a below-gade connection to under~ound parking, and nearby surface parking is limited. Staff and the ARB have expressed concern about the placement and scale of Building D, which is not part of the current ARB application. A condition of approval makes clear that the use permit authorizes a general intensity of use and a range of allowable uses for the Building D area only. Later ARB approval of the building, its immediate vicinity and its relationship to on-site parking would be required. A concern about parking would occur if the PAMF uses changed or were intensified in the future, necessitating construction of the 42-foot-high parking structure detailed on Sheets CMR:104:96 Page 46 of 61 Alt-6, Alt-8 and Alt-9E of the PA_MF plans. Such a later addition to the PAMF campus would diminish some of the benefit of the revised design, which otherwise avoids the above- ground parking structure that greatly concerned staff and the ARB when the original submittal was reviewed. However, the parking structure shown in the alternate plan would be substantially smaller than the structure proposed in the original submittal, which took up much of the now-proposed surface parking lot area from the south side of Building D to the property line. The EIR concludes that if the smaller structure involved in the current alternative were built, ~°it would be a prominent visual feature in views from the north-south connector and Encina Avenue" and that "from Alma Street, the structure would be partially visible through breaks in vegetation." (Page IV.C-16). Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit: Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and transit access in the revised PAMF campus design have been significantly improved since the original submittal. The lack of many pedestrian and transit improvements and the often circuitous routing of those proposed were serious defects of the origina! plans and major concerns of staff and the ARB. The revised campus design essentially resolves those earlier concerns by providing a clear pedestrian circulation network and committing PAMF to provision of Marguerite or equivalent shuttle service. Sidewalk connections and improvements will be made on the E1 Camino Real frontage, along PAMF’s Wells Avenue frontage, on the north-south connector and on the Urban Lane Extension. The submitted landscape plans (Sheet 15) show that the E1 Camino Real frontage improvements include street trees and related materials in a strip between the street and the sidewalk. Planter strips are also.provided along PAMF"s Wells Avenue frontage and most of the north-south connector, providing a well-designed pedestrian scale and character for these roadways. Conditions of architectural review approval require that the tree wells over the parking structure be adequately sized and the species selected are appropriate for the planting wells to achieve a reasonable tree canopy. Non-vehicular circulation would include a lighted and landscaped bicycle path along the eastern edge of the project site, between the surface parking lot and the CalTrain tracks. This path would accommodate bicyclists traveling between Embarcadero and the downtown locations via the Urban Lane extension. Conceptual plans for non-vehicular circulation indicate bicyclists traveling on this proposed bike path would have three entD~ points into the PAMF site. The southern entry" would be at the East Plaza, leading to the east entry, to Buildings B and C. The middle ento~" crosses the surface parking lot across from Building B. and the northern ento~ is adjacent to Building D. Bicycle parking proposed does not equal 10 percent of the required 1,435 parking spaces; however, the project provides a few more than I0 percent of the proposed 1,116 parking CMR:104:96 Page 47 of 61 spaces in the appropriate percentages of Class I and II facilities. PABAC has considered the proposed bicycle parking facilities and voted at its December 5, 1995 meeting to endorse the Architectural Review conditions of approval, which require revisions to the location of bicycle parking facilities and minor changes to bicycle circulation and resubmittal of these plans for PABAC review and ARB approval. Bicycle parking would be located at five areas on the site: along the westernmost facade of the Health Services Building; on the west side of the north-south Connector near the Urban Lane Plaza; at two locations on the south and west sides of the Wellness Center, and on the east side of the north-south connector in the East Plaza. Proposed bicycle parking includes both Class I and II facilities in the percentages required by City code. Staff is continuing to explore the feasibility of providing matching transit stops on both sides of E1 Camino Real. While there is room for a stop on the PAMF frontage, there is inadequate space within the public right-of-way to achieve a transit stop on the Stanford side of the street that would be located in near proximity to any crosswalk provided at the new PAMF signal. Additionally, Stanford representatives have noted that there are no short-term plans to provide continuous sidewalk along the Stanford frontage between Galvez Road and Palm Drive. If located on E1 Camino Real, the bus stop would have to be several hundred feet to the south beyond the new entry drive intersection. This locatior, would encourage people to cut across E1 Camino Real rather than walking back to the new intersection and a pedestrian crosswalk. City and State staff conclude that this would be an unsafe situation. Consequently, no transit stops nor pedestrian crossing of E1 Camino Real is included in the recommended PAMF project at this time. A condition of approval requires that PAMF continue to examine the feasibility of providing a west side bus stop prior to issuance of permits. Staff is coordinating with the transit agency to determine if an east side only stop is acceptable. PAMF has worked to overcome the disadvantage of no new transit stops on E1 Camino Real and the geater than 1/4-mile distance to existing stops at GalveziEmbarcadero and the train station. PAMF is a major employer and public use facility, and convenient transit access should be available to employees and patients. Consequently, PAMF has redesigned its project with input from Stanford and City transportation staffs so that the campus can be served by the Marguerite shuttle. Stops are shown in front of Building A, and a stop could be provided on the north-south connector at the main eastern entrance to Buildings B and C. Although current Marguerite service provides a one-way loop, future service may be expanded to two-way; and the PAMF project design would accommodate such two-way service. It is also very important that pedestrian circulation on the north-south connector be convenient and inviting so that employees and patients would be encouraged to walk to/from CMR: 104:96 Page 48 of 61 the existing transit stops to the north and south if not using the shuttle service. Much care has been given to incorporating adequate pedestrian connections in the Urban Lane Extension to the north, as detailed in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. In the most recent revisions to the PAMF plans (Sheets 8 and 9I), the sidewalk has been eliminated on the east side of the north-south connector between the PAMF southern service road and Encina Avenue. PAMF representatives indicate that the east side sidewalk was removed only because of the need to provide more clearance on the west side to protect the existing trees and especially the large Pepper tree on the edge of the Greer House property. The details of this cross-section have been evaluated in depth by staff, and modifications to restore the east side planter strip and sidewalk were recommended by the Planning Commission and ARB. The plan has been modified to provide adequate, minimum 14-foot bicycle lanes along E1 Camino Real. Generally adequate amounts and types ofbicvcle parking are proposed. Final Palo Alto Bicycle Advisor?, Committee (PABAC) review of revised plans in on December 5 supported approva! of ARB conditions of approval to modify bicycle parking locations and to fine tune specifications for connections from the east side bicycle path. The only remaining bicycle-related concern pertains to how the currently proposed site gading affects the east side bicycle path. As discussed elsewhere, the southeast portion of the mostly undergound parking structure projects above wade. PAMF has yet to provide detailed topo~aphic information showing the eastside area and the relationships among the parking structure, bicycle path improvements and the adjacent railroad right-of-way, along with final gading and proposed retaining walls. Refer to Sheets 7 and 8 and the cross- sections A-A and B-B on Sheet 9F. The cross-sections do show that at A-A there would be a retaining wall at the property line and that at B-B there would be an area where the parking structure is above the bicycle path. These sheets do not provide sufficient information for staff to evaluate the desi~ acceptability of the eastside bicycle path. This deficiency has been a major concern for staff, the ARB and the Planning Commission. PAMIc is examining the possibility of filling portions of the railroad right-of-way to achieve better ~ades. The ARB’s conditions of approval require that PA_MF submit such plans for ARB approva! prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits. Service Circulation and Loading/Unloading: PAMF can control its own service deliveries and will require that any large service vehicles access the site via the north-south connector road. The proposed service delivery system relies on off-site inventory storage and deliver?,, of goods on a more frequent basis and in smaller quantities than if storage were on-site. Recycling and solid waste pick up vehicles CMR: 104:96 Page 49 of 61 would also need to access the site from the north-south connector. Such vehicles would be restricted from the signalized entrance oval area. While no circulation difficulties are anticipated for PAMF deliver?., vehicles, surrounding properties to the north are somewhat affected by the project’s proposed circulation network for service vehicles. Currently large trucks accessing sites on Wells Avenue can use Homer Avenue for left turns into or from E1 Camino Real. With the large truck prohibition proposed by PAMF on its entranc~ oval, such turning moves for southbound E1 Camino Real origins and destinations could be made only by trucks utilizing the Urban Lane Extension to University Circle or making U-turn movements at the E1 Camino Real-Embarcadero Road signal. This minor inconvenience for large truck traffic in the PAMF vicinity is not significant given the overall circulation improvement provided by the Urban Lane Extension. Provisions for service vehicle loading/unloading activities at the PAMF campus have been a major staff concern since the original submittal did not speci~ in any detail how such activities would be handled. Then it was proposed that all such activities take place on the south side of Building C at and below street gade along the proposed service road. Staff regarded the August 1995 project revision that split service activities into two locations at Building A and C as a substantial improvement, particularly since the majority of the activity would occur at Building A. However, staff was recently advised that the service activities were to be significantly shifted back to the Building C location as part of the value engineering process (see Sheet 8). The EIR evaluated’the previously described service deliver?.’ loading!unloading system, and the Final EIR evaluates the effects of having most service activities concentrated adjacent to the north Encina properties. Narrowing the south side service road from 20 to 15 feet (which was achieved between the December 12 Planning Commission meeting and the December 14 ARB meeting) has provided room for a landscape strip along the south property line west of the north-south connector. That service roadway width reduction was achieved by PAMF guaranteeing that no service vehicles will block the 15-foot fire lane at any time and providing three fire hydrants along the rear of Building C. With the 15-foot roadway, the Fire Department requires that hydrants be located at the west and east ends of the building and at a suitable location midway along the rear of the building. In addition to the landscape strip, which is to include tall trees and screening shrubs, a retaining wall will be provided with a solid fence adjacent to the Encina Avenue properties. The solid fence will provide noise attenuation in addition to the time restrictions for service truck deliveries imposed as a use permit condition. The Buildings A and C loading areas can be used only between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, weekdays, and between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM on the weekends. CMR: 104:96 Page 50 of 61 Urban Lane Extension: Substantial changes to the project’s layout and circulation occurred after initial ARB review of the project in April 1995. The location and design of the signalized entrance were improved, internal circulation was simplified, and the above ground parking structure was eliminated by provision of two levels of mostly underground parking. Significantly, PAMF representatives acknowledged that the revised project design required an extension of Urban Lane to the north to meet all the circulation needs of patients and particularly employees. The Urban Lane Extension is not proposed by PAMF as part of its project. However, it is required as .a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. PAMF representatives have informally requested that the Ci~,, Stanford University and the Joint Powers Board (JPB) cooperate with PAMF to determine how this new street connection can be provided. Engineering and related analyses of the Urban Lane connection to date have been conducted by those agencies and organizations through operations of an ad hoc committee organized by the CiD; and PAMF’s funding the project EIR prepared by the City. The EIR scope was specifically designed to provide preliminary engineering information about alternative ways to configure the Urban Lane Extension (refer to Appendix F in the Draft EIR). Significant additional legal and design work is required before it can be determined if all parties can agree to conditions required to make the Urban Lane Extension a reality. Detailed engineering survey work is currently ongoing, funded by Stanford and PAMF. Because it cannot be guaranteed at this time that all parties will reach a~eement regarding how to provide the Urban Lane Extension, the EIR includes a project alternative without the Extension (refer to B, No Urban Lane Alternative, starting on Page VI-5 in the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR). If the extension is not provided, PAMF will need to redesign its project so that primary access to and from the site is achieved via a non-signalized right turn irv’right turn out entrance on E1 Camino Real and a southerly connection to Encina Avenue. Encina Avenue would be improved with a si~onal at El Camino Real. This would require amendment of the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission reviewed the Urban Lane Extension alternatives and recommended that the City Council approve the preferred design concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane, as contained in Appendix F (alternative #4) of the Draft EIR. Assuming that the jurisdictional, engineering and other details can be resolved, further City review of the Urban Lane Extension will focus on detailed design issues once the City Council has acted to conclude the broader policy question of the preferred project alternative and preferred design for the Urban Lane Extension. CMR:104:96 Page 51 of 61 Wells Avenue: In response to concerns outlined in the letters from Dr. Kenneth Weigel of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital, staff have carefully reviewed the street improvements proposed for Wells Avenue. Dr. Weigel is concerned that on-street parking be preserved to the maximum extent possible for use by his employees and loading/unloading activities associated with the warehouse facilities across the street. Staff analyzed several alternative Wells Avenue configurations and concluded that the planned improvements (two travel lanes, With a parking lane, curb, =-,utter, and five-foot buffer on the north side and curb, gutter, five-foot landscape strip and five-foot sidewalk on the south side -- except no landscape strip adjacent to the veterinary hospital ,which sits on the property line, leaving only enough room for a sidewalk) preserve the most on-street parking, approximately 13 spaces, while providing an adequate cross- section for vehicular circulation. North-South Connector: Staff has also carefully examined proposed street improvements along the southern end of the north-south connector road between Encina Avenue and the intersection with the proposed service drive. Earlier plans called for a sidewalk and planter strip on both sides of this portion of the street. PAMF-revised plans for final ARB review moved the street ten fee~ to the east to avoid damage to the larger pepper tree on the Greer House property line. This desi~,~ eliminates the planter strip on the east side, leaving only on-street parking and a sidewalk. Staff concludes, and the Planning Commission and ARB concurred, that the parking should be removed. Within the 50-foot right-of-way, there is room for a 10-foot-plus buffer zone on the west side to protect existing trees, up to 10 feet for a west-side sidewalk and planter strip, 20 feet for two traffic lanes, and up to 10 feet for a sidewalk and landscape strip on the east side. (If extra space is needed for west side retaining walls, as PAMF has indicated, the two landscape strips could be narrowed slightly.) This desi~ retains the alignment with travel lanes north of the intersection and provides continuity for pedestrian circulation and amenities. PAMF/Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpass: Regarding a possible pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of the railroad tracks to connect the PAMt: vicinity more directly to downtown, Appendix G in the Draft EIR evaluates such a crossing at Homer Avenue, although the undercrossing has never been a part of the PAMY project in submitted applications. Bridge and tunnel options were studied, with information provided regarding right-of-way, enNneering and construction considerations. The preferred alternative, a tunnel undercrossing with ramps at either end to connect to existing grades, would be a ve~ expensive improvement. Unlike the Urban Lane Extension, this improvement is not required for the PAMF campus circulation but rather would be only a CMR: 104:96 Page 52 of 61 desirable addition to downtown and project vicini~ pedestrian and bicycle circulation. It is doubtful that PAMF could be required to fund more than a minor portion of the total cost of the improvement, which is estimated to approach and perhaps exceed $2,000,000. Currently, there are no Ci~ capital improvement funds budgeted toward such an over- or undercrossing. PAMF has agreed to provide a suitable area in its plans to accommodate a potential undercrossing if it were ever authorized and funded by the. Ci~. In addition, at the Planning Commission meeting on December 12, PAMF committed to donating $150,000 to the Cit3r toward construction of the undercrossing. The ARB incorporated this applicant offer into a condition of architectural review approval on December 14, 1995. Three funding options for the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing have been identified. Having PAMF pay for a notable percentage of the undercrossing’s cost is not something that the City can require, given the lack of a substantial nexus to environmental impacts resulting from the project: City staff can not recommend City General Fund (i.e., Capital Improvement Program) funding based on the substantial cost of the undercrossing and the scope of other City infrastructure projects that need funding. The third funding alternative is an assessment district focused primarily on the south of Forest Avenue and University Avenue business areas. The representative of the Chamber of Commerce indicated at the December 6 Planning Commission meeting business support for the undercrossing. City staff has asked the Chamber’s Executive Director to attempt to gauge the Chamber’s support for an assessment district prior to the Janua~’ 22 City Council public hearing. New Si~alized Connection from PAMF Site to E1 Camino Real: From the earliest discussions with PAMF staff and consultants, it has been very clear that a signalized entD, from E1 Camino Real with full turning movements has been a very high PAMF priori~’. Considerable effort has gone into creating an intersection desi~ that serves PAMF’s needs and functions in a safe and effective manner. The primar?’ problem has been traffic from the southbound on-ramp from Palm Drive to E1 Camino Real attempting to weave across El Camino Real to t~ to make a left turn into the PAMF site. The design solution brings the on-ramp to the intersection, so that ramp traffic cannot enter the PAMF site. All other left and right turn movements can be made from the new intersection. PAMF- destined traffic using the on-ramp from Palm Drive will have to continue south and make a U-turn. Most of these turns will be made at Embarcadero Road. E! Camino Real/Embarcadero Road/Galvez Intersection: The major change at the E1 Camino Real!Embarcadero intersection is a substantial increase in traffic using the left turn lane from southbound E1 Camino Real. While overall intersection level of service (LOS) in 1998 with an occupied PAMF project remains at LOS D. it comes ver-,~ close in the afternoon peak period to LOS E. Further, left turn lane peak CMR:104:96 Page 53 of 61 period traffic increases to beyond capacity and the left turn lane will function at LOS F. Under year 2010 cumulative traffic conditions, the intersection operates at LOS F conditions. Given PAMF’s ongoing indications that the new Signa!ized ent~ from E1 Camino Real is a critical part of their project, staff initiated a series of discussions with Caltrans staff and PAMF staff. At a meeting soon after release of the Draft EItK Caltrans staff indicated strong concerns regarding the predicted overload of the southbound left turn lane to Embarcadero Road. Their concerns focus on left turn lane traffic exceeding the left turn pocket with two ramifications. First, left turn traffic would back up to and through the unsignalized left turn to Town & Count~, Village. Second, some left turn traffic would likely find itself in the southbound through lane adjacent to the left turn pockets. This interrelated situation raises a safety concern. At a subsequent City/PA~MF/Caltrans meeting near the end of the public review period for the Draft EIR, Caltrans staff reiterated their concerns and indicated that approval of the new signalized ent~ would be conditioned on Cit)~ approval of a second left turn lane. Caltrans’ formal response to the Draft EIR (see November 30. !995 letter following the Master Response on E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez Intersection at the beginning of Chapter 3 of the Final EIR Addendum) indicates their intent to require construction of the second left turn lane at the same time as construction of the signalized entr?. In response to these discussions. City staff and EIR consultants prepared for the Planning Commission additional analvsis of the impacts of the second left turn lane (see the Master Response on E1 Camino Real!Embarcadero/Galvez Intersection starting at the beginning of Chapter 3 of the Final EIR Addendum). Regarding the impacts of having a second left turn lane, staff and the EIR consultants have reached the following major conclusions: The left turning traffic in 1998 with PAMF traffic will exceed the capacity of the single left turn lane. Traffic will back up, affecting the southbound through lanes and!or Town & Count~~ Village’s unsi~alized E1 Camino Real entrance and create safety problems. Embarcadero Road traffic east of Middle field, with or without the second left turn lane, will be essentially the same. The PAMF project increases traffic on Embarcadero Road between E1 Camino Real and Waverley/Middle field because of the relocated PAMF facilities, and this increase is relatively unaffected by the second left turn lane. CMR: 104:96 Page 54 of 61 Without a second left turn lane, some traffic leaving the PAMF site will be encouraged to use University Circle to University to Alma or High Streets and then either take a route through the SOFA/existing PAMF area to reach Embarcadero or take Alma to Embarcadero. With a second left turn lane, the resulting faster processing of left-turning traffic would improve exiting from Town & Country Village into eastbound Embarcadero Road. The follow up EIR information submitted to the Planning Commission included a revised mitigation measure B.9.a.: "B.3.a: Although the project would not result in overall intersection operations at LOS E or worse, and would not result in an entering volume in excess of the City’s approved 2010 volume, the project would result in a southbound left-turn volume at E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road substantially in excess of the Caltrans 300-vehicles-per-lane standard in the p.m. peak hour, and the City ",,,,ill support Caltrans’ stated requirement for construction of a second southbound left-turn lane at that intersection as part of the construction of the PAMF signalized entrance." On December 12, the Planning Commission concurred with the Caltrans letter, the related City staff endorsement of the second left turn lane, and the above mitigation measure. After the December 12 Planning Commission action, representatives of the UniversiD~ South Neighborhoods Group (Pat Burt and Don Fitton) requested a meeting with City and PAMF staff. A major concern of the neighborhood representatives was that the EIR analysis might have overstated the amount of traffic and thus might lead to an unneeded second left turn lane. That and other issues are reviewed in the attached January 11, 1996 letter to the Neighborhoods Group (Attachment U). On JanuaD, 4, City staff met with Caltrans staff to review the traffic analysis and pursue the Group’s concerns. Caltrans staff continue to conclude that the best way of addressing the second left turn lane is by constructing it at the same time as the PAMF entD.’ is constructed. However, they ageed to accept, if the City requests, a mitigation monitoring approach so long as the following features are incorporated: All CiD’ approvals for the second left turn lane would be made as part of the PAMF approva! process; The CiD’ would guarantee that funding for the left turn lane project will be available if and when the second left turn lane is required under the monitoring process; CMR:104:96 Page 55 of 61 The monitoring would involve a three-day analysis (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) conducted two to three months after the PAMF clinic and research buildings open for public use, followed by one-day monitoring on approximately a quarterly schedule; The monitoring would occur when local schools and Stanford are in session and not during holiday or other unusual times; and The trigger for installation of the second left turn lane would be a combination of more than 300 cars for any one hour using the left turn lane during the 3:00-6:00 p.m. peak period and cars backing up into and/or beyond the Town & Countu unsi~alized median opening a minimum of five traffic signal cycles (or 20 percent of the total cycles) during the peak hour. City staff continue to endorse the conclusion in the November 30, 1995 letter from Caltrans that the second left turn lane be installed as part of constructing the signalized PAMF entW. The staff recommendation is based on the veW high likelihood that initial occupancy of the PAMF facilities will overload the single left turn lane; the problems associated with constructing the second left turn lane after the traffic is present and the problems exist; and the negative consequences of encouraging Embarcadero Road-bound traffic to either tU to short cut through Town & Countr).; Village or find routes from the PAMF site to University Avenue and then through the South of Forest Avenue!current PAMF site/Professorville area. If the City Council wishes to use the monitoring alternative, the mitigation measure should be reworded to ¯ Mitigation Measure: Although the project would not result in overall intersection operations .at LOS E or worse, and would not result in an entering volume in excess of the CiB:’s approved 2010 volume, the project would result in a southbound left-turn volume at E1 Camino Real!Embarcadero Road substantially in excess of the Caltrans 300-vehicles-per-lane standard in the p.m. peak hour. and the City will require, as a condition of project approval, that the project sponsor develop construction plans for a second southbound left-turn lane at that intersection as part of the project, that the project sponsor deposit final design and construction funds for the second left2turn lane in a City escrow account, and that the project sponsor monitor the left-turn volume and construct a second southbound left-turn lane once left-turning traffic exceeds thresholds to be established by the City and Caltrans. CMR: 104:96 Page 56 of 61 El Camino Real/Page Mill Road Intersection: The EIR’s conclusions regarding the impact of the PAMF relocation on the E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection are quite different for two time frames. For 1998 with the relocated project occupied, the intersection in the afternoon peak period functions slightly better than without the project. This results from a slight shift in travel patterns resulting from the project’s location on E1 Camino Real. In 2010, under cumulative conditions, the intersection goes from LOS E in 1995 (and 1998) to LOS F. PAMFhas a small share (about 7 percent) of the peak hour traffic using the intersection. Thus PAMF contributes to the cumulative significant environmental impact. The DEIR proposes the following mitigation to address this impact: "B.9.b: To improve intersection operations at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection, the City could install an exclusive northbound right-turn lane and an exclusive southbound right-turn lane on E1 Camino Real and extend the second westbound left-turn lane on Page Mill Road, with the project sponsor required to pay a proportionate share of the cost based on impact. This measure could be implemented as the intersection LOS approached LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be carried out by the City and/or through subsequent environmental documentation." If the Council retains this mitigation measure, the City will need to prepare an ageement with PAMF detailing traffic monitoring and future financial responsibilities. If the mitigation measure is eliminated, as PAMF has requested, the certification of the Final EIR will need to be modified because without the mitigation measure, the project will have a cumulative environmental impact without mitigation and the Cib Council will need to make findings of overriding considerations regarding this impact. ALTERNATIVES The DEIR addresses a number of alternatives. If the Urban Lane Campus project is either denied by the City or concluded by the Foundation to be too expensive, PAMF representatives have indicated that PAMF will remain at its current location and need to up~ade its facilities consistent with the 199! Specific Plan. A reduced project size alternative would realistically focus on elimination of Building D, the Wellness Center. It has never been clear to City staff the extent to which the Wellness Center is a real and likely possibility. The City was not part of the plans submitted in early 1995 and given prelimina~, review by the ARB on April 20. If the Urban Lane extension from the site to University Circle is not implemented, the signalized access on E1 Camino Real would need to shift to Encina and the main PAMF ent~.~ CMR:104:96 Page 57 of 61 be limited to right turns in and out. There would be sul~stantial site planning ramifications of this change. FISCAL IMPACT Appendix H of the Draft EIR contains a Fiscal and Economic Benefit Analysis of the PAMF Relocation project. The analysis includes estimates of retail spending and City and School District revenues for the relocated PAMF facilities and two residential redevelopment scenarios for the existing PAMF properties. Under the moderate residential reuse scenario (! 42 units on 10.24 acres), new residential spending in the downtown is estimated to about equal the loss in Downtown retail sales (approximately $500,000) resulting from PAMF’s relocation. The relocation will benefit particularly retai! sales in Town & country Village. With residentia! redevelopment, overall Ci~~ (and School District) revenues will increase as a result of higher property values and property taxes. PAMF’s relocation should not result in higher expenditures for the City. Residential reuse of existing PAMF properties will result in some increased Ci~" (and School District) expenditures. The DEIR’s economic analysis does not estimate these expenditures. That analysis will occur when a reuse planning process is undertaken for the existing PAMF downtown properties. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On October 20, 1995, the City Council received the Draft EIR. The required 45-day public review period ran through December 4, 1995. The ARB took public testimony on November 16, and the Planning Commission took testimony on November 29 and December 6. All oral and written comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in the Final EIR. The attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am for Si~,onificant Impacts identifies project impacts and their related mitigation measures. Also attached is a list of additional Potential Conditions for Less Than Significant Impacts, which summarizes project conditions identified in the DEIR. The DEIR concludes that all but three of the impacts can be mitigated to the point where, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, they are insignificant. The three impacts that can not be mitigated to the point of insignificance are: IV.H.2 - Air Quality - The project would result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions. IV.H.6 - Air Quality - The project would contribute to a cumulative increase in emissions in the region. IV.J.1 - Noise and Vibration - Project construction would temporarily generate increased noise at the project site and in its vicinity. CMR: 104:96 Page 58 of 61 CEQA provides that projects with significant environmental impacts can be approved providing that certain findings of overriding considerations can be made. Staff concludes that the PAMF project is such a project and the appropriate findings are in Attachment C for review and adoption by the Counci!. These findings relate to the public benefits to relocation of the PAMF facilities from the current locations adjacent to mostly residential properties, and to the benefits of retaining in Palo Alto and modernizing the PAMF medical facilities. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If the staff. Planning Commission and ARB recommendations are approved, the primary remaining City Council actions will be the recommended Februaw 20, 1996 public hearing on vacation of a portion of Homer Avenue and Wells Avenue and vacation of a public utilities easement (CMR: ! 07:96). It is also recommended that consideration of the Tentative Subdivision Map be continued until the street vacation issue is resolved. As indicated in the previous discussion and more fully in the use permit and ARB conditions of approval, there is a wide variety of project details that need to be resolved by PAMF prior to issuance of gading, excavation or building permits. The geat majority of these items will require review and approval by the ARB. If the Urban Lane Campus project is approved and PAMF decides to implement the project, reuse of the existing downtown properties will be the subject of an area planning process described ih the Amendment to the Development Ageement (see CMR: 115:96). ATTACHMENTS B. C. D. E. F. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. Area Plan Map Site Location Map Resolution Certifying the Final EIR and Making Findings Resolution Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Resolution Amending the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Ordinance Amending Section 18.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PF District Regulations) Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Zone Classification Conditional Use Permit Findings and Conditions Variance Findings DEE Findings Deferred Parking Findings Architectural Review Findings and Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Findings and Conditions of Approval Table - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progam for Significant Impacts Table - Conditions for Less Than Significant Impacts CMR:104:96 Page 59 of 61 R. S. T. U. V. No Correspondence Regarding Project Not Included in Final EIR Minutes of 11/29/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/6/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/12/95 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12/14/95 ARB Meeting 1/11/96 Letter to University South Neighborhoods Group PAMF Information, Renderings and Plans dated 8/30/95, with 10/16, 11/27 and 11/29/95 Revisions (Council Members only) Tentative Subdivision Map (Council Members only) Final Environmental Impact Report (Council Members and Libraries only) cc w/plans:Stanford Planning Office (Charles Carter) Caltrans, District 4 (Paul Chiu and David Chew) Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (Tom Roundtree) San Mateo County Transit Distsrict (Howard Goode) Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Tom Davids) Clement Chen & Associates (Clement Chen III) Stanford Universit)., Board of Trustees, c/o Lands Management (Bill Phillips) Palo Alto Town & Country Village (Ronald Williams) Alan Rogers Palo Alto Pet Hospital (Dr. K. Weigel) Marie L. Braga cc w/o plans:Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Southern Pacific Transportation Company Lands Management Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury) Gray Ca~; Ware & Freidenrich (Douglas B. Aikens) San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (Jeff Kline) City of Menlo Park (Don de la Pefia) Santa Clara Count?, Water District (Sue A. Tippets) ESA (Dan Wormhoudt and Karl Heisler) Ellerbe Becket (Sandra Beck) Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association League of Women Voters ¯ Universi~ South Neighborhoods Group (Patrick Burt) Universit?~ Park Association Palo Alto Historical Association Stanford University (Andy Coe) CMR: 104:96 Page 60 of 61 MacArthur Park Restaurant Judith Wassermann, Palo Alto Arts Commission Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (Susan Frank) Yoriko Kishimoto Emily Renzel Susan Wexler Ma~~ Carlstad Sister Donna Doshak CMR: 104:96 Page 61 of 61 TO U.S. 101 Attachment A STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER STA. CAL TRAIN PARKING LOT HOLIDA Y INN 1-280 STANFORD /UNIVERSITY, MEDICAL / PROJECT SITE TO QUAD TO WN & COUNTRY VILLAGE PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL STANFORD UNI VERSITY 20C~) 0 TO U.S. loi Palo Alto Medical Foundation /930509 [] Figure III.1 Project Location III-5 795 El Camino Real ~ERLEY # EMER HIGH PC- 2830 Attachment B PC-3902 STANFORD UNIVERSITY Scale: 1 inch = 400 ft I ~ , ~ I !,~ ~ ! North Attachment C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION NEW CAMPUS PROJECT FINAL EIR AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT_ TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Counci! of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares a~ fol!ows: A.The Palo Alto Medical Foundation for Health Care, Research, and Education ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Palo Alto Medica! Foundation New Campus Project (also referred to as the "Urban Lane Project" or the "Project"). The Project consists of a proposed new medical clinic and medical research facility located on 9.2 acres formerly developed for commercial use at 975 E! Camino Real. The proposed new campus will consist of three, three-story buildings totaling approximately 355,500 square feet, with underground and surface parking. The development approvals required for the Project include comprehensive plan amendments, a zoning ordinance text amendment, site rezoning, a conditional use permit, a tentative subdivision map to assemble 13 parcels, a variance for a deferred parking structure, vacation of portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane, architectural review including a design enhancement exception, and a development agreement amendment restricting reuse of the Foundation’s current campus upon occupancy of the Urban Lane site (the "Project Approvals"). B.The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and materials: "Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 20, 1995" ("Draft EIR"); "Palo Alto Medical Foundation Final Environmental Impact Report, January, 1996" ("Final EIR"), and the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et se~. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final 1 960110 lac 0080181 EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community EnvirolLment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C.The initial Notice of Preparation for the Project was prepared on November 4, 1994, and a scoping meeting was held on November 17, 1994. The Draft EIR for the Project was circulated for public review from October 20, 1995 through December 4, 1995. The Architectural Review Board held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 16, 1995. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 29, 1995 and December 6, 1995. D.The City Council on January 22, 1996, held a duly noticed public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final EIR, and considering the subject Project Approvals. E.The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which program is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Fina! EIR, and described in detai! in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference° F.The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Fina! EIR and record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, testimony received by the Council during the January 22, 1996 public hearing and responses by staff during that public hearing. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Fina! EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and al! other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approva! the various actions related to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation New Campus Project. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitiqated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the Final EIR idenUifies potentially significant environmental effects 2 960110 lac 0080181 of the Project in regard to Land Use; Traffic and Circulation; Public Services and Utilities pertaining to wastewater, solid waste and recycling; Toxic and Hazardous Materials; Drainage and Water Quality; Geology and Seismic Hazards; Air Quality; and Cultural Resources. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below: A.Land Use The only potentially significant land use impact (Impact A.I) of the proposed Project derives from the Project not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning for the Project site in existence at the time of submittal of Project applications. Those applications include Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Land Use designation for the site and to the Housing Element Program pertaining to the existing PAMF Downtown facilities, and a rez0ning to a modified Public Facilities (PF) district, said text modification having been initiated by the City Council on October i0, 1995. There will be no land use impacts from the Project concerning the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance or any other aspect of the Project after City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and text and map changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant’s objectives as stated in Section III. B. of the Draft EIR cannot be achieved without approvals of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Zoning Ordinance text and map changes. Traffic and Circulation There are three Traffic and Circulation impacts that are significant, and mitigation proposed as part of the Project or identified in the EIR and required as Project conditions of approval mitigate those impacts to less than significant levels. Impact B.4 concerns the potential for vehicles weaving from the extended Palm Drive-University Avenue on-ramp to southbound E1 Camino Rea!, resulting in unacceptable opera~ions for the segment of E1 Camino Rea! between the ramp and the Embarcadero Road intersection. This potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by inclusion of separate phases for southbound on-ramp traffic and southbound mainline traffic at the proposed traffic signal at the P~MF main entrance. The Applicant 3 960110 lac 0080181 and City have made this re_cFdest to Caltrans staff, who agree the mitigation will be implemented. Impact B.6 results from the Project site not being directly served by public transit due to the lack of an acceptable bus stop !ocation on the west side of E! Camino Real and to the site’s distance from existing transit stops to the north and south. This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project conditions of approval: i) Applicant shall fund an extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle in order to connect the Project campus to the CalTrain station for vehicles, shuttle buses, bicycles and pedestrians, .and the Project as designed shall not be occupied until such extension has been constructed; 2) the Project shall provide pedestrian pathways between the Project buildings and the proposed internal shuttle stops and any bus stop locations on E1 Camino Real; and 3) the Applicant, as a condition of Project approval, shall operate a shuttle service between the Pa!o Alto CalTrain Station and the Project site during normal business hours, should Stanford University elect not to serve the site with the Marguerite shuttle. Impact B.9 concerns the cumulative traffic generated by future deve!opment, including the proposed Project, that would adversely affect local intersections, resulting in changes in intersection levels of service, increased delay at intersections operating at LOS E or worse, and entering intersection volumes in excess of the City’s approved 2,010 volumes. Impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the fol!owing mitigation measures as conditions of approval: !) to improve intersection operations~at the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road-Galvez Road, a second southbound left-turn lane on E! Camino Real shall be constructed by the Applicant when required by Caltrans or when post-Project monitoring establishes that the improvement is warranted; and 2) the Applicant shall pay a proportionate share of the cost of improving the E1 Camino Rea!/Page Mill Road intersection (EIR Mitigation Measure B.9.b). Co Public Services and Utilities There are four potentially significant impacts associated with the Project’s effects on public services a1:.d utilities. Impact D.! concerns the additional wastewater flows generated by the Project, which could potentially exceed the capacity of local sewer lines. This impact will be mitigated to a 4 960110 l~c 0080181 less than significant level by incorporation into conditions of Project approval the requirement that the Applicant comply with Utility Department requirements regarding flow metering and contribute the Project’s proportionate share of any required wastewater collections system improvements prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Impact D.4 concerns that the proposed Project’s solid waste generation, which would contribute incrementally to the cumulative impacts of solid waste on the environment. To reduce this impact to a less that significant !evel~ the conditions of project approval shal! include a requirement that the Applicant comply with the requirements of the Public Works 0perations/Recycling Division regarding new source reduction, recycling and composting. Impact D.5 concerns the significant solid waste impact from demolition of the existing structure at the Project site and from construction of the proposed Project. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the Applicant shall, as a condition of Project approval, have construction contractors maximize diversion of materials during construction of the Project. Impact D.6 finds that the Project as currently proposed does not show storage areas for recyclables and compostables. This potential solid waste impact wil! be mitigated to a less than significant level by a Project condition requiring the Applicant, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide sufficient storage areas throughout the Project for recyclables and compostables. Do Toxic and Hazardous Materials Construction of the Project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to contaminated soil or groundwater (Impact E.I). This potential impact wil! be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the following requirements as conditions of Project approva!: the Applicant shal! monitor ongoing remediation activities on the Project site; conduct a risk assessment to determine additional remediation requirements, if required by the monitoring; conduct further site studies to characterize on-site contamination, if required by the monitoring and risk assessment; prepare site remediation plans for residual site contamination, if required by the monitoring, risk assessment and site studies; and prepare a site safety plan to protect construction workers from contamination, if required by the 5 960110 iac 0080181 monitoring, ris. assessment, site studies an4 site remediation plan. Drainage and Water 0uality Soil excavation could release into site runoff the pollutants currently bound up in soils, contributing to degradation of surface water quality; construction of new buildings, roadways and landscaped areas could also contribute to urban runoff pollutants. (Impact F.I). These impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation into the conditions upon issuance of grading permits the requirements that the Applicant shall incorporate Best Construction Management Practices into a stormwater pollution prevention plan to be implemented throughout Project construction, and shall comply with all requirements of the Nationa! Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Fo Geology and Seismic Hazards There are six potentially significant impacts concerning geology and seismic hazards. The Project could result in Project occupants being exposed to safety hazards related to hazardous materials on-site in the event of an earthquake (Impact G.2). This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring the Applicant, as a condition of Project approval, to comply with the seismic safety program detailed in EIR Mitigation Measure G.2. Liquification and differential settlement hazards could present a potentia! danger to people and damage to structures, roadways, parking areas, and buried infrastructure resulting from existing soils conditions or earthquake-induced ground failure at the Project site (Impacts G.3 and G.5). EIR Mitigation Measures G.3 and G.5, which are incorporated as Project conditions of approval, wil! reduce the impacts to a less than significant level by requiring that an engineer qualified in earthquake engineering include in the fina! Project design al! economically feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for damage from .the possible types of earthquake-induced ground failure at the site and comply with the current version of the Building Code in effect at the time of final Project design. Impact G.6 concerns the construction of buildings, roadways, parking areas and structures, and other improvements 6 960110 lae 0080181 disrupting and displacing site soils, thereby increasing the potential for water and wind erosion of graded soi! and imported fill. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the Project conditions of approval require that the Applicant employ Best Construction Methods and other measures detailed in EIR Mitigation Measure G.6 in conjunction with any excavation or grading permit for the Project. Impact G.7 concerns potential excavation-related hazards to workers and adjacent structures and facilities, and the construction vibration that could damage adjacent properties. EIR Mitigation Measures G.7 a and b detail measures, including a pre- construction survey and use of appropriate shoring of excavation sites, with Chief Building Official review and. approval, which are included as City Project conditions of approva! and which will reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. Impact G.8 concerns the excavation and disposal of up to 106,000 cubic yards of earth for the Project building foundations and underground parking. This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation into the Project conditions of approval the requirement that the Applicant, prior to and during excavation, comply with EIR Mitigation Measure G.8, relating to identification of disposal locations and testing and proper disposal of contaminated soils. G.Air Quality Project construction activities would generate temporary dust and combustion emissions (Impact H.I). This impact will be reduced to less than a significant level by imposition of City conditions of Project approval which shall require that the Project construction contractors implement a dust abatement program throughout the Project construction period. Ho Cultural Resources Impact K.i concerns the potential for Project excavation to damage previously unknown prehistoric or historic archaeologica! resources at the Project site. This .impact will be reduced to less than a significant level by City imposition of Project conditions requiring the Applicant to comply with the detailed requirements of EIR Mitigation Measures K.!.a, b, and c. Those measures require construction monitoring by a qualified archeologist and specify Applicant, City and archaeologist responsibilities prior to building construction in the event subsurface prehistoric or 7 960110 lac 0080181 historic resources are encountered at the Pr~ject site during excavation. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies ~significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to Air Quality and Noise. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect identified in this Section 4, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which lessen to the extent feasible the significant environmental effects as identified in the Fina! EIR, these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a leve! of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project: A.Air Quality The. proposed Project will result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions and will contribute to a cumulative increase in emissions in the region, a significant cumulative impact in that any net increase contributes to the region’s existing ozone problem. (Impacts H.2 and H.6.) Although the City is requiring transportation measures (EIR Mitigations B.6.a through B.6.c) to reduce those impacts, they will remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of the required mitigations. B.Noise Project construction will temporarily generate increased noise at the Project site and in its vicinity during the approximate two years of Project construction. (Impact J.l.) As conditions of Project approval, the City will require the Applicant to comply with EIR Mitigation Measures J.l a, b and c.These measures require that construction hours are limited,noise standards are set for construction equipment, equipmentnoise generators will ],e shielded and barriers will be erected a!ong the southern and northwest property boundaries by the Applicant and site construction contractors. While these measures wil! reduce the temporary construction noise impacts, those impacts will remain significant and unavoidable for the two-year duration of Project construction. SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of 8 960110 l~c 0080181 the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as summarized below: ho No Project Alternative The EIR evaluated two variations of the No Project Alternative, one involving no development and one concerning development of the Project site consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning of the Project site. i. No Deve!opment Alternative This alternative would entail no implementation by the Applicant of the currently proposed Urban Lane Campus Project nor of the previously approved Downtown Campus Specific Plan. This alternative would not meet the Project’s basic objective of relocating most of the Medical Foundation’s existing facilities to a new facility at a single location with an integrated design. This alternative is also not desirable for the City because: a) it would result in the existing PAMF facilities, most of which do not meet current seismic safety standards for new construction, continuing to be located in what is otherwise mostl~ a residential neighborhood; b) it would result in the Urban Lane Project site remaining in an unsightly and unproductive condition for an unknown period of time with most previously existing building having been demolished and uses having been terminated or relocated; and c) it would deprive the citizens of Palo Alto and surrounding communities who are present or future PAMF members from utilizing a new medical facility with an integrated design intended to provide a high level of health care in a managed care environment. 2. Existing Plans Alternative This alternative would involve buildout of the adopted P~MF Specific Plan for its existing Downtown properties and eventual redevelopment of t he Urban Lane Campus site consistent with existing 9 960110 lac 0080181 Comprehensive Plan designation for Service Commercial use. This alternative does not meet the Project’s objectives as well as construction of the Urban Lane Campus with its integrated design for all relocated facilities, and does not avoid all of the practical difficulties facing the Applicant if required to maintain operations while reconstructing its existing facilities over what would be a longer construction period than at the Urban Lane site. This alternative is also not desirable for the City for several reasons: a) it also would result in the existing PAMF facilities, most of which do not meet current seismic safety standards for new construction, continuing to be !ocated in what is ctherwise mostly a residential neighborhood; b) it also should result in the Urban Lane Project site remaining in an unsightly and unproductive condition for an unknown period of time with most previously existing buildings having been demolished and uses having been terminated or relocated; c) it would result in greater cumulative traffic impact (about four times the daily average trip generation and five times the peak hour trip generation) from redevelopment of the Urban Lane Campus site with approximately 160,000 square feet of retail and office uses than would occur with redevelopment of the existing PAMF Downtown properties with likely residentia! uses; and d) site impacts such as construction noise and dust generation would occur over a longer period of time in an existing mostly residentia! neighborhood unlike the two-year construction period in the existing nonresidential area around the Urban Lane Cmnpus site. m o No-Urban-Lane Alternative This alternative would consist of the Project as proposed, with two major exceptions: the proposed Urban Lane Extension between University Circle and the PAMF Campus would not occur, and the PAMF E1 Camino Real entrance would not be signalized, necessitating a new signal at E1 Camino Real/Encina Avenue. This alternative.would not meet the Project’s objective "to have direct vehicle access to the new facility through a fully signalized !0 960110 lac 0080181 intersection to and from E1 Camino Real." (Draft EIR page III-2.) This alternative would also likely require substantial redesign of the Urban Lane Campus Project, significantly adding cost and time to the overall implementation of relocating the P~MF facilities to the Urban Lane Campus. This alternative is also not desirable for the City because it does not accomplish as part of the PAMF Project the extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle, a significant vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvement for the Project site and vicinity. The Urban Lane Extension would provide an important alternate access route to the Urban Lane Campus for pedestrians and vehicle traffic, including emergency vehicles and shuttle buses. Transit accessibility to and from the site is impaired without the pedestrian and shuttle bus link provided by the Urban Lane Extension. Also, this alternative would impair operations at the E1 Camino Real/Palm Drive-University Avenue intersections compared to the proposed Project with its signalized entrance north of Encina Avenue. The EIR found that this alternative would have significant unavoidable impacts: weaving from the Palm Drive/University Avenue ramp to Encina Avenue, andnoise on Encina Avenue. Co Reduced Density Alternative This alnernative does not include construction of the proposed Wellness Center as part of the PAMF Urban Lane Campus. While the stated Project objectives (Draft EIR page III-l) can be met by this alternative, it does not provide PAMF an opportunity to add a unique research and clinic-related physical therapy-type facility. For the same reason, this alternative is less desirable for the City, as fewer services would be available to PAMF members than would be the case if the Wellness Center were constructed. In the event PAMF does not seek or receive future architectural design approval for the proposed Building D which would house the Wellness Center, the Urban Lane Campus would still be well-designed and functional, as PAMF has proposed and the City approvals include a landscaping alternative for the Building D area. Former Maximart Site This alternative involves the 15-acre former Maximart site, currently used for a Fry’s Electronics store and numerous other uses including Coop Cable TV. This site does not meet several of the Project’s stated objectives, being located approximately 2 miles from Downtown and 2.75 miles from the Stanford University ii 960110 1ac~80181 Medical Center. The site is in a mixed use neighborhood that includes residential zoning and uses next to and in close proximity to the site. The proposed Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for most of this site, Multiple- Family Residential. Existing buildings would need to be demolished to accommodate the Project. The Applicant does not contro! the Project site and has rejected the site as not meeting the basic Project objectives. Recently the City Council authorized the extension of nonconforming use of the site to allow the continued use and an expansion of the existing Fry’s Electronics store, which will likely mean that the site will continue for some years to be unavailable for this Project. For the above reasons, this alternative has been rejected by the City and the Applicant. E o Hewlett-Packard Site This 10-acre site is located in close proximity to the former Maximart site, and also does not meet several of the stated Project objectives. The site is at a greater distance from Downtown and the Stanford University Medical Center than the Urban Lane Campus site. Surrounding and vicinity uses and zoning include residential properties in addition to nonresidential use. Ongoing toxic remediation of the site could pose constraints to redevelopment of the site in the short-termo The proposed Project is not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Light Industrial. The Applicant does not control the site and has rejected the site as not meeting the Project’s basic objectives. For the above reasons, this alternative has been rejected by the City and the Applicant. Fo Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated Applicant representatives indicated to City staff that other sites in Palo Alto were considered by the Applicant on a very preliminary basis, early in its search for a new campus location. Those alternative sites were not evaluated in the{ EIR because they could not feasibly attain the Project’s basic objectives due to size, inability of the Applicant to obtain site control, economic considerations, and other factors relevant to the unique needs of this major medical facility. In addition, two potential alternative sites were preliminarily considered and then rejected in 1991, during the environmental review of the Applicant’s proposed expanded Downtown Site: Certain property owned by Stanford University at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road, and the ~Elks Club Site at 4249 E1 Camino Real. This Council’s 12 960110 lac 0080181 Resolution No.found that neither location was a feasible alternative for this Project. SECTION 6. Statement of Overridinq Considerations. The City Council finds that the unavoidable envirolunental impacts of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the fol!owing factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings as flowing from the Project: A.The primary public benefit of the proposed Project is the re!ocation of most of the existing Medical Foundation facilities and activities from a mostly residential neighborhood served by loca! residential streets in the Downtown area to a mostly commercial area immediately adjacent to Downtown on E1 Camino Real, which is a six-lane State Highway at the project !ocation. Project-related traffic wil! be mostly removed from the residential area bounded by Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, Midd!efield Road and Hamilton Avenue. The relocation will eliminate the historical incompatibilities between the medical clinic/research activities of the Medical Foundation and the surrounding residential neighborhood. B.Relocation of the existing Medical Foundation facilities from the surrounding mostly residential neighborhood will also avoid short-term, but multi-year impacts to the neighborhood that would otherwise result from the Applicant implementing its previously approved Specific Plan for its existing facilities. The construction period at the existing location would be substantially longer than the two years expected at the proposed Urban Lane Campus because of the many practical difficulties of rebuilding facilities and maintaining functions at the same time replacement facilities are being constructed in the same general location. The residentia! neighborhood surrounding the existing facilities would be significantly more sensitive to noise, dust, traffic and related construction impacts than the primarily commercial and industria! uses around the proposed Urban Lane Campus. C.Retaining and modernizing the medical services and research activities of the Medical Foundation within Paio Alto will benefit the residents and employees of Palo Alto and surrounding communities, a substantial proportion of which are Medical 13 960110 lac 0080181 Foundation members.In addition, !ocating medical research facilities near the related medica! facilities at Stanford University provides important functional synergies among the institutions and individuals involved. D.Short-term construction expenditures for the project wil! exceed Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000), with a substantial portion of that total cost expected to be spent in the greater Palo Alto, Santa Clara-San Mateo Counties area. Long-term, the Medical Foundation facilities will remain in Palo Alto in close proximity to established commercial uses at Town and Country Village and Downtown for shopping and related activities by the Applicant’s employees, patients and visitors. Unlike larger medical complexes, the Medical Foundation does not provide a full-range of food and other convenienc~ services on site, thereby generating sales at vicinity retail and other service uses. E.The Amendment to the existing Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant for its existing Downtown Specific Plan area provides that the Applicant and the City wi~l fund a comprehensive planning effort for the properties to be vacated upon relocation of most facilities to the new Urban Lane Campus. Relocation of the existing facilities coupled with such a planning process will allow the conversion of the existing Medical Foundation properties to uses, most likely residential, developed and designed to be in greater harmony with the surrounding neighborhood than the existing facilities that evolved over an approximately 70-year period. SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. The City Counci! finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantia! evidence identifying, significant environ- mental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environ- mental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the Initial Study for the Project (Draft EIR, Appendix "A") and with respect to the fol!owing potential impacts identified as not significant in Table II.l of the Final EIR, with the reasons for the findings of no significant impacts also detailed in Table II.!: Land Use Impacts A.2 and 3; Traffic, Circulation and Parking Impacts B.I, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8; Visua! Quality Impacts C.I, 2, 3, and 4; Public Services and Utilities Impacts D.2, 3, 7, 8, 9, i0, ii, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; Drainage and Water Quality Impact F.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Geology and Seismic Hazards G.I, 4 and 8; Air Quality Impacts H.3, 4 and 5; Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts I.l, 2 and 3; Noise and Vibration Impacts J.2 and 3; and Biotics Impact L.I. 14 960110 lac0080181 SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Fina! EIR. INTRODUCED AND P~.~SED : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 15 960110 lac~80181 Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE ~P OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY AT 795 EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held on November 29, December 6, and December i2, 1995, has recommended that the Council amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Counci! has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on January 22, 1996, and has reviewed the contents of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR’) prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and al! testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The City Counci! 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 wil! permit the relocation of outpatient medica! facilities and associated medical research activities now located in downtown Palo Alto to an area more appropriate for such uses. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation of the property at 795 E1 Camino Rea!, shown on E~hibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, from "Service Commercia!" to "Major Institution/Specia! Facilities." SECTION 3. The City Counci! adopts this resolution in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings adopted by Resolution No. SECTION 4. This resolution shal! be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption; provided that, if by that date the City Counci! has not authorized execution, on behalf of the City, of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Medica! Foundation, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has not executed said First Amendment to 960105 lac 0080162 the Development Agreement, them this resolution shall become void, and shal! have no force and effect. 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 Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shal! be rejected as untimely. INTRODUCED AND 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 960105 lac 0~80162 Attachment E RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held on November 29, December 6, and December 12, !995, has recommended that the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan be amended as set forth in Section 2 of this reso!~tion; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on January 22, 1996, and has reviewed the contents of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") 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 fol!ows: SECTION i. The City Counci! finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to certain elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 of this resolution, in that existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs allow expansion of current Palo Alto Medica! Foundation facilities into adjacent residential areas in the downtown area. The Palo Alto Medica! Foundation now proposes to relocate its facilities to another site, and upon approval of the. applications for approva! of the alternate site, the ability to expand into downtown residential areas will no !onger be required. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends Housing Program IA of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Allow the Palo Alto Medical Foundation new development, up to a maximum increase of 45,000 square feet of floor area, on sites in Medical Foundation use and on nearby sites in residentia! use in order to enhance health care facilities and services for residents of Palo Alto and nearby communities and to enhance the Foundation’s ability to conduct medical research. Expansion and development of new Palo Alto Medical Foundation facilities will require redesignation i 960105 b.c OOZO180 on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map of approximately the northern half of the block bounded by Homer Avenue, Bryant Street, Channing Avenue and Ramona Street from Multiple-Family Residential to Major Institution/Special Facilities. New deve!opment and expansion of Medica! Foundation facilities is expected to occur on this b!ock and on the block where the principa! facilities of the Pa!o Alto Medica! Foundation are located, that is bounded by Homer Avenue, Waverley Street, Channing Avenue and Bryant Street. SECTION 3. The City Council adopts this resolution in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings adopted by Resolution No. SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the thirty-first (3!st) day after its adoption; provided that, if by that date the City Council has not authorized execution, on behalf of the City, of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has not executed said First Amendment to the Development Agreement, then this resolution shall become void, // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 2 960105 lac 0080180 and shall have no force and effect. This delayed effective date is intended and shal! 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 exerciseof the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo alto and the constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as untimely. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 3 960105 lac 0080180 Attachment F ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . 32 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (PF DISTRICT REGULATIONS), RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ~DICAL RESEARCH AND OUTPATIENT MEDICAL USES The Council of the ~City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. The City Council finds as fol!ows: A.The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held November 29, December 6, and December 12, 1995, has recommended that Section !8.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. B.The City 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. The Counci! finds that including an outpatient medica! facility with associated medica! research use as a conditional use in the PF Public Facilities District would allow the City, in appropriate circumstances, to permit such a use, which provides services to the community. SECT!ON 2. Section 18.32.040 (PF Public Facilities District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18o32.040 Conditional Uses° The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the PF public facilities district, subject to issuance of a conditiona! use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90: (a) Facilities of all public utilities, as defined in the Public Utilities Code of the state of California, and corporations or other organizations whose activities are under the jurisdiction of the Federa! Communications Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission: (b) Any of the following uses, when conducted on property owned by the city, the county of Santa Clara, the state of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmenta! agency, and leased for said uses: 960105 lac 008016I 960105 lac 0080161 (i)Airports and airport-related uses, (2)Community centers, (3)Day care centers; (4)Private educational facilities, (5)Residential care facilities, when utilizing existing structures on the site, (6)Business or trade schools, (7)Outdoor recreation service, (8)Neighborhood recreation center, (9)Art, dance, gymnastic, exercise or music studios or classes, I0) Special education classes, i! 12 Administrative office services for nonprofit organizations, Retai! services as an accessory use to the administrative offices of a nonprofit organization, provided that such retai! services do not exceed twenty-five percent of the gross f!oor area of the combined administrative office services and retai! services uses, 13 Churches and religious institutions, (14)Youth clubs, (15)Other uses which in the opinion of the zoning ~administrator are similar to those listed as permitted or conditional uses, (16)Temporary parking facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years, (17)Retai! services in conjunction with a permitted use, (18)Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a permitted use; (c) Public or private colleges and universities and facilities appurtenant thereto; (d) Hospitals ; SECTION 3. The Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings adopted by Resolution No. SECTION 4. This ordinance shal! 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 3 Attachment G ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 795 EL CAMINO REAL FROM CS TO PF The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held on November 29, December 6, and December 12, i995, has recommended that the Council amend Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code (the "Zoning Map" B. Upon consideration of sa!d recommendation and of all testimony offered upon the matter, the Counci! finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code (the "Zoning Map") is hereby amended by changing the zone classification of certain property !ocated at 795 E1 Camino Rea! from "CS (Service Commercial)" to "PF (Public Facilities)" as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings adopted.by Resolution No. // // // // // // // // // 1/ // 960105 tac 00g0159 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the day of its adoption; provided that, if by that date the City Council has not authorized execution, on behalf of the City, of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has not executed said First Amendment to the Development Agreement, then this resolution shall become void, and shall have no force and effect. 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 960105 lae 0080159 Attachment H Findings and Conditions for Use Permit (94-UP-8) 795 E1 Camino Real - PANIF Urban Lane Campus FINDINGS The proposed use; at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that: go ¯The proposed PAMI: medical clinic and research uses are compatible with the commercial and warehouse uses on Wells Avenue and the uses of the Holiday Inn and Stanford-Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) properties to the north; with the commercial and industrial uses on Encina Avenue and other properties including Town and Country Shopping Center to the south; and with the CalTrain right-of-way to the east and the Stanford University arboretum to the west across E1 Camino Real. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus project has identified no site specifiC significant adverse environmental impacts that would affect vicinity properties so long as all mitigation measures, incorporated as conditions of approval for the Use Permit and related entitlements, are implemented. Important mitigation measures and conditions of approval include: 1)EIR Mitigation Measures C. 1, C.2 and C.3 regarding visual, light and glare impacts that could otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties, particularly the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue; EIR Mitigation Measure J.2 which governs future noise levels of PAMF project stationary equipment, such as that to be located on the southerly service road adjacent to properties on the north side of Encina Avenue, and the Use Permit and new EIR mitigation measure that would govern the noise levels permitted at the southerly property line adjacent to the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue; and 3)The provision of public easements for circulation improvements on Wells Avenue and Urban Lane between University Circle and Encina Avenue and related transportation on and off-site improvements that would serve the PAMF site and its vicinity. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 1 No Likewise, the EIR identified no significant adverse health or safety impacts from the proposed PAMF uses so long as all mitigation measures are implemented, which is a Use Permit condition of approval. Further, the EIR and City analyses have found that the PAMF project would improve the overall circulation and public convenience in the project vicinity with provision of the Urban Lane Extension north to University Circle, a vehicular connection south to Encina Avenue, the widening of existing Urban Lane north of Wells Avenue, the widening of Wells Avenue for provision of a sidewalk, and the pedestrian-bicycle path along the eastern side of the PAMF site. Additionally, the PAMF Urban Lane Campus project would relocate most existing PAMF facilities out of an otherwise primarily residential portion of Downtown, thereby decreasing land use conflicts in that area, and would modernize the medical clinic facilities utilized by a large proportion of the residents of Palo Alto and surrounding communities. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that: go The requested comprehensive plan designation of Major Institution/Special Facilities is intended for institutional, academic, governemental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or are operated as non-profit organizations as would be the case with the PAMF Urban Lane Campus project. The proposed designation for the PAMF Campus is consistent with the surrounding comprehensive plan designations of Service Commercial for the hotel, commercial and warehouse uses to the north; of Major Institution/Special Facilities at the JPB parking lot, the CalTrain right-of-way and the transit center to north; and of the Service Commercial and Regional Community Commercial designations to the south. Co The requested Public Facilities rezoning, related text amendment and this Use Permit, as conditioned, would implement the new comprehensive plan designation and be consistent with the non-profit medical clinic and research uses proposed at the PAMF Urban Lane Campus. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 2 CONDITIONS This approval shall not be effective until the Effective Date of the First Amendment to Development Agreement bet~veen the City and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. o This permit was processed concurrently with a zoning map change and zoning text amendment, pursuant to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.90.105. The permit shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinances adopting the zoning map change and zoning text amendment. o The conditional uses approved under this permit are medical clinic and associated medical research occupying approximately 355,500 square feet. Any future proposal to changes these uses to other conditional uses in the Public Facilities zone will require an application to the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment N) and the Conditions For Less Than Significant Impacts (Attachment O) are incorporated hereby as conditions of project approval. Architectural Review Board design approval for development of Building D is required prior to issuance of any grading, excavation or building permits for that Building. Until such time as such ARB approval and grading, excavation or building permits have been obtained, the Building D site shall be improved as a landscaped plaza as shown on sheet 15F Alternative Conceptual Landscape Plan, dated 11/27/95. Square footage for Building D will be determined based upon final ARB approval with demonstration that an adequate amount of conveniently located parking has been provided to serve the needs of Building D uses. The permittee shall submit an annual condition monitoring report and pay an annual condition monitoring fee to the City of Palo Alto to cover City staff or consultant time required to analyze the report, collect any additional information and prepare a memo to the Director of Planning and Community Environment regarding condition compliance. The fee shall be based on actual cost. The timing of submittal of the first annual condition monitoring report shall be on the first anniversary of the use permit approval effective date, with subsequent submittals to be made annually on the anniversary date. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 3 o As part of the annual mitigation monitoring report to the City, the permittee shall survey on-site parking occupancy and vacancy, distributed by patient and employee parking spaces, during peak hours on three consecutive work days (Tuesday- Thursday) and provide this data to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for consideration relative to the deferred parking approval. If!when the City constructs the Homer Avenue pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, the permittee shall provide at no cost, easements to accommodate the landing area for the stairway and ramp, and the connection with the bicycle/pedestrian path. All conditions for provision of utilities to the PAMF site shall be as stated on plan sheet 7C of plans dated 11/27/95, except as revised by conditions specified in the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Memos dated 11/29/1995, hereby incorporated by reference, or in conditions of approval of the PAMF Tentative Map. 10.The permittee shall submit a request, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, to disconnect all utility services and/or meters. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. A demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 11. 12. No excavation, grading or building permits shall be issued unless and until agreement has been reached between the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB, City) regarding design of the extension of Urban Lane from the northern project boundary to University Circle, and permittee has entered into agreement with City guaranteeing timely funding and construction. Improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle shall be submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board and City Traffic Engineer. Improvement plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include, as a minimum, the following elements: Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the City approved alternate, including connections to the bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway on the PAMF site. [Note: the preferred plan shown in Appendix F of the Draft EIR has a few errors that need to be corrected, including that the cross section fails to show the 2.5-foot overhang near the Holiday Inn fence.] o Landscaping, lighting, fencing, and other amenities. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 4 Connections of the new roadway and bike/pedestrian path to University Circle. Realignment of the Holiday Inn driveway connection to University Circle. 13. o Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board parking lot. o Accommodation of the new- Marguerite bus access/storage area per Stanford’s plans. Improvement plans for all work on E1 Camino Real related to the project shall be submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board and City Traffic Engineer, to Caltrans and City specifications including, as a minimum, the following elements: Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp. New signal installation for PAMF intersection, including separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire interconnection with Embarcadero/ECR signal. The signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4.) Closure of abandoned driveways and streets. Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot wide planting strip along project frontage. Due to lack of right-of-way on E! Camino Real, part of this construction may be on permittee’s property. If the approved improvement plans show these improvements on a portion of permittee’s property, the Final Map shall include appropriate easements. Restriping of E1 Camino Real and construction of new five-foot wide median and four-to-five-foot wide island separating on-ramp and through lanes. New signage and landscaping. Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if necessary due to roadway ~videning. 14.in the section of E1 Camino Real affected by Condition # 13 and Mitigation Measure B.9a, the minimum widths of the northbound and southbound through lanes and the Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 5 southbound on-ramp lane shall be at least 14 feet (in order minimally to accommodate bicycle traffic), with 15 feet preferred. 15.Permittee shall submit improvement plans for the public bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans design standards for bicycle paths, including, as a minimum, the following provisions: Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage. Two path connections into the PAMF site. Transition and connection to the portion of the path extending south from the site. Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension to University Circle. Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path located on the PMF site. 16.No excavation, grading or building permits shall be issued until the final subdivision map is approved and recorded. 17.Should Stanford University elect not to serve the project site with the Marguerite shuttle, the permittee shall, prior to project occupancy, submit for approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment a plan for operation of a shuttle service between the Palo Alto CalTrain Station and the project site during normal business hours and shall comply with the approved plan. 18.The permittee shall consult with the City, Stanford University, Caltrans, and Santa Clara County Transportation Agency concerning the feasibility of constructing one or both southbound and northbound bus stops on E1 Camino Real near the new PAMF intersection. If, prior to project occupancy, one or both bus stops are found to be feasible by the parties identified above, the permittee shall design, construct, and fund the bus stop amenities, signal modifications for the pedestrian crossing, crosswalk (including short connecting sidewalk on the Stanford side), and on-site connecting sidewalks. The northbound bus stop will require a pullout to be constructed on PAMF property. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 6 19.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. 20.All medical clinic and associated medical research activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10. 21.PAMF shall grant public vehicular access, excluding larger trucks, in the entrance oval and through lane in the Building A parking lot. Findings/Conditions 94-UP-8 Page 7 To: From: Date: Lisa Newman .~/i}Charles Borg, Senior Engineer, WG&W - Utilities/Engineering November 29, 1995 Subject:Second Review of the Palo Alto Mledical Foundation (PAIVlF) Revised Schematic Plans The attached PAMF schematic plans that were submitted to Water, Gas, and Wastewater (WG&W) Utilities Department on November 28, 1995 have been reviewed by WG&W Utilities. So there is no misunderstanding of our second schematic plan review, the only changes made to the plans by the developer was the addition and modification of the WG&W General Conditions. We do not agree with the changes they made to the General Conditions. The General Conditions shown below and the comments we made to the General Conditions shown on sheet 7c of the plans is what we are requiring for approval of the PAMF development. GENERAL CONDITIONS The Developer’s design shall be in accordance with the Water, Gas and Wastewater Utility Standards, Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the Department of Utilities Rates and Regulations. The Developer shall submit preliminary and final improvement plans and construction specifications for water, gas and wastewater utility construction. Your design project manager must contact WG&W utility engineers for standard design details. The Developer will not be allowed to begin site grading until the final utility improvement plans and WG&W service load sheets have been submitted, reviewed and approved by the WG&W Utility Engineering, Fire Department and City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector. The Developer shall be responsible for installing and upgrading on-site and off-site water and wastewater utilities as necessary to supply and carry anticipated peak loads. The natural gas system needed for this development will be installed by the City of Palo Alto’s gas construction crews, or the City may choose to hire a certified natural gas installation Page 1 of 4 contractor. All costs of the WG&W utility installations and system improvements needed to serve this development will be paid for by the developer. The Developer shall prepare, identify and provide the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division with the necessary public utility easements needed for utility service for this development. All public utility easements proposed for the project must be approved by WG&W Engineering and be prepared by the Developers’s engineer at the Developer’s expense. The Developer will be required to provide a 5 foot minimum width between WG&W utilities; example: three utilities will need a 15 foot easement. Note: State Law requires a 10 foot separation between sanitary sewers and water mains. Developer proposes to plant trees in utility easements, but will not plant trees above or within 5 foot horizontally from any sanitary sewer. WATER The Developer will be required to have a Professional Fire Protection Engineer who is registered with the State of California for building sprinkler design. The Developer’s engineer shall submit flow calculations which show that the off-site and on-site water mains will provide the domestic water and fire flow capacity needed to serve the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak loads. The Developer’s engineer will be required to perform all field testing needed to determine current capacities of the existing water distribution system. These tests must be done by the Developer’s engineer. The Developer’s landscape architect must work with Water Utility Engineering to determine the location of water meters and backflow presenters on the site. On-site private hydrant locations will be determined by the fire protection engineer and approved by the Fire Department. The Developer will be required to maintain all on-site water within the site boundaries. The water utility mains and services that are within the Public Right-of-Way or Public Utility Easements will be maintained by City of Palo Alto Utilities. The Developer’s new underground parking structure and patient access driveway that are being proposed could have an impact on the existing 12-inch City water main that runs along the southwesterly property line. The developer will be required to pot hole and find the depth and location of this main. The developer’s engineers, if needed, must show on the improvement plans how this line will be protected during the excavation of the Page 2 of 4 MEMORANDUM proposed parking garage. The developer will be required to prepare and dedicate a utility easement for this existing 12-inch water line. GAS The developer will be required to submit peak hourly natural gas loads, including utilization pressure if the desired delivery pressure is greater than 6" water column. All natural gas supply will be from the 6" main on Urban Lane. Gas metering for Buildings A, B, and C will be adjacent to Building A. A Public Utility Easement will be required for the underground natural gas piping from Wells Avenue to the meter location adjacent to Building A. The developer will be responsible for all onsite natural gas piping downstream of the meter location at Building A. The City will not route gas mains through the project site. There will be one additional meter location at Building D. A Public Utility Easement for the service line from Urban Lane to Building D will be required if more than one meter is requested at this location. The developer will pay the City for required system improvements. A new 6" gas main will need to be extended, on Hamilton Avenue from Bryant Street to Alma Street then across the JPPB R.O.W. to intercept the existing 6" main on Urban Lane, to serve PAMF. The 6" main is currently scheduled for construction in FY 96/97. PAMF’s cost associated with the installation of the 6" main will be based on the proportion of gas demand required by the development relative to the total flow in the pipeline. Should the Site be developed after the City’s FY 96/97 Gas Capital Improvement Project is constructed, PAMF will be required to pay the allocated portion of the costs of the main extension along with all subsequent connection fees prior to receiving service. WASTEWATER The Developer’s engineer shall submit improvement plans to indicate which wastewater lines are proposed, abandoned, and which mains are to remain in service. Sanitary sewer loads totaling 58,392 GPD, submitted with revised plan dated July 13, 1995, differs from the original submission of 122,000GPD. Why the discrepancy in flows, even though the total project building size has increased from 313,000sfto 355,000sf7 Final design and sizing of wastewater mains shall be based on anticipated peak flow. The Developer’s engineer shall submit sewer flow calculations which will show that the off-site (27" SS) and on-site wastewater mains will provide the sewer capacity needed to Page 3 of 4 RAN D U serve the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak loads. All field testing and flow monitoring required by Wastewater Engineering to determine current capacities of existing wastewater collection system mains will be performed by the Developer’s engineer at his/her expense. If you have any questions regarding the WG&W engineering comments, please call Utility Engineering at 329-2387. Attachement:Electric Engineering General Comments. cc Roger Cwiak Greg Scoby Patrick Valath Edward Wu Page 4 of 4 November 29, 1995 To: From: Subject: Lisa Newman, Planning Patrick Valath, Utilities - Electric Engineering Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) 795 E1 Camino Real -Plans Submittedfor 12/14/96 ARB Final Review The following are the changes to be made on sheet 7C for Electric comments: The 2nd paragraph under Electric System Extension and Impact on Existing System should be modified to read as follows: ° "In general for a project of this nature the developer (PAMF) will be responsible for installing, at developer’s expense, all underground conduits, splice boxes, switch pads and vaults required for system extension and for undergrounding any overhead lines affected within or adjacent to the project site. The City typically supplies all the cables, transformers and switches and installs them utilizing City crew or by contracting. See attached Rule and Regulation No. 17 for system extension responsibilities and fees to be paid by the developer" Reword the sentence "The following outlines our requirements on this project:" to "General Requirements" Delete the last line in the 4th paragraph under Requirements on this Project and modify to read as follows: The properties on Wells Avenue currently have overhead services. When the overhead lines are undergrounded(item 3 above), their services will also have to be undergrounded. PAMF will be responsible for paying the cost for converting their services to underground. No overhead services will be permitted. The 5th paragraph under Requirements on this Proiect is revised to read as follows: Easements will be required for installing the various padmounted equipment (transformers and switches) and wherever distribution system extension lines are installed to provide service to PAMF and the properties on Wells. In addition easements will also be required where underground electric distribution lines are installed to extend electric utilities to properties on Encina Avenue. Revise the paragraph under Service to Properties on Wells and New Traffic Signal on E1 Camino Real to read as follows: One or two padmount transformers will be required to provide service to properties on Wells Avenue and for the new traffic signal on E1 Camino Real at the main entrance. The location of these transformer(s) will be either on PAMF property fronting Wells Avenue or alternatively (if easement is granted) on one of the other properties on Wells. Delete comment Service Reliability to PAMF Project and the following paragraph: In order to ensure high reliability the City’s present plan is to have, under normal operating conditions, a dedicated feeder from Alma Substation provide service to the entire PAMF facilities. Since no other customers will be connected to this feeder (except during emergencies and switching) and, because of the close proximity to the Alma substation, we expect the service reliability to be very high. In addition back- up feeders from other substations will alleviate 100% dependence on Alma substation and provide the flexibility of being able to meet PAMF’s service needs from other sources also. copy:Roger Cwiak, Electrical Engineering Manager File - G J, CW, JW, TF P:\USERS\ELECTRIC\PAMF\9_28revw.mo I Attachment I Findings for Variance (95-V-17) 795 E1 Camino Real - PAMF Urban Lane Campus Recommended Variance Findings for the proposed PAMF parldng structure (to be constructed only if deferred parking were required later) that would result in 31.9% site coverage, exceeding the 30% maximum allowed in the Public Facilities District (95- V-17) There are exceptional or extxaordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the PAMF Urban Lane Campus property that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that: The PAMF project facilitates the extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle and provides a public access connection south to Encina Avenue, significantly improving circulation in the area bounded by University Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road and the CalTrain right-of-way. The dedication of easements for this and related roadways, including the widening of existing Urban Lane north of Wells Avenue and of Wells Avenue west of Urban Lane and the provision of sidewalks and planting strips, reduce the total site area available for development, thereby impacting lot coverage. Lot coverage would be 31.9% only if the deferred parking were required later, necessitating construction of the above ground parking structure in the southeast portion of the PAMF Campus; The PAMF Campus site is the result of a unique private assemblage of thirteen parcels into a very large property under a single ownership acquired for the purpose of relocating and modernizing the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s existing facilities in the Downtown area of Palo Alto. PAMF currently provides health care and medical services to a substantial proportion of the population of Palo Alto and surrounding communities; and Co There are physical constraints, including the ground water table elevation and the weight-bearing capacity of site soils and geology that limit the extent of underground parking that can feasibly be constructed on the property. o The granting of the variance application is necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that: Findings 95-V-17 Page t ao Due to the physical constraints cited above, the project’s parking demand, in the event that the deferred parking were required in the future, could be met only through construction of the above ground parking structure in the southeast portion of the Campus.. It is not feasible to reduce the size of the project to reduce its parking demand and still achieve PAMFand City objectives of relocating most of its existing facilities out of the Downtown area; and " No Adjacent properties with Commercial Service and Community Commercial zoning are not restricted by any coveragelimitations and the variance is necessary for PAMF to enjoy property rights similar to those of surrounding property owners regarding coverage; The granting of the variance application will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that: ao A detailed Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the PAMF Campus project which identified no public health or safety impacts that would result from construction of the above ground parking structure. The general welfare and convenience of the Palo Alto community-at-large would be well served by the relocated and modernized PAMF Campus in that most of the existing PAMF Downtown facilities would need substantial upgrading and would remain in an otherwise residential neighborhood if the new Urban Lane Campus were not built; and No The PAMF Urban Lane Campus would substantially improve circulation in the project vicinity with provision of the Urban Lane Extension north to University Circle, widening of existing Urban Lane north of Wells Avenue, widening of Wells Avenue, connecting Urban Lane to Encina Avenue to the south, and the improvements to pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the east side of the site connecting to the north and south. Findings 95-V-17 Page 2 Attachment J Findings for Design Enhancement.Exception (95-DEE-3) 795 El Camino Real -- PAMF Urban Lane Campus FINDINGS There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district in that: The Urban Lane Campus project’s proposed street improvements were found by City and EIR analyses to improve overall circulation and public convenience in the project vicinity. The "North-South Connector" will link with an extension of Urban Lane to University Circle, providing a vehicular and pedestrian connection from Encina Avenue to the downtown area. The North-South Connector will provide sidewalks and planting strips on both sides of a 27-foot roadway. The widening of Wells Avenue for provision of a continuous sidewalk with a planter strip on one side along the PAMF frontage will enhance pedestrian circulation and safety there. These improvements consume a significant land area which, given the project’s programmatic requirements and significant area devoted to landscaping and pedestrian plazas, results in the need to reduce street setbacks 5 to 15 feet from the 20-foot requirement. No Most of the surrounding properties have different zoning designations than the PF District sought by the PAMF Urban Lane Campus. However, the street setback requirements are similar for all surrounding properties. Nevertheless, surrounding properties in many cases do not provide the required 20-foot setback. There have not been any large scale projects developed in this area in recent years that included such significant street improvements as the Urban Lane Campus. Therefore, these improvements can be considered exceptional or extraordinary site improvements in this context.. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this chapter in that: Findings 95-DEE-3 Page 1 ao Design of the Urban Lane Campus has been intended to create an urban character consistent with the downtown area, which will be accessible via the extension of Urban Lane to University Circle. To this end, the project design succeeds in creating an urban feel by minimizing street setbacks and providing three-story buildings in close proximity to Wells Avenue and the North-South Connector. No The reduced street setbacks will not infringe on street improvements, including on-street parking, planting strips and pedestrian sidewalks, which will enhance the appearance and circulation opportunities through the Urban Lane area. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that: go Surrounding properties, including the warehouses on Wells Avenue and the Holiday Inn to the north, as well as some buildings on Encina Avenue, generally do not provide 20-foot street setbacks. No The proposed reduction in street setbacks varies from 5 to 15 feet and is considered a minor site improvement feature, particularly given the generous landscaped setbacks on other frontages, including E1 Camino Real and the eastern project boundary with the railroad right-of-way. Co The public health, safety, general welfare and convenience will be enhanced through the planned street improvements along Wells Avenue and the North- South Connector which will provide improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Urban Lane area, a through connection to the downtown area from Encina Avenue to University Circle, landscaped pedestrian sidewalks, and, along the North-South Connector, landscaped pedestrian plazas. The identified reduction in street setbacks is integrated well into this street design and will not detract from these circulation improvements and public amenities. Findings 95-DEE-3 Page 2 Attachment K Findings and Conditions for Deferred Parking Approval 795 El Camino Real - PAMF Urban Lane Campus Consistent with Section 81.83.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may adjust the requirements of Chapter 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). In response to the request by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation that he approve deferral of PAMF’s Urban Lane Campus project meeting full requirements of Chapter 18.83, the Director of Planning and Community Environment hereby finds that: Consistent with Section 18.83.120(e), there are unusual operating characteristics of the proposed PAMF facilities which result in the project having demand for fewer (approximately 300) vehicular parking spaces than would otherwise be required by the provisions of Chapter 18.83. The parking demand analysis submitted by PAMF was evaluated by City staff and the consultant hired by the City to prepare the Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Lane Campus project. Staff and EIR evaluation found that the project as proposed would provide ample vehicular parking to meet the demand of the proposed campus facilities and uses. o Plans have been submitted and reviewed, and conditions are required that would obligate PAMF to provide additional on-site, structured parking in the unlikely event that future conditions at the Urban Lane Campus create demand for additional vehicular parking. As required by Section 18.83.120(e), on October 5, November 16 and December 14, 1995, the Architectural Review Board evaluated PA_MF’s request for the deferral of approximately 300 parking spaces that would otherwise be required for the Urban Lane Campus project and recommended that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the application. o PAMF will be strongly motivated to meet any future demand for additional parking at the Urban Lane Campus through techniques such as employee incentives for transit use and car pooling due to the high cost of providing a parking structure. Conditions of Approval: Prior to issuance of any building permits associated with 94-ARB-30, PAMF shall enter into an agreement with the City, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, that provides the following: Findings/Conditions: Deferred Parking Approval Page 1 ao PAMF shall submit to the Director of Planning and Community Environment an annual survey of on-site parking occupancy and vacancy, distributed by patient and employee parking spaces, during peak hours on three consecutive work days (Tuesday-Thursday). Said survey shall be submitted by PAMF as part of its annual mitigation monitoring report to the City. No PAMF shall reimburse the City for any staff or consultant expenses involved in reviewing the annual survey. Co If the Director finds, based on the survey or other evidence available to the City, that the parking vacancy rate has dropped below five percent, he will direct PAMF to prepare a program to increase the vacancy rate to greater than fifteen percent or comply with d., below. do If the Director finds, based on the survey or other evidence available to the City, that the parking demand of the Urban Lane Campus exceeds its parking supply, he will direct PA_MF to provide additional parking generally consistent with the plan depicted on Sheets Alt. 6, Alt. 8 and Alt. 9E that were part of the 94-ARB-30 approval. e.PAMF shall agree to fund and construct improvements required by d., above. Findings/Conditions: Deferred Parking Approval Page 2 Attachment L Findings and Conditions of Approval for Architectural Review 795 El Camino Real - PAMF Urban Lane Campus Findings: The proposed PAMF Urban Lane Campus meets the goals and purposes (Section 16.48.010) of the Architectural Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that: (a)Orderly and harmonious development will result from approval of the project which has an integrated design with numerous buildings of differing architectural styles and qualities. (b)Approval of the consolidated PAMF Campus will provide a local modem medica! clinic facility for residents of Palo Alto and surrounding communities, involving substantia! investment by the Foundation and possibly triggering increased investment by vicinity property owners into existing or future improvements. (c)Prior to the PAMF consolidation of the thirteen separate parcels comprising the Urban Lane Campus site, use of the land and improvements was scattered among several unrelated uses without uniform design or coordinated use of such strategically located property on E1 Camino Real. (d) (e) Employees, patients, and visitors to the PAMF Urban Lane Campus will experience more efficient, safe and aesthetically pleasing facilities than those currently utilized in the downtown area because all structures will meet current building code requirements and have been uniformly designed as a single coordinated medical clinic and related research complex. The approved design will create a noteworthy institution in a highly visible location on E1 Camino Real and a new extension of Urban Lane from University Circle to Encina Avenue; and The PAMF Urban Lane Campus would, as modified by conditions of approval, meet all fifteen standards for architectural review contained in Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code, in that: Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 1 (a)The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (b)The design of the project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site if mitigations to ease transitions to adjacent properties are implemented consistent with the recommended conditions of approval. The project design insures that drainage will not flow toward the Palo Alto Pet Hospital on Wells Avenue. The PAMF Urban Lane Campus proposal has been found by the Environmental Impact Report to provide sufficient on-site parking so that parking at vicinity sites, such as the Pet Hospital, will not be adversely affected. Regarding the proposed project’s relationship to adjacent properties on Encina Avenue, conditions of approval relating to wall, fence and landscape design and to light/glare and noise attenuation along the south boundary of the PAMF site will ensure that no adverse effects would result from the PAMF Urban Lane project. (c)The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate to the medical clinic and related research land use and functions proposed for the PAMF Urban Lane site. The project has been designed to provide PAMF a large, consolidated and modem campus, with a design that is urban in form and scale as viewed from E1 Camino Real and the proposed north-south extension of Urban Lane. (d)The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or historical character. However, the project design is generally in keeping with the recommendations of the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines (ARB, November 1979) in that street trees are being provided along E1 Camino Real; several existing trees are being preserved and will be protected during construction; the buildings are set back from E1 Camino Real, with landscaping provided and parking screened; and all building elevations have an integated architectural character. Further, appropriate mitigating measures will be implemented to screen the project from the historic Green property. (e)The project design would promote harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses if the conditions of approval referenced in (b) above are implemented. Proposed front building setbacks and landscaping are appropriate for the existing character of this segment of E1 Camino Real in north Palo Alto where there are other large institutions and campuses, such as the Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University, Holiday Inn, Town & Count~~’ Village and Palo Alto High School. Transitions to the Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 2 north and south at Wells Avenue-Urban Lane and the south service road adjacent to properties on the north side of Encina Avenue will be harmonious with implementation of the mitigations and conditions referenced in (b), above. The design of the project is compatible with improvements both on site and off site. The project involves the removal of several dated retail and industrial buildings and uses, which designs had not been compatible with each other or with vicinity uses such as the Holiday Inn and Town & Country Village. The large PAMF Campus site will be developed with a unified design, upgading the site’s appearance and value. The PAMF project’s transitions to adjacent properties and improvements will be acceptable with implementation of the conditions of approval referenced in (b), above. (g)The planning and siting of the proposed campus functions and buildings create an internal sense of order in that the buildings proposed for immediate construction (Buildings A, B and C) relate well to each other and the parking proposed to serve the various campus uses. Additionally, the Urban Lane Campus design relates well to the new north-south connector (Urban Lane), which will improve site and vicinity access by providing a new link bet~veen Encina Avenue to the south and University Circle to the north. Occupants, visitors and the general community will all benefit from that and other improvements associated with the PAMF project. Improvements to Wells Avenue and the new signalized entrance will provide better circulation and access on-site and for vicinity properties by providing more vehicular circulation options. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation is also improved with the provision of the pedestrian-bicycle path along the eastern edge of the campus, with connections serving the proposed PAMF buildings and paths to the Urban Lane Extension to the north and the City path project planned to the south. (h)The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the PAME structures. Open spaces designed for employee and patient use are appropriate for a diverse urban facility such as the PAMF Campus, being composed of many different elements in the front entrance area, the Building B and C court/atrium and the extensive public use areas provided along the north-south connector and at major entrances to Buildings A, B and C and at the possible future site of Building D. Landscaped areas are concentrated along E1 Camino Real to provide a campus look for the facility and scattered throughout the various open areas on the site, with particular Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 3 attention to providing an urban street scape along the north-south connector (Urban Lane). (i)The project proposes sufficient ancillary functions to support the main functions of the project because of the PAMF Campus will serve as a free- standing facility, providing most of its own support purposes. Significantly, the Campus will rely on "just-in-time" deliveries to the service areas, whereby most supplies are stored off-site by suppliers and delivered by small trucks on an as-needed basis. This type of supply delivery system virtually eliminates large truck deliveries and the need for significant on-site supply storage space. The designs of the Building A and C service areas are compatible with the project’s overall design and will not impact off-site properties with implementation of conditions of approval regarding hours of operation and the fencing and landscaping required on the south side of the Building C service road. The access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles because through-site and on-site circulation is provided for all modes of transportation. Sidewalks are provided along .El Camino Real, Wells Avenue, the north-south connector and internal to the project between buildings and parking areas. Bicycle paths are provided along the east side of the property and connecting into the campus. Adequate land widths are provided on Et Camino Real for safe bicycle use there. Service circulation by large trucks is restricted from the entrance oval, with the north- south connector and south side service road accessing Building A and C loading areas. (k)Natural features are notably absent from the site, with the exception of a few trees. Those trees have been evaluated by a qualified horticulturist, with several being included in the project design and others being removed but replaced with new project landscaping of comparable value. (1)The materials, textures, colors and details of the proposed buildings, in addition to proposed and required landscaping, establish a project design that is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. The proposed building design would be a significant improvement over the mix of diverse building architecture, including several metal buildings, which occurred on the site prior to consolidation by PAMF of thirteen separate parcels and the subsequent demolition of the buildings. It Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 4 (m) (n) (o) is likely that there would be upgrading and possibly redevelopment of some of the adjacent properties after development of the PAMF Campus. The landscape design concept as proposed and as modified by conditions of approval creates a desirable and functional environment both-for PAMF employees and patients and for those members of the general public who may have occasion to walk, bicycle or drive through the campus. The landscape areas have been distributed throughout the site to relate to the campus buildings and various circulation and leisure activities to be engaged in by employees, patients and visitors. The proposed plant materials are generally suited and adaptable to the site, with final plant selections to be subject to City Arborist and AR~ approvals prior to issuance of any permits. The plant materials and proposed irrigation systems will comply with all City requirements for drought-resistance and low water consumption. The project would result in greater ener~, efficiency than would otherwise be easily achievable at the older PAMF facilities in the downtown area. Retrofitting for energy efficiency is more difficult than designing a new building to comply with applicable local and State ener~ requirements. Conditions: This approval shall not be effective until the Effective Date of the First Amendment to Development Agreement between the City and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. o The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment N) and Conditions For Less Than Significant Impacts (Attachment O) are incorporated hereby as conditions of project approval. o The permittee shall submit an annual condition monitoring report and pay an annual condition monitoring fee to the City of Palo Alto to cover City staff or consultant time required to analyze the report, collect any additional information and prepare a memo to the Director of Planning and Community Environment regarding condition compliance. The fee shall be based on actual cost. °As part of the annual mitigation monitoring report to the City, the permittee shall survey on-site parking occupancy and vacancy, distributed by patient and employee parking spaces, during peak hours on three consecutive work days (Tuesday- Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 5 Thursday) and provide this data to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for consideration relative to the deferred parking approval. A certified Arborist shall be retained by the permittee to prepare and submit tree protection plans. All trees to be retained, on- and off-site, as shown on the Arborist Report Plan (sheets 2 and 3) or landscape plan (sheet 15) of plans dated 11/27/95, shall be protected during construction. The certified Arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that PAMC Sec. 8.04.015 and 8.04.070 requirements have been installed prior to any demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The permittee shall submit a tree pruning plan also prepared by the certified Arborist for all trees subject to the tree protection plan for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to any demolition, grading or building permit issuance. Utility vaults, transformers or other service or utilities equipment or facilities shall not be allowed to be located within the tree canopy of any existing trees, nor within 10 feet of any new trees that are to be planted and are subject to final ARB approval prior to issuance of any excavation, grading or construction permits. o The design of new curb and sidewalks to be installed along the south side of Wells Avenue shall minimize the impact on the mature oak located there. Similar design consideration shall be given to the mature pepper tree located on the historic Greer property adjacent to the southern end of the proposed north-south connector road. The design of these street improvements and provisions for protection of these significant trees shall be reviewed by the City Arborist and approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any excavation, grading or construction permits. °The permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours before beginning work. 10.Prior to approval of an excavation permit, the permittee shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plans shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered (Sec. 16.28.270). Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 6 11. 12. 13. 14. Prior to approval of an excavation permit, a construction logistics plan shall be provided to the Public Works Division 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 with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, including the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. All conditions for provisions of utilities to the PA_MF site shall be as stated on plan sheet 7C of plans dated 11/27/95, except as revised by conditions specified in the Ci~ of Palo Alto Utilities Department memos dated 11/29/95, hereby incorporated by reference, or in conditions of approval of the PAMF Tentative Map. No excavation, gading or building permits shall be issued unless and until ageement has been reached between the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB, City) regarding desigm of the extension of Urban Lane from the northern project boundary to University Circle, and permittee has entered into ageement with City guaranteeing timely funding and construction. Improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle shall be submitted ana approved by the Architectural Review Board and City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any gading, excavation or building permits. Improvement plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include. as a minimum, the following elements: Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the City-approved alternate, including connections to the bicycle/pedestrian path and road~vay on the PAMF site. ~ote: the preferred plan shown in Appendix F of the Draft EIR has a few errors that need to be corrected, including that the cross section fails to show the 2.5-foot overhang near the Holiday Inn fence.] Landscaping, lighting, fencing, and other amenities. Connections of the new roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path to University Circle. RealQ,~ment of the Holiday Inn driveway connection to University Circle. Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board parking lot. Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 7 15. Accommodation of the new Marguerite bus access/storage area per Stanford’s plans. Improvement plans for all work on E1 Camino Real related to the project shall be submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board, City Traffic Engineer and Caltrans prior to issuance of any grading, excavation or building permits. The plans shall include, as a minimum, the following elements: Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp. New si~maal installation for PAMF intersection, including separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire interconnection with Embarcadero/El Camino Real signal. The signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4.) Closure of abandoned driveways and streets. Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot-wide planting strip along project frontage. Due to lack of right-of-way on E1 Camino Rea!, part of this construction may be on permittee’s property. If the approved improvement plans show these improvements on a portion of permittee’s property, the Final Map shall include appropriate easements. Restriping of E1 Camino Real and construction of new five-foot wide median and four-to-five-foot wide island separating on-ramp and through lanes. New signage and landscaping. Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if necessary due to roadway widening. 16.In the section of E1 Camino Real affected by Condition # 15 and Mitigation Measure B.9a, the minimum widths of the northbound and southbound through lanes next to the curb and the southbound on-ramp lane shall be at least 14 feet (in order minimally to accommodate bicycle traffic), with 15 feet preferred. 17.Permittee shall submit improvement plans for the public bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans desi~ standards for bicycle paths. The plans shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any grading, Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 8 excavation or building permits and shall include, as a minimum, the following provisions: Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage. At least two path connections into the PAMF site. Transition and connection to the portion of the path extending south from the site. Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension to University Circle. Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path located on the PAMF site. 18.If/when the City constructs the Homer Avenue pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, the permittee shall provide at no cost, easements to accommodate the landing area for the stairway and ramp, and the connection with the bicycle/pedestrian path. 19.Should Stanford University elect not to serve the project site with the Marguerite shuttle, the permittee shall, prior to project occupancy, submit for approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment a plan for operation of a shuttle service between the Palo Alto CalTrain Station and the project site during normal business hours and shall comply with the approved plan. 20.The permittee shall consult with the City, Stanford University, Caltrans, and Santa Clara County Transportation Agency concerning the feasibility of constructing one or both southbound and northbound bus stops on E! Camino Real near the new PAMF intersection. If, prior to project occupancy, one or both bus stops are found to be feasible by the parties identified above, the permittee shall design, construct, and fund the bus stop amenities, signal modifications for the pedestrian crossing, crosswalk (including short connecting sidewalk on the Stanford side), and on-site connecting sidewalks. The northbound bus stop will require a pullout to be constructed on PAMF property. 21.On-site exit lanes shall be signed and striped as shown in Draft EIR Figure IV.B. 12 and the associated text on p. IV.B.62. Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 9 22.Prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits, the row of diagonal parking next to Building A shal! be either converted to parallel parking or to 90 degree parking. 23.Prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits, the permittee shall redesign and relocate the bicycle parking facilities to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and Zoning Ordinance specifications. Employee bicycle parking (Class I) shall be located in proximity to employee entrances. Visitor/patient bicycle parking (Class II) shall be located in close proximity (not necessarily directly adjacent to) main visitor/patient entrances to the buildings. Bicycle parking for visitors and patients must be balanced between building entrances fronting on to E1 Camino Real and entrances facing the rear of the site. An appropriate ratio of the Class II bicycle racks must be provided for Buildings A and B off the loop road in front of these buildings. Manufacturers’ specifications for the bicycle parking facilities shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for approval. 24.The location of the connection between the pedestrian/bicycle path and PAMF campus that is located opposite the possible undercrossing is acceptable only if the optional ramp to the underground parking garage is not constructed. Therefore, if the optional ramp is constructed, then the connection shall be relocated to the northerly side of the entry to the parking lot from the north-south connector road. This relocation will minimize conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles and not interfere with the possible development of the optional ramp to the underground garage. The two parking spaces adjacent to the southerly connection to the bike path shall be removed and converted to landscaped or concrete islands in order to provide improved sight lines for pedestrians/bicyclists entering the parking lot from the path. 25.Gutters on the north-south connector road shall be a maximum of one foot in width. 26.The width of the segment of the north-south connector road between Wells Avenue and the Urban Lane extension shall be either: 27 feet with parking allowed on one side; or the same width as the Urban Lane extension (24 feet in the preferred plan), with no parking allowed on either side. 27.Prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits, the Fire Department shall approve fire sprinklers as required per PAMC, Section 15.04.170(dd). Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 10 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits, the Fire Department shall determine that plans satisfy emergency fire access road requirements per PAMC Title 15, UFC Article 10. Prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits, the Fire Department shall approve on-site fire hydrants as per PAMC Title 15, UFC Article 10. Due to the 15- foot width of the south service roadway, which is to remain clear of obstructions at all times, a minimum of three hydrants shall be provided along the south side of Building C. Prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits, the Fire Department shall determine any impacts of emergency response (paramedic response, service demands). Prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits, the permittee shall submit to the Fire Department a Hazardous Materials California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist and permit fee (Sec. 12.08.010). The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The permittee shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Inspection Services Division. The permittee shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporatT lease from Public Works Engineering for the propoged construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest (PAMC, Sec. 12.12.010). 34.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present and to parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements, prior to issuance of building permits. 35.Prior to issuance of excavation, gading or building permits, all utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements (Sec. 16.48.120(a)(13) and (c); Sec 16.82.060(c)). Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 11 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits, the permittee shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City" right-of-way (Sec 12.08.010). A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. Applicable permits must be obtained from the applicable agencies. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed development is larger than five acres. The permittee is required to file a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. The developer shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent along with the building permit application. The permittee shall submit a plan for street trees along E1 Camino Real, Wells Avenue and the north-south connector road for approval by the ARB prior to issuance of building permits. Species shall be determined by the City Arborist. The plans shall indicate size, species and spacing of trees. Newly planted street trees shall be irrigated and maintained by the permittee per Public Works Department’s Standard Specification. The permittee shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property at PAMF site. The permittee’s engineer shall obtain, prepare, and 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 permittee prior to issuance of an excavation, grading or building permit. All nonresidential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sigr~ be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. The contractor must contact the City’s Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way (Sec. 12.08.060). Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 12 43.No storage of construction materials is permitted on any street or on any sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 44.The permittee shall require its contractors to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Progam. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 45.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utilities Departments (Sec. 12.08.060). 46.The permittee shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the E1 Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of- way. The applicant must provide copies of the permits to the City’s W-G-W Engineering Division. 47.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approve standards (Sec. 12.08.010). 48.The unused driveway located on E1 Camino Real shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter (Sec. 12.08.090). 49.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this si~-off. 50.A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at all intersections within and bordering the development. 51.The permittee shall enter into an ageement with City in a form approved by the City Attorney which guarantees the completion of the improvements specified in the conditions herein, and shall post a bond or other acceptable security, in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works, as security for performance of this obligation. Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 13 52.Final landscaping, lighting and signage plans shall be submitted for ARB review and approva! prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits. Key components of these submittals shall include the following: No Final landscape plans shall include number, size, height and location of trees and plant material to be installed and include the final status of trees to be saved and removed. No Co Landscaping and lighting design solutions for the Building A and Building C service docks. Building A’s elevated service dock entry shall be adequately screened to reduce visibility from Wells Avenue and Urban Lane. Building C’s service dock and drive will create noise, lighting and visual impacts for properties along Encina Avenue which wil! require installation of trees for screening and fencing for noise attenuation along the southern edge of the service drive. Lighting shall be installed that is not directed onto adjacent or vicinity properties. Detailed landscaping, fence and retaining wall design details shall be provided for the portion of the project area bordering properties on Encina Avenue. These plans shall provide high quality building materials, trees and plant materials that will provide significant screening of these properties as well as an aesthetic buffer. Do The on-street parking and sidewalk shown on sheet 9I dated 11/27/95 along the east side of the north-south connector road between Encina Avenue and the intersection with the southern service drive shall be revised to remove on- street parking and provide planting strips including street trees and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The section shown on sheet 9G dated 11/27/95 shall be modified to replace the retaining wall with a landscaped 2:1 slope. Fill in this area must be kept outside the canopy area of the large oak tree (#20, Sheet 15) located on the Wells Avenue property line. Detailed plans for each public plaza including curbing, bollard and paving designs, sun/shade analysis, seating areas, kiosk design if any, trash receptacles, signage, electrical outlets and other support facilities for outdoor public activities shall be provided. Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 14 Detailed plans showing the dimensions, adequacy of soil volume and drainage for tree wells over the parking garage shall be provided. No The signage program shall include off-site signage along University, Alma, Embarcadero and Palm Drive to direct PAMF patients to the University Circle and Encina Avenue entrances to the site. Detailed plans shall be provided showing fencing and landscaping within the approximate 5-foot strip along the south property line between E1 Camino Real and the north-south connector. Jo Plans shall show how electrical outlets ~vill be provided for electric vehicles used by PAMF employees. 53.Truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. 54.Final materials samples and color board including exterior building materials and color, roof tile material and color, window sash style, materia! and color, and glass material and tint shall be provided for ARB review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. PAMF shall submit information regarding their maintenance procedures and responsibilities for the north-south connector road and Urban Lane Extension improvements for approval by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. 56.Architectural Review Board design approval for development of Building D is required prior to issuance of any excavation, grading or building permits for that building. Until such time as ARB approval and excavation, grading or building permits have been obtained, the Building D site shall be improved as a landscaped plaza as shown on sheet 15F Alternative Conceptual Landscape Plan, dated 11/27/95. Square footage for Building D will be determined based upon final ARB approval with demonstration that an adequate amount of conveniently located parking has been provided to serve the needs for Building D uses. 57.Final architectural elevations shall be submitted for ARB review and approval prior to issuance of excavation, grading or building permits. Features to be reconsidered Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 15 include increased articulation and depth of building walls for Buildings A, B and C and reintroduction of arched windows. 58.The permittee shall submit a final proposal for a significant art progam for ARB review prior to issuance of excavation, ~ading or building permits. 59.As offered at the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the permittee shall provide $150,000 to be used toward construction of a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing at Homer Avenue in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of excavation, ~ading or building permits. Findings and Conditions: 94-ARB-30 Page 16 Attachment Findings and Conditions for Tentative Subdivision Map (94-SUB-1) 795 El Camino Real - PAMF Urban Lane Campus FINDINGS Recommended Subdivision Findings (Subdivision Map Act) The proposed map, its design and improvements are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that thirteen existing parcels are combined so as to provide a single ownership parcel for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus, a major institution and nonprofit quasi-public facility, with easements provided to improve site and vicinity pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation. The site is physically suitable for the medical clinic and research uses proposed for development in that the site is relatively level, is not subject to flooding or the special seismic hazards, and will have existing contaminated soil and ~ound water from previous uses remediated, in a manner consistent with the proposed PAMF uses and facilities, and as required by local and State regulatory authorities. Co The EIR prepared for the proposed PAMF project, including the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, found that the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat nor to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and its improvements involves vacating easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision and dedicating new easements that will be substantially equivalent to or superior to ones previously acquired by the public. Urban Lane north to the Stanford-CalTrain Joint Powers Board will be widened and will connect with a future Urban Lane Extension to University Circle. Wells Avenue will be widened, with new sidewalk and planter strip constructed. Urban Lane will be extended south to Encina Avenue for a new street connection and with new sidewalk and landscaping. An easement will be provided along the eastern portion of the PAMF site for the pedestrian-bicycle path to connect with planned segments to the north and south. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will meet all City of Palo Alto standards, with many special mitigation measures identified by the EIR being required Findings/Conditions 94-SUB-1 Page 1 as conditions of approval due to the nature of materials used and encountered at the PAMF facilities. CONDITIONS No excavation, grading or building permits shall be issued until the final subdivision map is approved and recorded. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City in a form approved by the City Attorney which guarantees the completion of the improvements specified in the conditions above, and shall post a bond or other acceptable security, in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works, as security for performance of this obligation. o The subdivider shall pay the City for the services of a project engineer/inspector to insure that street work permits and construction activities are constructed in accordance with approved plans. Public Works will provide an approximate cost of this fee once a construction schedule has been agreed upon. o All City easements and rights of way as shown on Tentative Map dated 12/11/95 with subsequent City-required changes shall be granted or dedicated. PA1VI~ shall grant public v-ehicular use, excluding large trucks, in the entrance oval and through lane in the Building A parking lot. o The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment N) and Conditions for Less Than Significant Impacts (Attachment O) are incorporated hereby as conditions of project approval. All conditions for provision of utilities to th~ PAMF site shall be as stated on plan sheet 7C of plans dated 11/27/95, except as revised by conditions specified in the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Memos dated 11/29/1995, hereby incorpor- ated by reference, and in subsequent staff recommendations prior to final Council approval of the Tentative Map. °No excavation or building permits shall be issued unless and until agreement has been reached between the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB and City) regarding design of the extension of Urban Lane from the northern project boundary to University Circle, and subdivider has entered into agreement with City guaranteeing timely funding and construction. Findings/Conditions 94-SUB-1 Page 2 o Prior to approval and recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit improvement plans for all rights of way shown on the Tentative Map. Improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle shall be submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board and City Traffic Engineer. Improvement plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include, as a minimum, .the following elements: Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the City approved preferred alternate, including connections to the bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway on the PAMF site. [Note: the preferred plan shown in Appendix F of the DEIR has a few errors that need to be corrected, including that the crossection fails to show the 2.5-foot overhang near the Holiday Inn fence.] Landscaping, lighting, fencing, and other amenities. Connections of the new roadway and bike/pedestrian path to University Circle. Realignment of the Holiday Inn driveway connection to University Circle. Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board parking lot. Accommodation of the new Marguerite bus access!storage area per Stanford’s plans. t0.Improvement plans for all work on E1 Camino Real related to the project shall be submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board and City Traffic Engineer, to Caltrans and City specifications including, as a minimum, the following elements: Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp. New si~onal installation for PAMF intersection, including separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire interconnection with Embarcadero/ECR signal. The signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4.) Closure of abandoned driveways and streets. Findings/Conditions 94-SUB- 1 Page 3 11. 12. Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot wide planting strip along project frontage. Due to lack of right-of-way on E1 Camino Real, part of this construction may be on subdivider’s property. If the approved improvement plans show these improvements on a portion of subdivider’s property, the Final Map shall include appropriate easements. Restriping of E1 Camino Real and construction of new five-foot wide median and five-foot wide island separating on-ramp and through lanes. New signage and landscaping. Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if necessary due to roadway widening. In the section of E1 Camino Real affected by Condition # 10 and Mitigation Measure B.9a, the minimum widths of the northbound and southbound through lanes and the southbound on-ramp lane shall be at least 14 feet (in order minimally to accommodate bicycle traffic), with 15 feet preferred. Subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the public bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans design standards for bicycle paths, including, as a minimum, the following provisions: Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage. Two path connections into the PAMt: site. Transition and connection to the portion of the path extending south from the site. Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension to University Circle. Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path located on the PAMF site. 13.The subdivider shall consult with the City, Stanford University, Caltrans, and Santa Clara County Transportation Agency concerning the feasibility of constructing one or both southbound and northbound bus stops on E1 Camino Real near the new PAMF intersection. If.. prior to project occupancy, one or both bus stops are found to be Findings/Conditions 94-SUB-t Page 4 feasible by the parties identified above, the subdivider shall design, construct, and fund the bus stop amenities, signal modifications for the pedestrian crossing, crosswalk (including short connecting sidewalk on the Stanford side), and on-site connecting sidewalks. The northbound bus stop will require a pullout to be constructed on PAMF property. 14.The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation or grading work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 15.The design of new curb and sidewalks to be installed along the south side of Wells Avenue shall minimize the impact on the mature oak located there. Similar design consideration shall be given to the mature pepper tree located on the historic Greer property adjacent to the southern end of the proposed north-south connector road. The design of these street improvements and provisions for protection of these significant trees shall be reviewed by the City Arborist and approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to any excavation, grading or construction. 16.Prior to approval and recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property at PAMF site. The subdivider’s engineer shall obtain, prepare, and 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 subdivision. 17.The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Divisions/Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the subdivision improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 18.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. (Sec. 12.08.060). Findings/Conditions 94-SUB-1 Page 5 ©0 0 0 0 Z < z o < Z Z © © Z © Z Z © Z© II Z < ©0 0 < 0 0 Z 0 < 0 < 0 < © < 0 < z< z © < 0 0 Z< Z 0 0 Z < Z < 0 < 0 0 Z< 0 0 Z © < Z 0 < [-. < Z 0 ¯ = zj ".= II F-Z © < ©0 0 Z< 0 Z0 0 < 0 < Z 0 < 0 < 0 < ©i II < 0 0 < 0 0 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < © < < ©0 Z © Z< Z © © 0 < Z© < © < © < © < [- Z < ©0 Z 0 Z Z 0 Z0 Z ,< Z 0 0 0 .< Z Z Zi Z< Z < © 0 Z< ©Z 0 Z0 Z < Z 0 < 11 Z Z < 0 0 Z< Z 0 0 Z0 < Z 0 < 0 < 0 < 0 < © Z < Z 0 < © < 0 < < II < 0 Z 0 < Z 0 < 0 0 < 0 0 < Z 0 < 0 < 0 < II z Z © Z< Z Z Z Z Z Z z r, ii Z .,= [.- Z< Z Z< © Z Z Z © Z © z Z< Z Z Z Z Z < Z © < © < © < Z< Z < Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z F-Z 0 < 0 < z Z Z Z © Z Z0 Z0 Z 0 0 0 z Z Z © Z© Z© Z Z © Z tt F-Z Z Z z z 0 < < z Z z © Z© Z© Z [-.< Z 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z < Z< © Z© Z© Z© < Z © < © < 0 < Z z Z Z Z Z Z z Z II Z 0 Z0 Z 0 0 0 Z0 Z0 Z © © II z< Z Z © Z© Z © Z Z 0 < 0 < II Z Z Z © Z© Z© Z © Z © © II Z< Z Z< © Z © Z © < Z © < © < © < Z Z Z © Z © Z © Z© Z II zz Z Z Z © Z © Z Z Z © ~z Z Z Z Z Z z II Attachment P Correspondence Not Included in the Final EIR: From Will Becke~, received 12/7/95. o From University South Neighborhoods Group, with attached Questionnaire and Results, received 12/6/95. From: Will Beckett To: Planning Commission and Staff Date: 1217/95 Time: 20:27:15 Page 1 of 1 Dear Plalming Commission .Members and City Staff’: It \vas suggested that I might submit to you in’~riting a smr~narv of the proposal I presented the other evening tbr increased access to the proposed .~ledical Foundation site. CPAC’s transportation committee suggested an open ~id system so no one street would bare the full traft]c burden, and for calming and smoothing the trail]c flow. In addition to this. the committee strongly supported east west routes for bicycles. I thi~k it is important to keep these suggestions in mind as you consider the complexity of the traft]c flo\v for this project. \Ve should not encourage the more ex-tensive use of Embarcadero by creating two left-hand turn lanes at "the E1 Camino Real intersection. Most importantly I believe it is critical that we create as many access points to this site. to spread the traffic impact to as many city arterials as possible. Consider the area the Medical Foundation has currently. It is a full ~id system with two one-way streets that act as arterials on either side alloxving access from any direction. I would like to suggest an alternative for access to the proposed site..~ additional garage access for entering and leaving using .Mma under the railroad tracks including access for pedestrian and bicycles. The vision I have would be an open cham~el between .~ma and the r,~ilroad tracks for a ramp allowing south bound Ahna to enter and exit from the garage This ramp and tmmel could give additional justification for a tmmel as previously proposed to allow access to the east side of.~ma, for pedestrian and bicycle use. I am concerned that the EIR could not consider this option for its analysis. Yes this is expensive. I expect that despite the broad support for a pedestrian bicycle tmme!, there would not be enough support to consider a city, vide assessment district for funding just this tunnel. However. if this were coupled with a proposal that would include a pedestrian bicycle tulmel at .’xleadow. is it possible there would be broad enough support for a ci~vwide effort. Churchill should also be considered. I feel it is important to examine these options carefully now while this prqiect is before us. Traffic management solutions can be expensive. It is time for us to make the hard decisions and pay the money ifxve are serious about solving the problem. Sincerely. \Vill Beckeu December 5, 1995 To:City of Palo Alto From:University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG) Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project related development applications for the Proposed Urban Lane Campus. Members of the Commission, The USNG is an organization of homeowners, renters and businesses residing in the neighborhood approximately bordered by Middlefield, Embarcadero, Alma and downtown. Our group was founded for the purpose of working "together in a spirit of community that will enhance relationships and the neighborhoods. Our objective is to anticipate, research, and to address productively and creatively neighborhood issues. We will work to discover processes to enable residents, businesses, city government, and others to work toward constructive outcomes." Toward that purpose, over the past year and a half we have been attempting to address proactively the issues regarding PAMF’s impending transitions with primary focus on the future redevelopment at their current S©FA location. In addition, we have consistently supported the general plan for the new Urban Lane campus. We continue to support enthusiastically the basic concept and design of the new site and we wish to help support the time schedule for approval. Over the past few weeks we have attempted to review the EIR, the Amended Specific Plan Development Agreement, the Staff Report on the new campus, and the proposed Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) model. These documents constitute a large body of information for folks with other jobs and families to be able to absorb and develop collective positions within just a few weeks. Consequently, as recently as the November 29th commission meeting, we had not determined our positions on the issues. After meeting with city staff and PAMF representatives we would like to convey the following concerns and recommendations: 1.Process issues For the reasons stated above we believe that the public approval process has been too rapid to allow adequate public consideration of such a significant and complex project with transportation impacts on neighborhoods and a residential arterial which the council has recently recognized as having major problems with its current loading and design. Traffic Impacts Two left turn lanes from El Camino on to Embarcadero will increase the volume of traffic fed on to Embarcadero and will exacerbate the already severe Embarcadero problems and will increase the traffic diverted on to side streets in our neighborhood. It seems that this impact is fundamentally in conflict with many of the CPAC proposals and contradicts the recent council action directing staff to develop plans to reduce the strain on Residential Arterials. In addition, we believe that the draft EIR inadequately addresses the impact the transfer of auto trips from University to Embarcadero resulting from PAMF’s relocation. This combined with the overall increase in trips for the new campus will combine their impact on Embarcadero and the nearby streets. We recognize that the second turn lane is being mandated by Cal Trans based upon the size of the project and we would like to volunteer to work with PAMF and the city to try to alter Cal Trans’ decision. Pedestrian Underpass We were surprised and disappointed to discover that this component had been dropped from the plan. The underpass was a primary mitigation against increased trips as well as providing a vital link of PAMF to the SoFA merchants and linking the new bike path to downtown and our neighborhood. We believe that both PAMF and the city should place greater priority on addressing this issue especially in the context of the increased burden of the new campus on the city’s infrastructure. Historic buildin,qs We recommend that the development agreement include a provision that potentially historic buildings at the old sites not be allowed to be demolished until after the completion of the Coordinated Area Plan. For the reasons stated above, we believe that the current EIR is not adequate. Consequently, we request that the Planning Commission does not certify the EIR and Campus Plan in their present form and that you request staff to work with PAMF and community representatives to pursue mutually acceptable modifications. We believe that these changes can be accomplished in a time frame that would cause minimal or no delay in PAMF approval and construction process. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and we look forward to working together with PAMF and the city to resolve these issues in an expeditious and mutually beneficial manner. Sincerely, "/ Don Fitton ",./ PAMF Committee Co-Chair VJce~President, USNG , J, j-ud-itfi Nemper PAMF Committee Co-Chair _." <:.O~. Z_..-’~-.-,., Patrick Burr President, USNG Neighborhood Questionnaire Results Regarding Redevelopment of the PANiF Site Sponsored by the University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG) Prepared by Hal [uft 11/1/95 DD J .LIZ Renter or Owner? Renter 2(~% Owner 74% Single family or Mu~tiounit? Mu~tiounit 29% Single Family 71% Home or b~siness? Business 17% Home 83% O~Z CO ~ &sasn le!OJetuLuoo pue leBuap!seJ ,~o x!V~ Le),!s -I IAIVcl eql uo esn le!:)JOIUUJO::) &s),uap!saJ -uou Aq 5upiJed ),eaJ),S-UO ~o esn Bu!onpa~ &fiu!uueqo pue JeUJOH uo peeds oU~eJ~ Bu!onpa~ eq~, ~o e~uos u! >l~ed e Bu!AeH o 0 o o o 0 o o o o 0 ~,sesrl le!o~eLuLuoo pue le!iuep!se~ ~o X!lN dV~Vd aq; uo esn le!o~ewwoo L,6u!uueqo pue JeuuoH uo peeds o!i~eJ; 6u!onpetd eq; ~o euJos u! >t~ed e 6u!^eH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C~ aO 1~ ~ L.O ~ ~ Cq ~ 0 ~,~l!~Ue; eliSu!s ~o~/opuoo "6"e) ~un!pel/~ 6u!uueqo "6"e) qS!H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 // &~l!LUe; el6U!S /q!suep ~oq ~($esno qu~o;/opuoo ¯ 6"e) fq!suep Lun!pelAl &(esnoH 6u!uueqo "6"e) fq!suep qB!H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~Z O~~ 0 ~ ~ T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o .m o 03 6u!ssnos!p ul ~noA &sseooJd e Ul pooq~oqq6!eu eq; 6U!^lO^Ul &e~eqAAesle eJeo e dn &sBu!Pl!nq ~eplo eAes dleq ol fO,!l!q!xel-I ~o~ e6ueqoxe u! fq!suep pesee~OUl 0 ,/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architectura fit Attractive appearanceooexterior Blend in with current residential mix Creating a better fit, aesthetically, and reducing negative parking and traffic impacts Finding right low rise mix of uses for all PAIVIF buildings and parking lots Fit in with neighborhood-odo not increase sign Fitting in with the e×isiting community ificantly traffic ~f residential, that the architecture fits in with the age and style of the other homes. ~f commercial, that sufficient parking is part of the plan ~ntegrating downtown & Professorville neighborhood, less traffic on E}ryant and Waverley Just return to single family housing conducive to the area iVlaintain residential occupancy and scale Probably fit and aesthetics; if a park, make it big; traffic speed, parking, and commercial all work in tandem Quality of buildings and design Reduced traffic and aesthetic fit with neighborhood Retain character Tear down the big building and refurbish the older Spanish style bidgs. Commercial and retail prefernces depend on typeoono franchises! That it be an appropriate transition between business and historical residential area That it enhance the ’old Palo Alto" residential atrnoshpere That it not be ugly--like Emerson between Channing and Addison That it not become an eyesore, a crime site, a traffic problem... That our neighborhood remain residential and not bring more downtown-style development That we don’t lose the neighborhood feel, rather that feel/look should be enhanced with the new uses of the site The site should be recovered as an extension of the residential neighborhood, rather than as an extension of downtown commercial areas. Use this opportunity to reinforce the residential character--and restore it as much as possible That the "quality" of this section of Palo Alto remain the same Concise planning leading to good use & aesthetic fit with neighborhood and fast, short construction period All residential use, with some park space. ~ndividua~ existing lots to be placed on the market as separate parcels, not one buyer for the whole property. (iViixed commercial residential possible for F~oth bldg.) City should not subsidize any activity Help maintain small town atmosphere, hopefully not to have chain stores and non-owner based businesses iVlaintaining Professorville character ~f any commercial, it should be very low level. Should be mostly residential in lots of low/moderate income Architecture, trees, charm ~mproving the quality of life in the area, no business or apartments except in the central block of the site Promoting a vibrant urban village Keep in character with the rest of Professorville integrate with existing neighborhood Each discrete part of the site should be seen separately. ~t is not all one site but at least 14 sites That it not disturb the residential/community feel of the area; that its density be limited--ioe, bulk, traffic; that entrances and perimeters be set back; no taller than 3 stories; have underground parking; be heavily landscaped Get rid of the Lee bldgo, parking lotsmreplace with architecturally pleasing single family homes or townhomes That it fit with the neighborhood Homes--NO business and parking lots ~f it’s residential, make it affordable Low-moderate cost senior housing in the Lee building, present height, new facade to fit neighborhood. ~nclude landscape/tiny park and resident hobby garden plots. Original clinic for infirmary. Retain one story denta~ bidg on E}ryanto iVlaking it residential IVlore housing Multiple uses That this property not fall into the hands of a developer. That this property be sold to individuals. Retaining the size of each parcel as to its original size Affordable housing At least a mixed use development--strongly oppose "all residential" development To develop into condominiums for purchasenNOT for seniors only I do not want low cost housing in this area!!! That it tend more toward residential use than commercial Returning it to low density residential Huge job loss for downtown No commercial! Safety. (Do not put a commercial facility or jail there, for example.) Any part that’s commercial should be consumer-oriented That it not be exploited for commercial use. We need families in the neighborhood Der sity/traffic Anything to reduce the traffic (traffic = noise, pollution, on-street parking) Density and traffic (possibly include a small scale coffee place in housing mix) Parking Reduce density and traffic Reduce density/traffic Reducing the density of people and traffic Strongly against any high rise (either residential or commercial) That it be zoned for low density and "quiet" usage, ie no industriaVnoxious noise That it not cause traffic congestion and noise and parking problems thru commercial use Traffic and parking Traffic/parking problems are city wide Trafficmmore would impact area and disturb residents Use of site and parking Want to reduce traffic Would like to keep traffic at no more than it is now (or less) Needs accessible underground parking Preserving residential quality of the neighborhood--reducing traffic and parking Benefits citizens without increasing traffic That there not be a big increase in traffic, preferably less Keep density Park/recreation Open space--park Serve community needs-housing, park, tennis courts, pool Tennis courts would be great and a park ~ncrease residential areas and parkland, decrease traffic and parking problems Athletics Keeping the areas residential and green--park, more trees Best use would be for a very large park. We need more open space downtown PAMF ssues As long as the ’quick and organized’ fashion like Peds. remains throughout the Clinic, ~’m happy PAMF is a credit and enhancement to the neighborhood and Palo Alto. Do not build high density housing just because the opportunity might be present Keeping it accessible to downtown residents (both those who live and work in downtown) ~ would like to keep PAMF downtown Community decisionmaking Cooownership by the neighborhood ~ts political clout--they seem not to care about the effects of their "position" upon residential concerns That there be community input as to the decision Proper use of a valuable resource ~rn~pact on va~L~es Future use of auxiliary parking area next to our home, value of homes following clinic moveo-depends on what replaces it Property taxes F~edeve~opment iSsL~es That it is not left abandoned and deteriorating That the roads won’t be torn apart for months due to new construction Other residentia uses Architectura fit Anything which departs from exisiting, surrounding style of architecture (OPPOSE) Don’t care what goes in as long as its not ugly!! Nothing taller than 2 stories Variety of levels, underground parking 2X Free choice residential--don’t over zone ~ favor bird houses Keep old houses on PAMF properties. We need to do some creative mixing, taking the best of Homer St and Professorvii~eo Mixed density should follow Professorville modeltsingle family w/attached rentals (traditionally for Stanford students.) Look at each of the sites separately starting with the 2 big blocks Lots should be sold separately ! hate condos!!! Housing with greenbelt Density/height High riseo-object High rise-strongly oppose High densitymstrongly oppose Low density best Apartments-strongly oppose No high rise Use the main bldg. I’d like to see it be a sort of "President Hotel"-~small efficiency apartments for low income single working people; not favor more high rollers, they can afford existing opportunities Nice affordable rentals--both home and studios & 1-2 bedroom apts, NOT condos Stongly oppose single family Low cost, single family housing, iVlixed density with smaller clustered homes and shared access Low ir come Low cost --oppose Low income strongly oppose Low-medium income senior housing-favor SRO strongly oppose SRO-strongly oppose SROs--oppose ~ncluding some lower income housing Not low cost Affordable units <$1000/ month Low/reed income Other No more subsidized low income housing. Would like to make affordable housing for mid income families--perhaps single family homes on reduced lot sizes, such as those planned for the old Times-Tribune site No office or service/commercial as this will only exacerbate traffic & parking problems Prefer a park Senior Strongly oppose rest home Other slpecia uses Park/Community uses Community center, e.g. in the Roth building City gym and pool and dog park City parks and rec officesooFavor Park Park and recreation Parks, museums, clinics Housing diversity Good housing m~x How about a mini planned community w/mix of above? ~ntegrated housing No tract homes! Not exclusively for seniors The word "some" is important--proportion, how many units? Emphasize residential aspects of the area-odo not further erode with traffic, activity Studios and small apts for hard working regular people A percentage of low cost housing is OK, but not a lot of the site. We have two day care centers very nearomot need more. Favor low rise, well designed mixed use BiVIR-not low income-homes desirable Other Especially child care Shelter for homeless or (better) educational/job training for homeless Use F~oth bidg for non-subsidized day care or commercial medical office Small retail Coop preschool Serve the community What do you fee is missing in this neighborhood? Park/recreation (No need for two parks so close) Not available at this timeoa pre- school, a dog run (big) A park A park A park! stand. town A little league field that could double as a soccer field. Band ~f parks & rec dept were on site this could be the best park in Better park-green strip running from Scott Park to Williams house°- "the Commons" Big park, more parking Housing is obviously the most critical need--regaining some playground or community garden space would be a real plus for the neighborhood Open space, parks, greenery Park with tennis courts Parks, recreation, open space Parks, things to draw the community together Sports facilities and park Unpaved, preferably green open space Small park on this side of University Ave Squash courts and park Open space A walking promenade thru the neighborhood More park space A park and a daycare center would be excellent additions to the neighborhood A park like Johnson, with a nice safe playground (enclosed) and beautiful landscaping. Scott is too small A place to meet neighbors Walking distance park, 7-11 type of convenience store Affordable housing to buy Greater density of single family homes More homes More housing for families with young and/or school age children iVlore single family housing Single family housing, tennis courts/park Doesn’t feel as "open" probably due to higher density buildings and treeso-aesthetics are problematic there Reasonably priced neighborhood market Truly low income housing for low income single people---working with just one income who are being driven out of the are by the cost of housing. Renting here for 30 years Affordable housing and an affordable grocery store (Whole Foods is wonderful, but it is NOT a place for general grocery shopping) Hi-rise 4 floors + condo living for others that are not senior citizens Low cost family housing for young families (not adult condos), services for neighborhoodw/easy parking like the new Ace Hardware, child care facilities Not much, that’s why the predominant use should be housing at overall high/medium density Affordable condos/homes (not "low income" residences, but just affordable) Get rid of the clinic and develop a model residential neighborhood in- scale with exisiting Aesthetics Attractive housing for students/young people Beauty° Like remainder of overhead wires removed from Professorviile Regard for the historical buildings Too much commercial space mixed in. ~t would be better if residentiai and parks were more contiguous Well kept homes and yards. Low cost housing for P.A. workers° street parking Off Parking/traffic E~oth Channing and Homer should become 2 way streets Our streets have become "parking lots". ~ favor "safe" open streets and sidewalks to walk, bike, stroll on. Parking Parking for residents. Parking for Women’s Club functions. A ’feeling’ of a neighborhood due to parking from the downtown businesses and the clinic. Also Homer and Channing should be 2 way streets Peace and quiet Peace and quiet! QuietBthere’s too much fast traffic Adequate offostreet parking for ’multi-family’ dwellings Off street parking (i.e. park cars on own property, garages) Parking for the residents Community issues Are we adequately represented on the City Council? Ethnic and cultural diversity Feel it’s great. Should take steps to maintain its integrity Homeowners committed to neighborhood ~dentification as a unit ~nvolvement and commitment ~t’s fine as is Proactive involvement to make things "better" for Tolerance Vision of what it should be like 10 years so many planning decisions are ’on/off’ decisions and create mediocrity A meeting and social center for neighborhood residents Neighborliness and feeling of community Neighbors knowing each other and readiness to help in daily life problems Permanent residentsmit’s a very transient neighborhood Families!! Nothing Otherospecifics Pacific Art League would be interested in a building Perhaps a multipurpose centerooarea for seniors, teens, etc IVlom and Pop grocery Wednesday, November 29, 1995 Regular Meeting Attachment Q PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLE[CAST LWE ON GONVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of October 11, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes.2 Approval of October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes.2 PUBLIC HEARING 795 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) Draft Environmental Impact Report IEIR) - CompFehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment. Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment. Conditional Use Permit: Tentative Subdivision ~ap: Architectural Review Board (ARB)... Approval. Desiqn Enhancemen~ E~cep.%iQ.D .(DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. o 300 Homer Avenue and Adjacent Properties Included in the ~dopted Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan: Consideration.of First Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s Specific Plan area near downtown Palo Alto. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS 5.Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. New Issues in Planning. Reports on Council Actions. 43 43 43 43 J. Slocum The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, November 29, 1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Beecham presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Absen_______~t: Staff Present: Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins and Schmidt Commissioners Ojakian and Schink Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Consultants Present: Sandra Beck, Ellerbe Becket Karl Heisler, Environmental Science Associates Anne Moore, Moore Consulting Lisa Newman, Newman Planning Associates Dennis Struecker, Korve Engineering Mr. Schreiber: The two commissioners absent for this item both have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot participate. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Beecham: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. At this time, any member of the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak this evening? Seeing no speakers, we will move on to the next agenda item. AGENDA ITEM I Approval of October 11, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes. Chairman Beecham: Are there any comments or corrections to these minutes? Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval of the minutes. SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink absent. AGENDA ITEM 2 Approval of October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes. Chairman Beecham: Are there any comments or corrections to these minutes? Commissioner Cassel: I move approval of the minutes. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. 11/29/95 -2- MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink absent. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 3 795 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) Draft Environmental Impact Report IEIR) ~.......Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text AmendmeDt~.Zoning Ordinance and Zoninq Map Amendment~ Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map..., Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Desiqn Enhancement Exception (DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. Chairman Beecham: We have quite a list of items on which we will begin discussion tonight. We will discuss the draft environmental impact statement, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Architectural Review Board Approval, Design Enhancement Exception, Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. So we have all of that tonight. Normally, we have a staff presentation, followed by a question and answer session between staff and the commission, before proceeding to the public hearing. What I would like to do tonight is a little different. I would like to have initial comments from staff, and then I will immediately open the public hearing to hear from anyone who wishes to speak without waiting to hear what we will discuss. This gives you the option of telling us what you think, and then you can go home and view the rest on cable television. If you do not desire to do so, we will still have the public hearing after all of our questions and answers. That is when the applicant desires to make their presentation. I will now ask staff whether they wish to make any comments. Mr. Schreiber: I would like to open with a set of comments, and these will be the only formal introductory comments from either staff or city consultants. We have a lot of people ready to answer questions and assist the commission in whatever way we can. First, to introduce some of the people at the staff table, some of whom you know very well, we have Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer, Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer, Anne Moore, Contract Project Manager working for the city on this project, Lisa Newman, Contract Planner also working on this project, Karl Heisler, Project Manager for ESA, the lead consultant on the environmental impact report, and Dennis Struecker from Korve Engineering, which is the Transportation Consultant who is part of the environmental impact report team. Both Karl and Dennis have spent considerable time on this over the past months, and 1.feel they have done a very good job. The project in front of you is a very complicated project. Let me start by highlighting the actions that are before the commission. In essence, the project is to shift the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, both clinic and medical research functions, or nearly all of them, from their facilities adjacent to downtown to a new medical clinic and research campus in the Urban Lane area. That is the area located between El Camino Real on the front, the railroad tracks to the rear, Wells Avenue on one side and the 11/29/95 -3- back of the properties which front on Encina Avenue in the southerly direction. It is a little over nine acres. Specific actions before the commission include reviewing, commenting and recommending eventual council action, approval and certification of the environmental impact report. You have a Comprehensive Plan land use change for this area from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities; a Comprehensive Plan Housing Element amendment related to the downtown site; and an amendment of the zoning ordinance, a Public Facilities zone text to allow out-patient medical and medical research as a conditional use. I will stress that t~at is one use. It is not out-patient medical and/or medical research. Any medical research functions would be in association with an out-patient medical function. We have other medical research functions located in the Stanford Research Park, for example, and at other locations. We are not trying to modify the PF zone to handle those uses. Other actions include an amendment of the zoning for the site from Service Commercial to Public Facilities, approval of the use permit; and approval of the tentative subdivision map. There is a parking deferral that is part of the applicant’s proposal. If the parking deferral needed to be instituted at any point in the future, it would involve the construction of a parking garage. That would push the site coverage beyond the 30 percent allowed in the PF zone, therefore, there is a variance in front of you for that increase beyond 30 percent for a deferred parking structure. I might add that it is extremely rare that deferred parking is triggered. It almost never occurs. The incentives for the applicant to manage their parking to fit within what they have are very strong versus even building a lot, much less building a structure. Nevertheless, we need to approve the parking structure,, and that involves a variance for the site coverage. The site also involves the vacation of two segments of public streets -- Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. The project involves the approval of a design concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane from University Circle to the medical foundation campus. The planning commission is also being asked to submit comments to the architectural review board and the city council on the site plan, architectural design, landscaping, signage, lighting and other design-related aspects. The architectural review board review is scheduled for Thursday, December 14. There have been three preliminary reviews that the ARB has held on this project, starting as early as last April. Their formal review is scheduled for December 14th. As part of this package, there is also the approval of an amendment to the existing development agreement for the downtown site and the related downtown specific plan. That is Agenda Item 4 tonight. Let me comment on that briefly, since it is an integral part of the package in front of you. That proposed development agreement is not in your packet. The staff recommendation is to continue the public hearing on this item to Wednesday, December 6. This afternoon, city staff and the medical foundation held the latest of a series of Wednesday afternoon meetings on the development agreement. We have agreed upon wording that may still need a few I dottings and T crossings, but essentially, we have agreed on the substance of it. That material will be in your packet this coming Friday. 11/29/95 -4- There are four major concerns addressed in the Development Agreement which are important to note. One is termination of the use of the existing facilities when the medical foundation moves. The EIR assumes that we will not have two medical facilities. The EIR assumes that the existing facilities will not be reused for that purpose. We need to accomplish that as part of the Urban Lane project. Second is the termination of existing approvals for renovation and expansion of the downtown facilities,.if and when the medical foundation moves. A numberof commissioners were part of the 1989-1991 medical foundation specific plan process, ~nd we need to effectively turn off the approvals associated with that process. We also have issues related to maintenance and security of the proposed facilities, as well as the commitment on the part of the city and the medical foundation to a redevelopment planning process, which includes the medical foundation’s payment of a share of the cost for a future planning process. All of that will be in the development agreement and will be in your packet this coming Friday and in front of you for next Wednesday night’s meeting. The planning commission has received a draft environmental impact report. We did it in one volume (barely) and that was distributed to you on October 2Oth. You received a November 22nd staff report. I might note that attached to that staff report are two tables of mitigation measures. One is mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts, and the second are other mitigations that also became recommended project conditions. I will note that the table is substantively correct, but is still to be considered draft because there are some changes that will occur between now and the time that it goes to the city council regarding who does exactly what type of monitoring requirement, etc. Essentially, the information there is good and solid, but we will be doing some tweaking of the information as it moves forward. A note to the medical foundation, and it is a comment that I made to David Jury this afternoon, is that in that material, there are references to certain things that need to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. What we mean by that is, prior to the issuance of any grading, excavation and/or building permits. There is a long list of things that need to be taken care of before this project breaks ground and starts into the construction process, assuming it is approved. We did not want any confusion to be present in terms of whether it is a building permit or an excavation permit or a grading permit. We are using those terms all rolled into one unless we specifically state otherwise. At your places tonight, you have a variety of correspondence. Let me briefly note them for the record. You have a two-page memorandum from Emily Renzel. You have a one-page memo from Wayne Swan, also a two-sided letter from Judith Wasserman, a two-page letter from the City of Menlo Park, a one-page letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and a two-sided letter from Dr. Kenneth Weigel of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital which is located adjacent to the site. There is a memorandum from Lisa Newman, Contract Planner. Attached to that memorandum is a staff report that went to the architectural review board for their November 16th preliminary review. There were some attachments to this, some of which were attached to your November 22nd staff report and some of which we 11/29/95 -5- inadvertently did not attach. We wanted to make sure you had all of the attachments. So there is some information from Treadwell and Rollo, Soils Engineers, which you will hearing more about tonight from the applicant. That is part of your background information attached to Lisa’s memo. Lisa received a call this afternoon from the Catholic organization that owns the property on Encina adjacent to the entryway. They cannot be here tonight, and we will forward additional information to them. They hope to attend the meeting next Wednesday night. We are trying to do some outreach with them (you will note they are on the cc list for the staff report), along with a lot of other people. The planning commission will receive a variety of items in this week’s packet. You will receive the findings and conditions for the use permit and subdivision approvals and the findings for the variance approval. They are noted in this week’s staff report as coming next week. I have already noted the development agreement amendment. That will be in the packet. There will perhaps be some responses to comments on the draft environmental impact report and questions raised tonight. We will also have comments to be made at next Wednesday night’s meeting. Any additional responses that we receive for the draft environmental impact report by Friday will be put in the packet. The purposes of the November 29th planning commission meeting include hearing the presentation on the medical foundation by the applicant, and receiving public comment on both the draft environmental impact report and the project. We certainly hope to hear all of the comments on the draft environmental impact report tonight. The staff report indicates closing the public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. We modify that recommendation to you and suggest that you continue that public hearing, which involves both the project and the draft EIR, to next Wednesday night. Hopefully, the comments on the draft EIR can be received tonight, as well as comments on the project and other related actions. Again, we recommend continuing the development agreement amendment, Agenda Item 4, to next Wednesday .night. The planning commission should take the full opportunity to question the applicant, the consultants and staff. We hope you identify the information that you need to proceed forward in this process. We hope that you will finish your comments on the draft environmental impact report. Again, it is staff’s hope that whatever information you feel is needed for next week, in terms of moving toward making recommendations on this project, we can hear as much, if not all of that tonight. A brief comment on staff conclusions regarding the proposed project..We recommend approval of the project, and we recommend that approval for a variety of reasons. We think that the site plan is acceptable as proposed. It is not without problems. We have identified problems in the November 22nd staff report, but we do find it to be acceptable. We think the project is an acceptable addition to El Camino Real. Clearance and redevelopment of that area will be a positive improvement to the City of Palo Alto and the El Camino Real area. In commenting on the project, it is also important to stress the fact that staff places a very high priority on trying to facilitate the medical foundation’s move out of the neighborhood.where they are now located. Commissioners who were part of the 1989-91 process will remember the 11/29/95 -6- discomfort that staff felt at that time, and probably a lot of decisionmakers and recommenders felt, in having a very intense use located in the neighborhood. It is not something we would have done today, but it is an historical happening. It is there, and certainly a significant part of our recommendation in 1990 for approval of the specific plan related to the fact that they were already there and were trying to make a better situation out of what we ;had. I think it was fairly evident that if we had our "druthers," we would have liked to have seen the medical foundation find another site in Palo Alto, since it is a very important community resource. That was not available or possible in 1990. That emerged after that process ended. Staff-is pleased that the foundation has found another site in Palo Alto, and we are pleased that they have found a site where we feel they can make a positive contribution. It will also allow an opportunity, should all of this be approved and go ahead, to carry out some redevelopment, some healing, within the neighborhood. That is an important staff objective. Also, a brief comment on the history of this particular application. It was first submitted a relatively long time ago. Suffice it to say that there was a preliminary architectural review board review on April 20th of a site plan that looked notably different from what you have in front of you tonight. Staff was extremely critical of that site plan. The architectural review board agreed with every one of our criticisms, and then added their own to the list. The medical foundation, after that process and for both that reason as well as for internal reasons, decided to reconsider the site plan. The project you have in front of you is a substantial improvement over what.we had in front of us at the staff level and ARB level on April 20th. The current proposal has a variety of issues and some problems with it. These are outlined on Pages 29-38 of the staff report. I will highlight the transition issues for the Wells and Encina properties, as well as the rear of the site, that is, the railroad tracks area and the bicycle path area, which are very significant issues. The Urban Lane connection to University Circle is also a very important issue. We think that those issues can be resolved and that the impacts of those site planning issues are tolerable and can be softened through appropriate conditions and design solutions. The architectural review board has already had numerous discussions of some of those issues. - Let me briefly note, as indicated in the staff report, that the applicant has recently gone through a value engineering process which has .changed the project, to a certain extent. There are no proposed changes that we would regard as being substantial enough to warrant recirculation of the draft environmental impact report. But there has been a notable amount of modification of building size and functions in certain areas. We anticipate minor refinements of the project plans, and we anticipate numerous ARB conditions requiring design details to be returned to the board for future review and approval. These types of refinements are certainly acceptable, especially given the size and complexity of this project, and they are not a barrier to the commission’s taking the actions that are before you. To highlight a couple of other items, there has been discussion throughout this process of a pedestrian tunnel from downtown to the medical foundation site. It is not part of the proposal in front of you. We have 11/29/95 -7- investigated this rather thoroughly, and we have found it to be physically feasible, albeit somewhat difficult. We have found that it would be very expensive, probably on the order of $2 million, perhaps a little more or a little less. The way things usually go, it would probably be a little more. The site plan provides a landing or arrival place for a pedestrian tunnel, if it ever is constructed. The use permit will contain a recommended condition that would recognize the potential for a pedestrian tunnel there, however, it is not reasonable under state procedures or in all fairness, to expect the medical foundation to pay for the tunnel. We may be able to find a way for them to be required to pay for some percentage of it, but it would not be a very substantial percentage. City staff is not in a position to support having the city pay two-thirds or three-quarters or more of that cost. In other words, we are not in a position of recommending a million-and-a-half dollar capital improvement project regarding a pedestrian tunnel. The city has major capital improvement needs, and right now, they do not include this type of project. This size project would detract from a lot of other city needs. I also want to highlight, the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road intersection. It is noted in Pages 38 and 39 of the staff report, but let me underscore it because it is an extremely important issue. The issue that is noted in the staff report essentially is the potential for a double left-turn lane from southbound El Camino Real to Embarcadero Road. That issue has come up before in the 1980s. When it has come up, it has been controversial. The medical foundation project will significantly increase the amount of left-turning traffic, especially in the afternoon peak period going from El Camino Real to Embarcadero Road. All of that traffic has already been accounted for in the transportation model in terms of the functioning of Embarcadero, but the amount of traffic will create a notable backup in that left-turning movement. As noted in the staff report, we have been meeting with CalTrans staff regarding this intersection, since it is a CalTrans-contolled roadway. We met with CalTrans again on Monday morning. They were not in a position to give us their final recommendation regarding the situation, but I think it is quite likely that CalTrans will either require the construction of a second left-turn lane when the new medical foundation intersection with El Camino Real is constructed, or they will require a careful monitoring of the left-turn movement and construction of that left-turn lane if certain traffic volumes and conditions develop. All of the forecasts indicate that those traffic volumes and conditions would develop very quickly, once the project is occupied and the normal traffic flow starts to occur there. If we receive a letter from them by Friday, we will certainly put it in your packet regarding this matter. In either event, we are looking at that second left-turn lane as being something that will become attached in some way or another to this project. We will know a lot more by next Wednesday. We certainly hope that we will have received the CalTrans comments by then, but I wanted to highlight that issue. I know it will be an important one for the commission, the council and the public. As for the next steps for the planning commission, we have recommended continuing the items from tonight until next Wednesday night. Hopefully, the commission will have sufficient information and time to work your way through all of the items and make your recommendations to the council. 11/29/95 -8- The site planning and design work that is within the purview of the architectural review board is scheduled for their formal review on Thursday, December 14th. If the planning commission and ARB conclude their work in December, the medical foundation project is tentatively scheduled for the city council meeting on January 22nd. This concludes my introductory comments. Staff and consultants will be pleased to respond to questions at the appropriate time this evening. Chairman Beecham: Thank you for your comments. With that, I will open the public hearing for all of you who wish to talk to us at this point. After that, the public hearing will be continued until next week. One rule that will apply through all of this is that anyone is welcome to speak, but only once. If you speak tonight, you would not be able to speak again next week. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a procedural question. Regarding the development agreement, there seems to be a lot of information in the EIR that does imply aspects of the development agreement. Yet you want to continue the development agreement to a different meeting. How does that work in terms of the process? Ms. Cauble: You are right, Tony, the development agreement amendment is the mechanism that staff has proposed to accomplish what the EIR anticipates, which is the phasing out of the downtown site if the new site is approved and occupied. While we are hopeful that the public hearing and testimony on the EIR can be completed this evening, the commission is not expected to take any action in terms of recommending that the document is complete, so you certainly can continue to have deliberation and discussion of the EIR. We are expecting that you well might be doing so next week, which could include any relationship to the development agreement amendment. Commissioner Carrasco: I imagine the commission can ask questions, but can the public also ask questions? Chairman Beecham: Let me add that we will have a public hearing tonight on Agenda Item 4 which involves the current 300 Homer Avenue site of the medical foundation. So if someone does want to speak to this item tonight, they are welcome to do so and will not have.to return next week. However, that public hearing will be continued and you can return next week, if you so wish. We will now hear from members of the public on Agenda Item 3, which involves the medical foundation and their new projected facility application for the El Camino site. First is Dr. Kenneth Weigel, and we do have your letter at our places tonight, but I suspect we have not had a chance to read it yet. We certainly will have by next week when we make our final deliberations. Dr. Kenneth Weiqel~ Palo Alto Pet Hospital, 711 E] Camino Real~ Palo Alto: I am a veterinarian and owner of the Palo Alto Pet.Hospital which is situated next to the proposed medical foundation site. I was very pleased to hear that you all have my letter that I submitted. In the interest of saving time, I will not repeat word for word the concerns I expressed in that letter. I would greatly appreciate your reading of that letter. I would like to add one concern not found in the letter of November 16th, that is, that with a 5 percent grade from the proposed finished site towards El Camino, I have a concern about what will be done 11/29/95 -9- to prevent water from flowing into the pet hospital site, which is at street level without a curb. Presently, the medical foundation site slopes in the opposite direction, so that has not been a problem in the past, but this building was constructed over 40 years ago. As our business has grown, we definitely need the parking on the south side of Wells Avenue. I have concerns about the proposed sidewalk to be placed next to the hospital building. That will narrow that street significantly. The street already is quite narrow between the pet hospital and the-building directly across the street. I would like to stress again that delivery vehicles and employees all need that parking, and I will greatly appreciate your reading of the letter that I submitted a week ago. Thank you. Clement Chen, H.oliday.lnn~ 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto: I am here.on behalf of the Holiday Inn, which my family owns and operates. I would also mention that we own properties at 675 El Camino Real, which in a previous life was known as The China First Restaurant, the Sino-Chinese Restaurant, Half-Time Sports Cafe, etc. We also recently acquired 695 El Camino Real, which is the little automobile upholstery shop at the corner of Wells Avenue and El Camino. In addition, we own the warehouse building at 31-39 Wells Avenue, not the entire.warehouse, but approximately two-thirds of the depth of the trapezoid. I would like to say, first of all, that we at the Holiday Inn and on behalf of the other properties, wholeheartedly support the project. This will dramatically improve a previously very blighted area. I am also particularly pleased that the draft EIR recommends that the preferred Urban Lane alternative is located within what is now the CaITrain parking lot and does not take any portion of the Holiday Inn parking lot. If a portion of the Holiday Inn parking lot were to be used, that would create potential parking issues for the Holiday Inn, traffic issues if our drive path were to be narrowed, as well as guest safety issues. So I wholeheartedly support the proposed location of the Urban Lane connector through the CaITrain lot. I would point out that there will be some significant work required at University Circle so that people there will be able to distinguish Urban Lane from the Holiday Inn. It is a rather confusing juncture right now. There is also some talk that the Marguerite may be stopping there, at least in the interim, so I think that needs to be looked at carefully so that people do not actually go into the Holiday Inn lot. I would like to make one.comment on the draft EIR, Page IV.B-39. There is a proposed 24-fqot curb cut for the Holiday Inn parking lot. Our present curb cut is rather vague, and who knows how big it is, but it is a lot bigger than 24 feet. I believe that a 24-foot curb cut would be too small for the Holiday Inn. We were working on a project in another south bay city which suggested that a 36-foot curb cut with a four-foot apron on either side would be appropriate for the type of two-way traffic that we would be dealing with. Finally, I would like to say that over the past three years, by agreeing to pay way too much money, my family and I managed to purchase the Chinese restaurant and the automobile upholstery shop. It is our intention to redevelop those two properties, together with the warehouse that we own. We do not own the portion of the warehouse that abuts Urban Lane. 11/29/95 -10- Therefore, Wells Avenue is an issue of concern for us. What will develop we do not know, and I am sure we will be here presenting you with more information when our plans are known. I would just like to say that our concern would be truck and service traffic on Wells Avenue. I know the clinic has revised their plan so that the service area by the Research Institute now serves only the Research Institute. That will greatly alleviate the traffic, but that would be a concern. If we were to, say, develop a hotel, we would not want heavy truck traffic up and down Wells because of the noise issue. I would also like to say that if the Wellness Center is developed (and I understand that is a conservative assumption of the EIR), if it were to incorporate a quasi-commercial health club, that could be a substantial traffic and parking generator. So how that is developed should be closely looked at in the future. Thank you for your time. Lisa Ives: Joint Powers Board, CalTrain: I work for the Joint Powers Board Planning Department for CalTrain. While the JPB board has not made any official recommendation regarding this project, I am here on behalf of the JPB staff, who has been working with your staff over the past six months. Tom Davids has been working with a few of you, which is nice to know. Overall, the JPB staff supports this project. We are definitely encouraging development and redevelopment efforts in and around our station areas, especially a station like the Palo Alto station, which has the third highest ridership of any of our stations, third only to San Francisco and San Jose. Thus we feel that this project will not only benefit the City of Palo Alto but the CalTrain system, as well. Additionally, the recommended pedestrian/bike path will be an asset. We do, however, have a concern with the recommended Urban Lane extension. If the Urban Lane extension is built through the CalTrain parking lot, we would like it to have minimal impact on our existing system. More specifically, we are recommending that the city consider a maximum loss of ten parking spaces. I know the report recommends landscaping, which would lead to an additional loss of parking spaces. While we think landscaping is a great idea, we are very reluctant to lose any parking capacity for it at this time. The document also states that the lot is not at full capacity. This is true, but again, we would like to keep the loss of our spaces to a minimum. There are a few reasons for that. In the short term, we are looking to expand CalTrain service levels from its existing 60 weekday trains, and with that service expansion, we are anticipating increased ridership. Of course, in the long term, we have the major projects that I am sure you have heard about, such as our CalTrain downtown extension. We are looking at the intermodal connection with BART and CalTrain. We are also going to be looking at an airport light rail connection from CalTrain to the airport, and more recently, we are going to be taking another look at extending service over the Dumbarton Bridge. All of these are long-term, major system expansions of CalTrain which are anticipated to bring more riders to our system. So ten spaces here may not seem like a big deal to you, but again, we would like to keep our loss of spaces to a minimum. Overall, we support the project, and we will have more comments that we will be submitting to you in writing. I believe we have until December 4th to do so. Thank you for your time. 11/29/95 -11- Mr. Schreiber: Let me stress that the deadline for receipt of written comments on the draft EIR is at five o’clock on December 4th. That is the end of the 45-day review period and is consistent with state environmental quality guidelines. Herb Borock~ 2731Byron.Street: Palo Alto: Chairman Beecham and members of the commission, my first comments are in the traffic section regarding Sand Hill Road. On Page IV.B-4, there is a description of Arboretum Road which needs to be corrected. Arboretum Road is a four-lane, public right-of-way between Sand Hill Road and Quarry Road. It is only an internal Stanford roadway and not part of a right-of-way between Quarry and Galvez, two and three lanes. If that is not correct, I am sure staff will have what is the correct right-of-way. My second comment has to do with many of the figures that appear to include a Sand Hill Road extension. For example, Figure IV.B.I on Page IV.B-2 shows a roadway between El Camino Real and the intersection of Arboretum and Sand Hill Road. That might be an internal shopping center roadway, but that does not belong in this diagram. Or it might be the 1975 Rosenbaum alternative alignment for the Willow Road extension. That same correction replacement diagrams figures needed for Figure IV.B.2 on Page IV.B-7, Figure IV.B.3 on Page IV.B-11, Figure IV.B.5 on Page IV.B-22, Figure IV.B.6 on Page IV.B-23, Figure IV.B.9 on Page IV.B-50, and Figure IV.B.IO on Page IV.B-51. In addition, there are two other figures in Appendix C that do not have page numbers, but should have, and also need to be replaced for the same reason. These are the two pages following Page VIII.C-2. Those pages will then have to be called out in the Table of Contents. There is an additional significant environmental effect on land use that should be called out. That is the problem of having two sets of entitlements, one for the downtown Palo Alto Medical Foundation facility and one for Urban Lane. The significant effect is the fact that the medical foundation can hold the neighborhood hostage by telling them that they have to accept a much higher density of redevelopment than they would otherwise want so that the medical foundation would have enough money to develop the Urban Lane site. The mitigation that is required for this significant effect is to require the medical foundation to give up all of its entitlements that it got from the previous EIR at the same time that it receives this entitlement, rather than waiting, as staff has suggested, until the new facility is constructed. The next question .I have is on grading. To me, the EIR is very vague as to what the law requires in measuring height when there is grading done. I believe that the single diagram in the EIR shows a grade but fails-to indicate whether it is existing or a new grade. I believe that the height limits have been exceeded if you follow the zoning code properly. My next comments are related, in part, to the comments in the staff report, Page 3. The first have to do with the amendments to the PF zone and the conditional use permit for the new use. First, I believe it is an abusive process to be processing a use permit application before there is legislative authority. I believe you have to wait until the effective date of the ordinance granting legislative authority for out-patient facilities for the use permit before you can consider that you have an application for a use permit. Secondly, I am surprised that this is here, because Stanford University has managed to operate out-patient facilities 11/29/95 -12- in the PF zone without such an entitlement. So perhaps Stanford University needs to apply for the same kind of use permit. I don’t know how that has managed to occur all of this time. The next comment has to do with the section on Biotics and trees. Normally, there is an arborist’s report which indicates the numbers and kinds of trees that are being demolished, and there has to be a certain replacement ratio, two for one or three for one. I did not have a chance to read it all, but from what I did read, I did not notice anything like that. I believe that should be a value. Societies of arboroculture have values for different size trees, and you should get replacements based on that. The next comment has to do with the parking structure. The medical foundation has indicated that.it is in a difficult financial situation and is not sure if it is feasible to do this facility. Therefore, they should be required to post a bond in case that parking structure is needed. That should be a mitigation for that. In terms of the new signal light, I suspect that the traffic might be much better on El Camino if there were only a right turn in, right turn out at the main entrance. That is suggested only if there is no Urban Lane extension, and it may be even better with an Urban Lane extension. Since there is such vague information on Building D at this point, I believe that some kind of supplemental EIR will be needed at that time, if and when it is decided that the Wellness Center will be built, because you do not have the information at this time to enable you to adequately evaluate the environmental effects of that building. Thank you. Brian Stack~ 274 Walter Hays Drive~ Palo Alto: I am probably the only person in this town who is opposed to this project. I am opposed to this project because of the traffic impacts on this town with that project right there. I think that the impact on El Camino is going to be similar to the traffic problems now encountered by Menlo Park through their development. This project is one-and-a-half times larger than either Macy’s or the Emporium. If either Macy’s or the Emporium had a project sitting here and wanting to go into that nine-acre site, there would probably be more opposition to it. - I am not opposed to a new medica~ facility. I am just opposed to the location selected. At the initial public meeting for the EIR, I proposed that the project be moved to the golf course and that the golf course be moved to the foothills, where it belongs. Since that initial EIR meeting, the city has foolishly approved $7.5 million to raise the fairways three feet. The city has decided to bring the mountain to the golf course instead of bringing the golf course to the mountain. The $7.5 million being spent to make a bad golf course mediocre is the price of a championship golf course located between the Palo Alto Hills Golf Course and the Stanford Golf Course. The recent decision to back away from the city’s master plan to close Fry’s Electronics again offers an opportunity to locate Fry’s at the golf course. Theideal use for this particular property here is for senior citizen housing. The pedestrian access to downtown, Town and Country Village, and the transit terminal is ideal. In summation, I propose that the city trade property at the golf course, say some 20 acres, for all of the medical center’s current vacant land. Palo 11/29/95 -13- Alto has the opportunity here to remake itself, ending up with not only a first class medical center but a championship golf course, additional senior citizen housing, and also a lot of money in the bank. Thank you. Yoriko Kishimoto~ 251 Embarcadero Road~ Palo Alto: First, I want to express some words of appreciation for the considerable work that has gone into the design and planning of this facility. It is a definite site and design improvement over the current site, and I know how much work and many changes have already been made to make it more transit, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly. I would support the request for the deferred parking. But given that today’s transportation and traffic infrastructure is inadequate for taking that human traffic from the new site to regional highways, such as Highway 101, without creating what the EIR agrees are significant health and pollution problems, I would ask the planning commission to take some of the following issues into. consideration. As you know, the standard saying has been that a lot of the traffic problems are already given and we have already approved the development. Obviously, this is a major opportunity for you to make a land use and transportation decision. In the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study, Urban Lane was downzoned to a 0.35 to I zoning. Now we are raising it to one to one. While I believe that that may be appropriate in the long run, I still think it is a reasonable question to ask, what can the city do to protect the residents from the increased automobile traffic in a very serious way. Is it possible to ask the staff and the foundation to go back to the drawing board once more for stronger measures? Ken mentioned the Embarcadero Road/El Camino intersection. I still have to very strongly oppose the idea of expanding that intersection to create a double left-hand turn there. As you know, the city council just voted last week on this issue. That goes directly against that decision to protect the residential quality of the residential arterials. I would find it quite ironic if we spent a lot of money toning down one gateway to Embarcadero, which is at Highway 101, and spend an equal amount to make the El Camino entrance more highway-like. Again, I would ask staff to find ways to avoid taking this easy engineering way out of this very complex problem, I will confess. If I can throw out a couple of suggestions, I have heard that 80 percent of the employees live within five miles of the clinic. I wish that it could charge for parking, as the Stanford Medical Center does. If you ask why Stanford does this commendable thing of charging its employees for parking and charges its patients for parking, as well, it is because the county has made stringent requirements for no net traffic increase, or has put some very vigorous cap on it. I suppose it does call into question the whole question of square footage expansion in a serious way. I don’t know how the traffic mitigation fees work, but I would ask you to explore whether there is a way to use that system or some other system to fund some of the improvements on Embarcadero that we talked about last week. Typically the fund has been used only for expanding intersections, but can it be used to mitigate the pollution and noise violations on the streets themselves, and not just focus on intersection congestion? Noise levels, according to the EIR, on a cumulative basis on Embarcadero Road are expected to double along some sections of Embarcadero, which I find 11/29/95 -14- unacceptable on a street that is zoned for R-1 housing and offers no buffer whatsoever. If you look at the economics, the anticipated city revenue from the new complex, after its move and the 40 percent expansion, is expected to be $42,000 in lieu of property tax every year, and $109,000 annual revenues in utility and telephone taxes, for a grand total of about $150,000 per year. Yet, there is anticipated to be an 11 percent increase on sections of Embarcadero and a total of 13,000 trips generated on a daily basis. If you multiply that by 365, it comes to the scary number of five million trips peryear. Then we always wonder why there is never enough funding for transportation system upgrades. So is there a way to link development? Actually, I want to add that this is not to suggest that all of the funds for transportation infrastructure upgrading should come out of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s bottom line. It is to ask that the city, the developers and hopefully, the citizens will work together to develop a system to pass some of the true costs on to the consumers and to raise the necessary funds in a regular way. Again, this could take the form of parking fees, as an example. I feel quite strongly about the pedestrian underpass, as well, because the underpasses at.both University Avenue and Embarcadero Road are incredibly noisy and unpleasant. They feel unsafe to walk in after dark. I do not have the answer on the funding issue, although I would love to explore it with you. But not creating a well designed pedestrian and bicycle under- pass is a serious deficiency in the fabric of this part of town. Overall, I support the move of the foundation, because it is a better site, but I would ask you to take very seriously the environmental impacts of traffic. Hopefully, this will help to create a new page in the City of Palo Alto. Chairman Beecham: Next is Emily Renzel, and I would like to comment that we do have your letter at our places tonight, and probably have not read it yet, but we certainly will before next week. .Emily Renzel~ 1056 Forest Avenue~ Palo Alto: I am glad to hear that you got it. I, too, support this move. It is a logical thing to do, however, it should not be at any cost. I think the city ought to be careful about how it structures the approvals and the entitlements that occur with this in relationship to both the old site and the Urban Lane extension. There are a couple of important questions that need to be addressed. The first is, why is the foundation asking for PF zoning, which right now, it does not even qualify for because it is not an approved use for that zone, instead of the Planned Community zone that would allow them to do virtually everything they are doing here, and would allow some flexibility and does allow this kind of use. I can only conclude that they are choosing to do this because they wish to ultimately expand to the full 1:1 floor area ratio and do not want to have to come back to you to do it. So I think that is an important thing to consider. That would affect traffic projections for this site. If they were to purchase any surrounding sites, such as buying out Mr. Chen’s big interest, and tried to expand at some point in the future, you are talking about a major change from a 0.35 floor area ratio to a 1:1 floor area ratio. You are talking about significant traffic beyond what is shown in this proposal. The Stanford Medical Center has indicated that it plans to expand. They- are now at the limit of their PF zone 1:1 floor area ratio. Obviously the 11/29/95 -15- only thing that can be done to allow them to expand is to increase the floor area ratio for the PF zone. That would mean that every PF zone would then enjoy the same benefit, so I think it is important to realize that that future project could have ramifications for this site and also on the traffic projections for this site. With respect to the PF zone, it is defined and has the name "Public Facilities" which is intended to cover government-owned or leased sites that are for governmental uses. We have a contract with the hospital, as a city, and we once owned part o~the hospital. When they built the new hospital, we got rights to it, and that makes it a public facility, or quasi-public. You can justify having it under the Public Facility zone, but the clinic is not going to be owned by the public. It is not going to be exclusively used for a public use. It is a private, non-profit or not-for-profit organization. I think there is some profit made there. I don’t think it is appropriate to put it in a PF zone. You, as planning commissioners, should be very concerned about why they are not using the Planned Community zone. Mr. Borock raised the question about the double entitlements. completely agree with that. The city has no assurance that the clinic will vacate any or all of their current facilities, when and if they get entitlements to build in this location. There are some substantial buildings there that would have to be torn down to use the site for other kinds of uses. There will be a lot of resistance to that. It will, as Mr. Borock pointed out, put the neighborhood in a very difficult spot. So I think that it is going to be important that, in the course of amending the Comprehensive Plan with respect to Policy I.A., you be a little more specific about your vision for the old site, with some guidance about the reuse of that site. I don’t know whether that would include asking that the entitlements be abandoned at the point that the use permit or whatever is activated for the new site. Something should be done to ensure that the public is not left in a vulnerable position with respect to nine acres in the heart of a residential area. Another question is whether this project should be approved without a public extension of Urban Lane for interior circulation. The staff report indicates on Page 31 that since there are some difficulties about negotiations among the various interested parties, this EIR has been done both with and without the Urban Lane connection. The foundation site itself is roughly equivalent to the area bounded by Bryant, Channing, Waverley and Homer, which has seven.block faces and 60-foot-wide streets to provide access. The kind of street system that you are seeing for this nine acres is piddly, by comparison. It does not include circulation to the rest of that whole area that is more equivalent to Alma to Ramona and University to Kingsley, a huge area of downtown, which has about 30 block faces of 60-foot-wide streets for circulation to it. It is a serious problem for the community if an interior circulation system is not provided in some manner. So I think it is vitally important that before you abandon any of the existing rights-of-way on this site that you get assurances that you are going to get alternative connections through for Urban Lane. The last time the Sand Hill extension was approved, its traffic impacts indicated the need for a double left turn at Embarcadero to avoid Level Service F. My question now is, how many turn lanes will be required if 11/29/95 -16- this foundation project also generates the need for a second turn lane to avoid Level of Service F? Are you going to need three turn lanes? Or four? Or are we going to end up with Level of Service F? I think that is an important question to answer. One other thing. Arboretum is a public road to 100 feet south of Quarry Road. Chairman Beecham: Next, we will hear the applicant’s presentation. David Jur¥~ Real Estate Manaqer for the-Pa]o Alto Medical Foundation: We will endeavor to be brief in our presentation, and have brought along a lot of our consultants to answer specific questions. It is not our intent to go through this piece by piece and sheet by sheet. I understand you all have the plans and have all seen the EIRo This is truly a project for the community. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation has been a member of this community since 1930. It is a non-profit organization, and it is truly a community service. This project has been well thought out. We have worked very hard with the staff and with the ARB. We have had some difficulties in our planning process because of the complexity of the project, the size of the project, the technical nature of the project..Throughout the process, we have tried very hard to listen and respond to the staff and to the ARB, and we have tried to provide accurate information. We have tried not to respond prematurely to questions, sometimes to everyone’s frustration, but a lot of times, we simply did not know the answers. We have recently completed a value management process that made a lot of changes to the building. Some of those changes you will see, and some will be invisible to you. We are confident that it has brought the project within a budget level where we can afford to build it, yet it retains its character, and it will accomplish the things that we need to have accomplished. We would like you to share in that value management project. We plan to put every available dollar into the building. We will do what is needed to make the project work~ but when you are tempted to require something, please remember that the money is not easy to come by. A linear accelerator for the treatment of cancer costs a million dollars. The installation of that linear accelerator alone costs $150,000. A laboratory microscope costs $3,700. We want the project to work and we will do what is necessary, but if you do not see that some addition to the project is really necessary for the infrastructure, or really necessary for the circulation, or really necessary for the appearance, please let us use that money for other things. One item for your consideration tonight along that very line is in Table 4.B.18 which talks about the delay in the intersection at Page Mill Road and El Camino. There is a suggested mitigation measure of putting in some right turn lanes and extending a left-turn lane clear down at Page Mill Road. Table 4.B.18 shows that the delay at that intersection is actually about one second less without the project than it is with the project. There is really very little traffic added when you look at it as a percentage in that intersection. We would hope that you could take a mitigation like that and set it aside, realizing that it is too much to pay for acquisition of right-of-way, as well as the construction of roadway, for such an insignificant impact. 11/29/95 -17- Sandra Beck, with Ellerbe Becket, is our architect and will give you a brief overview of the project. Throughout this process, if you have questions, we would love to respond to them. ~andra Beck, E].....lerbe Becket, 311Californi..a. Street, San Francisco: I would like to talk to you with reference to the overhead projection as to how you access the site. Primarily, coming in off El Camino Real, there is one lane in and two lanes out into the oval, going around the oval, and down a garage ramp here. The garage traffic would also come up through the oval and out to El Camino. Access in through El Camino and around the oval is provided for drop-off patients. You can also go out through this parking lot to Wells Avenue and out onto El Camino north. Coming from the Urban Lane/University Circle extension, traffic can come down and extend via an extended Urban Lane road that becomes a public right-of-way through the site down to Encina and out to El Camino or in through Town and Country Village. Traffic is parked underneath the site, and the parking garage under the site is bordered in this area. It reaches all the way over to very close to El Camino, along underneath Buildings B and C, over to the eastern edge of the site and down along the southern edge of the site. These garages are accessed by this ramp within the oval, as well as accessed by a parked-on garage ramp coming down in the eastern end of the site. This is also a surface lot with parking provided all the way up to the Wellness Center or Building D. The project is requesting approval for full site buildout of approximately 355,000 gross square feet. The Research Institute is a three-story structure on grade. Level One would be a research laboratory for animals. Levels Two and Three are clinical laboratories. Buildings B and C are four-story buildings with one level below grade and three levels above grade. Building B contains primarily healthy services and clinic, along with a conference center and some administration. We have an atrium joining Buildings B and C. The floor level of the atrium is at grade level, so you could access it from the east plaza and from the surface parking. Building C is also clinical services, with first floor entry from Urgent Care parking out here in the parking lot going directly into the building. Building D is a Wellness Center or would be a Wellness Center if it gets built, a building of approximately 50,000 to 60,000 gross square feet. That is the remainder of the 355,000 square feet for total site buildout. Parking for Building D is also accommodated on site as part of either the deferred parking or the underground parking that is Contained within two levels below grade. The first level below grade of parking is contained primarily within the center oval area and behind the site on the eastern edge. It reaches up to the buildings so that patients could come in and access the site from Encina, go down the garage ramp, and park in this area or come in off of El Camino, go down the garage ramp and park in the lower Level A, as we call it, right below grade. Lower Level B, the second level of parking below grade, extends the entire width of the site, and it is not interrupted by buildings or footings, with elevator locations going down all the way to parking in these locations. Since it is uninterrupted by buildings, people can continue down the ramp to Lower Level A or go farther down to Lower Level B, and access the other end of the site continuously through. 11/29/95-18- The rendering that is shown up here is shown from the Urgent Care parking lot, looking off directly in front of you at the front of Building B. It also shows Building A here as a research building and Building C off to the side, where you are seeing about half its length. The rest of Building C would be off to the right hand side. What you see is a continuation of the Mediterranean style. We have really tried to give this institution its own identity, not copycatting Stanford with the very distinct California mission style, but rather, giving it its own identity but still provide the fact that we are talking about a large institution and a great deal of square footage and some definite concern about how to present the massive square footage in a very appealing manner and scale it down for human proportions. The front oval is primarily intended to be a "traffic court." We are using different colored paving and special paving materials to slow the patrons down as they come in so that people can walk and easily access the other buildings and the Urgent Care parking area without being run over. In addition, people coming down Urban Lane will encounter a typical asphalt city street with a planting strip, sidewalk and street trees until they get to this location. Then there is a special paving surface that will transverse from the atrium out and across this Urban Lane extension to the east plaza area, so that we have another people space here to slow traffic down whenmoving through the site in a north-south direction. We are at a site which is about 9.15 acres with a little bit of dangerous soil. We have Frank Rollo with us, our geotechnical engineer, if you have any specific questions on that account. With that, I will close our presentation. Chairman Beecham: With that, I will close the public hearing for tonight, but continue it until next Wednesday. I will start with some questions for staff. Could staff clarify for us how the 50-foot height limit is applied on the site, when there is an existing grade that will be modified? Can you walk us through the existing grades, where the site will be raised, and how the 50-foot limit is determined with the new grading? Anne Moore~ Moore Consultinq: The existing site slopes approximately 8 percent from the northwest to the southeast portion of the site. The details of that are on Page 21 of the staff report. The key to determining the height of the building has to do with the interpretation of the definition of "grade" in the city’s zoning ordinance, and how that definition is applied to a site of less than 10 percent slope, as is the case here. The height is measured from the lowest point of the adjacent ground elevation of finished surface of the ground paving or sidewalk, or five feet from the building in a situation such as this, except when that grade has been raised by means of a berm, planter box or similar landscaping feature. Staff has concluded that in the case of this project, we are not dealing with berms, planter boxes or similar landscaping features that are causing some of the site transition differences at adjacent properties, particularly to the southeast and the south side. We have a situation here that because the three buildings that are being proposed all need to be on the same elevation, and because this is a project that includes underground parking, the fairly minimal 11/29/95 -19- 8 percent slope across the site for a site of this size creates a differential on the southeast and southern side. So what we have is a situation where they are excavating down to Elevation 37 for the floor of their parking structure that ends up with finished floor elevations for the building at 62 feet. In every case, five feet out from the building, there is a finished elevation that results in building heights that are within the 50-foot limit. There are no berms; there are no planter boxes; there are no landscaping features around the site. Essentially, the site has been raised and it is as though the buildings are sitting on a platform. We have a technical compliance with the way height is measured in Palo Alto’s zoning ordinance. As staff has indicated in the staff report, we do not believe that the definition of grade and the way to measure height was intended to result in a situation where a project graded such as this one would be found to be consistent with the height limitation. So there is a question of intent, but in terms of technical compliance with the city’s 50-foot height limitation, this project does comply. We have paid a lot of attention to it in the staff report, and the ARB has been considering the applicant’s solutions to dealing with the transitions at the property lines. We have a 5 percent upgrade at El Camino Real which does not create any kind of difficulties, in fact, I think it will assist in some of the traffic calming that the applicant is concerned about doing at the entrance oval, and it does not cause any operational difficulties. There is a 5 percent upgrade on the Wells Avenue side and a 3.6 percent upgrade where the Encina Avenue entrance is at the project site. So it is those transition areas that we are the most concerned about. There are cross sections that have been provided by the applicant that show those relationships. In terms of compliance with the height requirement of the city, technically, they have it, but we have ended up with a project that had some difficult transitions to adjacent properties. We have been paying a lot of attention to whether their design solutions are adequate. Commissioner Carrasco: Could you describe on the map where these percentages are? In other words, the 3.5 percent on Encina? Ms. Moore: (Ms. Moore points them out on the projection) The area we are the most concerned about is the entry area from Encina Avenue and the rear of properties fronting on Encina, especially the house at 51 Encina Avenue that contains a retaining wall where the medical foundation service drive is three to five feet higher than the rear of those properties. So they would end up having a six- to eight-foot fence installed by the medical foundation, and behind that fence, a three- to five-foot retaining wall with that service drive being at the top of the wall. Chairman Beecham: That retaining wall, I presume, starts at a zero height on El Camino and rises as it goes inland on the property? Ms. Moore: Actually, there is not a retaining wall out at El Camino. The retaining wall becomes necessary as you go to the east, because the site slopes toward the southeast. The area that is really the most critical is behind the Greer House here, as the Urban Lane extension down to Encina also involves some retaining wall. There has been some special care given by the applicant to preserving an old pepper tree on that historic Greer 11/29/95 -20- House site, and there is a retaining wall and fencing around both sides of that property on the north and eas~ sides. Commissioner Carrasco: I want to disclose that I have talked to David Jury on the EIR aspects, and touched on some of these questions on height and their relationship between the proposed facility and the existing buildings. In this regard, David had mentioned that there are some problems with depressing this building further. I wondered if there are some geotechnical issues that do prevent us from moving it down so that we do relate to the buildings better? Mr. Jury: Anticipating that question, we have brought Frank Rollo with us who is the principal of Treadwell and Rollo Geotechnical Consultants. Frank can answer that question for you. Frank Rollo~ Treadwell and Rollo~ San Francisco~ CA: I would like to provide you with a plan and section through the site on the projector. would like to briefly touch on the basis of our knowledge of the site. There have been numerous explorations performed on this site over the years, both as part of addressing environmental issues and addressing geotechnical issues. We drilled 11 test borings 55 to 105 feet below the ground surface. What you have is a subsurface profile taken along the southern boundary, and what it depicts are three significant layers. One is what I will call a surface layer of sand and gravel that extends to a depth of about 25 feet, then a layer of hard clay, and then a layer of medium dense to dense sand and gravel. This medium dense layer is the layer of concern because it has the potential of liquifying during an earthquake. As most of you know, The Santa Clara County Seismic Safety Element indicates that this area would be subject to very strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The United States Geological Survey has indicated that there is a 23 percent probability of a rupture on the southern segment of the San Andreas fault by the year 2020. That translates to accelerations of about 0.45 times gravity. That, combined with the presence of this medium dense sand and gravel and the presence of a ground water level that has risen over the.past couple of years, probably at the end of a drought, where we are starting to see a rise in the water level, and an anticipated rise of approximately four to six feet, should we go back to a normal rainfall, leads us to conclude that zones within this particular layer would liquify. As currently planned, the slab of the lower garage level is at 37, which would put the footings down at about 34. That would put it approximately six to ten feet above the potential liquifiable layer. That is, it would provide us with an earth mat upon which we would put a concrete mat for a rigid foundation. If we lower the slab, we reduce the thickness of that earth mat and we increase the risk of the liquifiable soils manifesting themselves right at the level of the mat in the form of what we often see after earthquakes, called sand boils. It is a total loss of the strength of the material. If that were to occur directly under a foundation element, it would result in a severe differential settlement. To reduce the risk of that from occurring, we want to maintain an earth pad between the bottom of the mat and these random zones of liquifiable material. We have recommended strongly that we not go any deeper with this structure. The deeper we go, the greater the risk of this potential differential settlement from liquifaction and sand boils. 11/29/95 -21- Commissioner Carrasco: Are there not any engineering solutions that can mitigate that kind of effect? Are there not buildings that are in place in liquifiable soils? Mr. Rollo: Yes, there are. There are approximately three solutions that would mitigate that. Solution #i would be to strengthen the sand and gravel layer by ground modification techniques that could include chemical grouts, salacious cement grouts, and is extremely costly. Solution #2 would be to remove the entire layer and replace it with material that is not liquifiable, which would also be extremely costly. The third solution would be a pile foundation that penetrates through the liquifiable layer and would gain support through friction at a significant depth, again, an extremely costly solution. Commissioner Carrasco: Can you give us some idea of the cost differences here? Also, isn’t there another technology called a mat foundation that could also be done? Mr.-Rollo: We are proposing a mat foundation. In fact, we are using a mat foundation at this level, combined with the earth. A mat foundation is only effective for a certain distance beyond the column. If the differential settlement occurs directly under a column, the mat does not have the ability to span out 30 feet to the next point of support. You cannot transfer the load the full 30 feet. You need to provide some sort of earthen mat between the liquifiable layer and the concrete mat. But in answer to your question, we are using a mat foundation, which is an expensive solution, as you know. The other alternative was a grid. We looked at both systems. The mat would provide more rigidity and would result in more of a tilting phenomenon when this liquifaction occurs, as opposed to a differential movement between columns. Commissioner Carrasco: On Page 4.G-2 in the Geology and Seismic Hazards section, it seems to me that the water table is 33 to 36 feet deep from the ground surface, which is way below the present mat foundation. In your testimony, you mentioned 19 feet. Mr. Rollo: I am sorry. If I did, I misspoke. The ground water level, as you can see in the section I have provided, is at approximately 30 to 33 feet below existing grade and at Elevation 22. The bottom of the mat is at Elevation 34. That provides us with this earth mat that I was referring to, in addition to the concrete mat. We also indicated in our report that assuming the drought period is over, we can see a recharge of the aquafer, so we can see an additional four- to six-foot rise in the ground water. That would put the ground water at Elevation 26 to 28, leaving you a six-foot earth mat between the bottom of the concrete mat and the liquifiable layer. That is about the least amount of earth mat you would want to reduce the tendency of differential settlement. Am I clear? Commissioner Carrasco: Yes, you are clear, however, there are buildings that are built in the liquifiable layer, as well as below the ground water table, and they seem to have functioned reasonably well, the Moscone Center being one of them. Mr. Rollo: We have not experienced a seven-magnitude earthquake or 11/29/95 -22- greater on any of the four segments of the San Andreas or Hayward fault since 1906. That was an 8.2 earthquake. We experienced a 7.2 earthquake on the Loma Prieta fault, which is about 45 to 50 miles from this site. That earthquake lasted approximately 12 to 15 seconds. Accelerations in this area were about 0.2 G. If a seven or greater earthquake occurs on one of the four segments of the two faults, we can expect accelerations twice as high. We can expect the duration of shaking to be twice as long. We know that in earthquakes, high ground water levels and medium dense soils subject to ground motion will liquify. If, in fact, structures are being supported on_those liquifiable soils without some sort of precaution to prevent settlement, then we can expect to see damage to buildings. We are trying to reduce the risk of that damage from a major earthquake at this site. Commissioner Carrasco: Are you reducing it so that there is no human life lost, or are you reducing it so that there is no building structural damage? Mr. Rollo: We are trying to comply with the intent of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code for a design level earthquake, which says that we can accept some damage, but we must protect life. Commissioner Schmidt: As we look at the building sections and parking plan, the building and parking do not extend to the perimeter of the site where the retaining walls and fences are that we have talked about. I was wondering what the reason is for raising the service road, for example, up that high, creating the retaining wall situation. I know it is part of the entire site, but is there any structural reason? Is .it just that this is the whole site plan and part of the way of looking at the height of the building, so that five feet away from the building, you are not exceeding the 50-foot height limit? I wondered about the rationale for that. Ms. Beck: I believe where you are primarily referring to is along the southern service drive. Our loading services arrive at the first floor area of this building, which is at Elevation 62. We come up on a 3.6 percent grade to approximately Elevation 58. Fifty-eight slopes down to 56 at El Camino, the existing elevation there. So we are dealing with approximately a four-foot height difference for a loading dock situation between 58 and 62. We need to be at 58 right here to have the road clear over the parking that runs along this line. So it is critical for us to rise up, and then we cannot go down again and up again to get back out to El Camino. That is why we gently sloped down to get to this place. Commissioner Cassel: I want to ask you whether you have talked to the neighbors about this to find out how they are feeling about that particular treatment in their back yard? Mr. Jury: I spoke to the neighbors there about an hour ago. They are present tonight. They are reserving their judgment on this. They are not necessarily opposed. They are not in favor. They are interested in seeing what mitigations we can do and how we can handle the problem. They have had a very cooperative attitude. Commissioner Eakins: Tony inspired me to ask one more earthquake- resistant question. What is the system that is used under the new San Francisco Library, the rubber vibration mounts? Tell us about your 11/29/95 -23- consideration of that potential for this project. Mr. Rollo: I was the geotechnical engineer that provided the design input for the San Francisco Main Library. They originally anticipated using a conventional spread footing type foundation. After more extensive evaluation of potential earthquake risk, again this whole issue of approximately 67 percent probability that there would be a 7.0 earthquake or greater by the year 2020, the designers decided they needed to revisit the structure, because the architect put size limits on the girders. The design team felt it could not resi@t the lateral loads through the frame. That means we needed to take some of the force out at foundation level. To put it another way, a percentage of the earthquake force needed to be resisted at the foundation level. We then looked at various base isolation systems and selected the one that is manufactured in Texas. It is basically lead and rubber laminated together. That system triggers at an event above a certain level. To that level, the building itself resists the force. Above a certain earthquake level, the base isolators come into play. Fortunately, that site does not have a liquifaction potential. The sands are very dense. Our problem is that they can design the building to resist the lateral load from the earthquake. The problem .is that the ground will have failed by that time, so you are left with zones of quicksand beneath the foundation. It is those zones of quicksand that will not provide support to the structure. So what you are trying to do is to spread out that load when these zones of quicksand occur. You spread them out by having a sufficiently thick layer of soil that will not liquify, and then a rigid concrete mat that will act to spread the load out and/or tilt as opposed to breaking during an earthquake. Commissioner Cassel: I have another question about the slope over by the veterinary hospital. How are you going to keep water from going down onto that hospital site? Ms. Beck: The elevation at El Camino is 56, and we are sloping up at 5 percent to about 62 within the oval, 61-I/2 with a curbless road going into the clinic at 62. Here is the veterinary site. We are sloping from the 61-I/2 down to approximately 54 on Wells Avenue. This parking area driveway is sloping down at that 5 percent, as well as sloping down at 5 percent onto El Camino. This is all gently sloping land. We do not see that as an issue in terms of drainage going off onto El Camino whatsoever. We do see that some retaining wall system will be needed along this side of the parking area to ensure that drainage does not go down onto the veterinary hospital. Weare dealing with plantings that can hold water and not erode the land to fall down onto the veterinary hospital property, as well. We are definitely considering the mitigations that are needed there. Chairman Beecham: I would assume that more or less the local catch basin area would potentially affect the pet hospital is just in that section you were indicating where the parking lot is. Is that correct? Ms. Beck: I did not understand the question. Chairman Beecham: The local drainage area that might affect the pet hospital is only in that one section? 11/29/95 -24- Ms. Beck: That is correct. Chairman Beecham: I would expect that the parking lot and the drive would be crowned. Is that so, as it runs down to Wells Avenue? Ms. Beck: I don’t believe we have it crowned right now. We are going to have surface drainage systems on the site to ensure that water does not totally run down five feet into the veterinary hospital property, definitely. I would image we would want some water to drain naturally to Wells Avenue, as well as some water to drain naturally out to El Camino, but not anything in excess of what the natural water would be. Mr. Schreiber: If I could follow up on that, Sandra, when the water reaches El Camino at the main entrance or the water reaches Wells Avenue from the parking area near the Research Institute, which ways do those waters flow? Say from El Camino, if it is coming out, does it flow toward the veterinary hospital or does it flow toward Embarcadero Road? Ms. Beck: It flows downhill toward Embarcadero. Mr. Schreiber: Okay. Then on Wells, does it flow out to El Camino or does it flow toward Urban Lane? Ms. Beck: It flows toward Urban Lane. Mr. Schreiber: So essentially, the veterinary hospital is the high point. Ms. Beck: Yes, it is the high point of the existing grade between Wells and El Camino. Mr. Schreiber: So if you can control any type of sheet flow from the immediate veterinary hospital area, you are not going to have a situation of water flowing from the other parts of the site and accumulating on the roadways and flowing toward the vet hospital. It will all flow away from the veterinary hospital. Ms. Beck: That is correct, yes. Chairman Beecham: The next issue to raise is based on some comments made tonight and to follow up on a comment by Mr. Schreiber regarding the addition of a left-turn lane from southbound El Camino to eastbound Embarcadero. One thing Mr. Schreiber mentioned was that the issue had been raised before, and it was somewhat controversial. I am not familiar with the controversial history of this, so I wondered if Ken could enlighten us on what has already transpired on this, and what makes it controversial. Mr. Schreiber: What has made it controversial in the past, Which came up ten years ago in a review of the Sand Hill Extension project, is the sense that the double left-turn lane will encourage traffic to use Embarcadero to get to Highway 101 rather than continuing south and using Oregon or cutting off on University Avenue. Dennis and Ashok and Carl can comment with more expertise than I can on this. Let me just indicate that when we have talked about it, the 1998 and 2010 traffic calculations assume that - all of the traffic that wants to go out Embarcadero is backed up in that 11/29/95-25- single or double left-turn lane and does make that movement. So the traffic, in terms of what you have in the EIR, is out on Embarcadero already. But there certainly has been a sense in the past that putting that movement there will encourage people to use Embarcadero. When we have talked about it, another factor that has come to mind is that traffic certainly has difficulty right now going down to Oregon. If you want to get to Highway 101 from that general area, you are probably much better off right now using Embarcadero, even if you have to back up and wait at Embarcadero, than to try and cut through down town and work your way out along University Avenue or some street through the residential area, or to go farther south to Churchill. You can do that, but we think that those movements probably take longer than going along Embarcadero. Mr. Aqqarwal: If I may add to what Ken said, the traffic model actually predicts the total traffic demand at all intersections. For example, in this case, the traffic model is predicting a certain amount of volume, a left-turning volume at the intersection of El Camino and.Embarcadero Road. Whether we have one lane of traffic or we have two lanes, the same amount of traffic is going to make that left turn and finish up on Embarcadero Road. Then the question arises, why do we want two turn lanes instead of one? The reason CaITrans is likely to request two traffic lanes is for a very simple reason. There is a threshold for a single left-turn pocket, which is around 300 left-turning vehicles per hour. In this case, the left-turning vehicles go up from a base of 267 in 1998 to 527 in 1998 with the .project. So basically, there is a need for two left-turning pockets. We could accommodate that traffic in a single lane, but you basically need two seconds of green light time to process one vehicle. If we were to process all of the 527 vehicles within one hour, we are talking about over 1,000 seconds out of one hour just to process this traffic, and would result in a tremendous backup from the left-turn pocket into the through lanes. The whole operation of that southbound approach would be muddled up. That is the reason for two left-turn lanes. By providing two left-turn lanes, you will not use as much green light time as would otherwise be needed, thereby not causing as many operational problems, area, or to go farther south to Churchill. You can do that, but we think that those movements probably take longer than going along Embarcadero. MK... Aqqarwal: If I may add to what Ken said, the traffic model actually predicts the total traffic demand at all intersections. For example, in this case, the traffic model is predicting a certain amount of volume, a left-turning volume at the intersection of El Camino and Embarcadero Road. Whether we have one lane of traffic or we have two lanes, the same amount of traffic is going to make that left turn and finish up on Embarcadero Road. Then the question arises, why do we want two turn lanes instead of one? The reason CaITrans is likely to request two traffic lanes is for a very simple reason. There is a threshold for a single left-turn pocket, which is around 300 left-turning vehicles per hour. In this case, the left-turning vehicles go up froma base of 267 in 1998 to 527 in 1998 with the project. So basically, there is a need for two left-turning pockets. We could accommodate that traffic in a single lane, but you basically need two seconds of green light time to process one vehicle. If we were to process all of the 527 vehicles within one hour, we are talking about over 1,000 seconds out of one hour just to process this traffic, and would result in a tremendous backup from the left-turn 11/29/95 -26- pocket into the through lanes. The whole operation of that southbound approach would be muddled up. That is the reason for two left-turn lanes. By providing two left-turn lanes, you will not use as much green light time as would otherwise be needed, thereby not causing as many operational problems. In terms of net effect on Embarcadero Road, it would remain the same. Those 527 vehicles will still turn, whether we have one lane of traffic or two lanes of traffic. Commissioner Carrasco: Ashok, it would seem to me that if you have only one left-turn lane, you would decrease the number of cars that would turn left, because people would find other ways, given that people only have a certain time budget in which to travel. Most people do not want to travel more than 25 minutes, on average, in their daily commute. Given that, if you increase it by two or three minutes, there will be fewer people who will use that route. If El Camino were only two lanes, you would have less traffic on El Camino than if you had six lanes. Isn’t that a fact? Isn’t volume of traffic dependent upon road capacity? Mr. Aqqarwal: If there were reasonable and adequate alternate routes available, that is probably true. But the three alternate routes are University Avenue, or go to Churchill and then take Alma, or go to the Oregon Expressway. If you compare these three, they are not as attractive as Embarcadero Road. Embarcadero/El Camino is the closest intersection. To go all the way to Oregon Expressway, people will be travelling through a whole bunch of traffic signals at Embarcadero, Churchill, Park, Stanford, Cambridge, California, etc. So that is not viable, and not many people would take that route. Churchill is not a direct route either, because you have to then go on Alma. Alma/Churchill is an intersection that is not operating at a very good level of service. Similarly, to go to University Avenue, you have to go through the downtown, which also has a whole bunch of signals, and the University Avenue corridor is congested. What the model does is to take the shortest, fastest routes and send the traffic that way. I do not know how much detail the model goes into, but we just know from our own knowledge how some of the other routes are and why certain people may not do certain other things. Commissioner Carrasco: Does it always assume that the volume is constant and does not change? If El Camino were two lanes, the volume would be far less than if it were six lanes. People would not shop, say, at Stanford Shopping Center and the land use would change to a different location. What I am saying is kind of a traffic calming method that says, if you don’t increase lanes, you won’t get the traffic, and the volume will decrease because you don’t provide the road space. Is that unreasonable? Mr. Aqqarwal: Generally, that is correct, and generally that is reasonable, if there are other adequate, reasonable routes parallel to the facility. Chairman Beecham: I think what Tony is saying is, in addition to using other routes, he is saying that people simply won’t go to that location. They will change their land use requirements. Mr. Schreiber: I believe the situation we have here is, no matter what the level of service is at Embarcadero, I don’t believe it would change the number of patients at the medical clinic. It would not change the 11/29/95 -27- number of employees. In the grand scheme of things, that increased delay, while an intersection-specific notable problem in terms of the total commute, in terms of the total movement of traffic up and down El Camino or over to Highway 101 or wherever, is just one piece of a much larger pattern.. The aggravation at Embarcadero/El Camino would not be so great as to discourage people from making those longer trips. They would not shift to go to the Sunnyvale Medical Clinic or Redwood City. It is not as .though you were talking about miles of backup and hours of delay. Chairman Beecham: In terms of traffic out of the medical foundation,’if their site is on El Camino versus where it is now, there are maps on Page IV.B-50 and 51 that indicate where the traffic goes. For these purposes, the draft EIR indicates that in both cases for the existing site and the El Camino site, 20 percent of the medical foundation traffic goes on Embarcadero. The assumption here is that regardless of whether they get on it through Waverley or Bryant from the current location or a turn at El Camino, they wind up going down Embarcadero. So the DEIR assumes that traffic on Embarcadero will not change, in either case, from what it is today. Mr. Schreiber: Your fundamental point is extremely important. The traffic for most of Embarcadero is the same whether or not the foundation is located where it currently is or if it is located on El Camino. The fact that would change that is that if the new facility, or a renovated and expanded existing facility (which is possible under the Specific Plan and Development Agreement) generates more traffic. So you may have more traffic than you now have in 1995, but the fundamental conclusion is that if the foundation expands at their existing site or whether they relocate and expand on the El Camino site, Embarcadero traffic is essentially going to be pretty similar in either case. There may be some minor changes, but I don’t think there are going to be radical changes. The one addition to that is, what happens to traffic that is generated by the reuse of the existing medical foundation facility. The EIR assumes what we felt would be a reasonable maximum residential density of RM-30 on all land, for a total of 282 units. I think the reality is probably going to be less density than that. Residential units will generate less traffic per acre and less peak hour traffic than either a medical use or other types of nonresidential use. So the amount of traffic added by the residential use on the existing site, while not unnoticeable, will certainly not be a drastic increase. We are not going to be talking about a dramatic increase in the number of residential units when you look at the overall areas on either side of Embarcadero from Alma out to Highway 101. The percentage of change will be really quite small. Chairman Beecham: Getting back to another of Tony’s comments where he is wondering about having improved left turns that would lead people using other services to use that intersection and go along Embarcadero. If the medical foundation moves and a second left-turn lane goes in, and we reach these numbers of left turns, will the level of service be about what it is today? I do not recall the numbers in the report. The reason I am asking that is, if they stay at about what they are today, then it is neither an incentive or a disincentive for additional people to use that intersection. Mr. Aqqarwal: That is correct. The existing level of service at 11/29/95 -28- Embarcadero and El Camino is Level D. With improvements, the level of service will be Minus-D. So it will go down slightly, but not much. Mr. Schreiber: To add another thought here, in the larger scheme of things, what we are indicating is that the impact of a double left-turn lane from southbound El Camino to Embarcadero is not going to have a noticeable effect on traffic on Embarcadero. I don’t want to understate the potential safety and congestion problems at Embarcadero and El Camino. Certainly what we heard now in two discussions with CalTrans staff is a very high level of concern about the functioning of that intersection, a concern that with an overloaded, single left-turn lane, what you are going to get is traffic not clearing during th~ green cycle, and at peak times, backing up into the southbound through lane. They see that as having a safety impact, a congestion impact, a functioning impact that is certainly of great concern to them. That is one reason why I wanted to highlight this issue, since CalTrans has to approve the driveway signalized entrance for the medical foundation at the proposed location. They have more than just commentary interest in this. They have the ability to say, yes, we will approve it, subject to these conditions. If you don’t like the conditions, we won’t approve it, because it is their road, and we do not have the right to put a signal in there without their approval. If they think it is not a safe, effective situation, they have the leverage to require mitigations and require changes that make them comfortable to the point that they will sign the legal documents authorizing the intersection. Mr. Struecker: If I could add something to that which I do not believe has been said yet, Ashok gave us figures of about 250 existing trips today, and we are going to go over 500, with the threshold being 300 for when you want to go to a double left-turn lane. If we were going slightly over 300, maybe that diversion would occur, or maybe they would find another route to take. But we are going so much further over the threshold that that demand will still be there, whether there is one lane or two. I think that is one of the key points -- the extent that we are going over the established threshold of 300 vehicles. Chairman Beecham: Is that 500 figure you mentioned for 1998 or 2010? Mr. Aqqarwal: That is for 1998. Chairman Beecham: How much of that portion, if any, is due to the Sand Hill Road inclusion that you have in here? Mr. Aqgarwal: Th& Sand Hill extension will not be built in 1998. That comes in by 2010. Mr. Schreiber: In the traffic analysis 1998 base or the 1990 base plus project does not include the Sand Hill extension. The Sand Hill extension is only included in the 2010 numbers. Even if the Sand Hill extension moves through the city process this next year, is approved and moves ahead, it still will not be implemented by the time the medical foundation is anticipated to be occupied. That is the basis for the 1998 calculation. Commissioner Schmidt: Does that number project cars that are just turning 11/29/95 -29- onto Embarcadero, or does it include projections for cars that make U-turns and go back to the medical foundation? That is one of our premises that traffic coming from some circuitous route is going to make U-turns and go back. Mr. Struecker: The U-turns that currently occur today are included in there. There really is no added projection for additional U-turns. There should not really be any for the medical foundation, because they can turn at their entrance. Commissioner Schmidt: Do we ha~e people coming from the extended on-ramp from Palm Drive having to go down to that intersection and make a U-turn? Mr. Struecker: They would have two choices. The traffic coming from the ramp would either be traffic that comes through Stanford or traffic that comes through downtown. The traffic that comes through downtown can use Urban Lane, and the traffic that comes through Stanford, I think as they learn and become repeat patients, will come down Arboretum and use Galvez, making a left turn there. The minor movements of a U-turn, although I agree they use up a lot more time than any other movement through an intersection, it would be hard to put a number on to quantify it exactly. "Mr. Schreiber: If I can follow up on that, the period we are talking about is the afternoon peak hour, which is dominated by employee traffic rather than patient traffic. That is why Dennis indicated that traffic wanting to go northbound on El Camino has easy options to do that via the main entrance and a right turn. There is no reason for a U-turn. There may be a few U-turns made, but probably very few. Commissioner Schmidt: Is there any concern about the double lane turning left onto Embarcadero where very quickly, Embarcadero narrows down to one lane in each direction? There is Town and Country traffic also entering in a fairly compact area. Mr. Aqqarwal: They actually have that now. When traffic leaves Stanford, there are two lanes of traffic coming across, so the two left-turn pockets will not make any difference. Commissioner Schmidt: You feel the quantities are not going to make any difference? Mr. Aqqarwal : No. Commissioner Eakins: Do we have any maps or diagrams of these roads that we are talking about that we could see on the overhead? (No) Mr. Struecker: It is in the packet. Commissioner Eakins: But not~everybody can see those. Mr. Struecker: We will have them for you next Wednesday. Commissioner Eakins: Ken, did I hear you say that if there are two left-turn lanes from southbound El Camino onto Embarcadero, that will not necessarily increase traffic on Embarcadero? It would just clear the intersection in a safer manner? I am also thinking about the 11/29~95 -30- non-signalized left turn into Town and Country Village. I assume that stays? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, the non-signalized left turn remains, and the traffic model has already assumed that all of the traffic that wants to go out on Embarcadero will be doing it, whether or not there is one left-turn lane or two. All of that traffic is already dumped onto Embarcadero by the model. Commissioner Eakins: Do we have any choice about where the second left-turn comes from? I hear you saying that CalTrans is going to say, do it our way. Will the road have to be widened? Mr. Schreiber: There is sufficient right-of-way, we believe. Commissioner Eakins: Curb to curb? It does not have to be made any bigger, because it is already pretty vast? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, it can fit, and Dennis can give you more detail on that. Mr. Struecker: Yes, you are right, it fits in the curb-to-curb width. We have moved the center median a little bit, and it fits. Commissioner Cassel: How much staggering of starting and stopping time for employees does the Palo Alto Medical Foundation have? It would seem like they could have quite a bit. Mr. Jury: We will have operating hours from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. for most of our facilities, and until 10 p.m. for Urgent Care. So we will have employees starting in the morning at 6:30 a.m, and we will have people reporting for work all the way through until close to 10 a.m. They will work an 8-hour shift with departures starting at 4 p.m. and generally clearing out by 7 or 7:30 p.m. for most of the employees. Commissioner Cassel: You have a fair number of administrative staff. Can those employees be staggered somewhat? Mr. Jury: Yes, and they currently are. We have a lot of flex time. Commissi.oner Cassel: Were those numbers considered in these models? This kind of clinic facility will have much more flex time than a standard office building. Mr. Struecker: We thought long and hard about that, and we went with what I call a more conservative approach, a more traditional type analysis, so that we did not underestimate what the peak impacts could be. We went with a typical medical clinic operation. Commissioner Cassel: Do you have models for a typical medical clinic operation versus an office building? Mr. Struecker: Right. Trip generation is gathered nationally for various land uses from residential through industrial office, medical office, government office. The actual document is probably three inches thick, 1,500 pages. 11/29/95 -31- Mr. Schreiber: I think there are probably two ways in which the traffic work and the EIR uses what is generally called a "reasonable worst case projection" which is what you are supposed to do in an environmental impact report. One is that the traffic numbers probably do not reflect as much spreading of employee arrivals and departures as is likely to be the case. Dennis just indicated that. The second is that the EIR does use higher trip generations and higher employment levels than the medical foundation staff felt comfortable with, or certainly felt were defendable. Their indications were that they do not see a dramatic increase in patient visits or employment on this site. Using satellite offices will absorb many more of the increases in medical foundation activity than the main site, however, we have used higher numbers than they indicated, based on increased square footage, again to try and generate a reasonable worst case. As Ashok indicated regarding the double left-turn lane, if we were going from 270 left-turn trips in the peak hour to 325 or 330, I think CalTrans would be quite comfortable with saying, "We will monitor it and see if it really happens. If it does, we will deal with it." But with the traffic model indicating-that the number is going to go from the 270 realm to over 500 trips, even if we are 25 percent high in the reasonable worst case, we are still going to be well over the 300. That is what we heard last Monday in terms of its being a significant part of their concern that we will go way past the 300 figure. That is why I indicated that we will be seeing something fairly strongly worded from CalTrans when their letter arrives. Commissioner Cassel: Where the additional traffic is going to be will be on Embarcadero between El Camino and Middlefield, which prior to that would have gone down Middlefield or one of the other roads and then out. Now you are going to have traffic where you did not have traffic previously from this site in that one additional segment, correct? You are saying that you are not really increasing the traffic from Middlefield out, but you are increasing the traffic from El Camino to Middlefield. Mr. Struecker: That is correct. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question about not putting in that second turn lane. I cannot figure out how much traffic is going to occur on Urban Lane. I am imaging a scenario (and please correct me if I am wrong because this is off the top of my head) of people exiting on Urban Lane and going to the University Avenue intersection and making a right on Alma, then a left onto Embarcadero? I cannot see the number of people who might do that as compared with going out of the main driveway, making a left onto El Camino and then another left onto Embarcadero. It would seem to be more difficult to do that than to take Urban Lane to Alma and then make a left onto Embarcadero.at that point. It would seem that if we could get a number there that said half of those extra 250 people would do it, or if one-quarter of those extra 250 people did that, then maybe we would not need that extra lane. Mr. Stoffel: I do not have a number right now tonight, but we could give you our best estimate of that next Wednesday. 11/29/95 -32- Chairman Beecham: I think what you are hearing from us is that we were walked through some rationales as to why the traffic on Embarcadero will not get worse than it is now. Also on Page IV.B-52 on your table, you show the traffic at the Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection as staying the same, basically, and this condition will occur in 1998. But for some reason, we all seem to have trouble believing-it. So if you can provide additional rationale and explanations as to why you do not believe there will be additional traffic generated, and how that really does work, it would be valuable for us, as well as for the EIR. Mr. Heisler: If I might add, Com6issioner Cassel just pointed out that the increase as stated on Page IV.B-55, the project would result in an 11 percent increase in volume on Embarcadero in the segment between El Camino and Middlefield. Using El Camino as a north-south route for purposes of identification, as we did in the EIR document, this section of Embarcadero that is then east of Middlefield would see only a 3 percent increase in volume. That is precisely because people who are currently going to the medical foundation and peel off now at Waverley, or what have you, would come all the way up to El Camino. So we do report an increase on that portion of Embarcadero. Mr. Stoffel: Going back to the Alma and Urban Lane point raised, I think you mentioned using University Circle as a way to get to Alma. Urban Lane is a good way to get to University and then get out on University east or west, but not to get to Alma, necessarily. There are some fairly difficult turns to be made there, such as a stop sign and long waits, etc. It is not a particularly good interchange for getting onto Alma in all directions from the Urban Lane circle. Commissioner Carrasco: May I then modify the question to include other intersections than Alma, such as Waverley? If you take Urban Lane and you are trying to get to Embarcadero, there may be other roadways you could take, other than Alma, now that I have heard Carl’s comment. Mr. Stoffel: Don’t forget that Embarcadero angles. If you head east on University Avenue, you are getting farther and farther away from Embarcadero, so you are causing yourself to take a longer route than if you just started on Embarcadero at El Camino. Mr. Struecker: We would like to come back with specifics on that information. What we did was to assign traffic, in terms of employees and patients separately, because they tend to park in separate areas. So if there is an employee coming from the back of the site from Urban Lane who wanted to go to Embarcadero, they very well may come across through University/Palm and come down the ramp, then be able to make the left turn, rather than going through town. For the patients coming out, they can exit at the front entrance. We can provide some diagrams for you. Commissioner Carrasco: And the employee traffic would be at the peak hour traffic that we are looking at? Mr. Struecker: It is the highest portion of the peak traffic, but there are also patients in that mix. Commissioner Cassel: One other factor which I am sure you cannot put in the model is that when people come downtown to visit the medical clinic, 11/29/95 -33- they also go other places. Where it is now located, they leave that site and go back down Bryant Street, go over to Town and Country Village, go to California Avenue, things of that sort, so you are already going through those intersections. But if you come straight to the new clinic site, it is fairly easy to access California Avenue and Town and Country Village. It is awkward to get to any other place from its current site, so there is a lot of going around to do that. That is a frequent thing that I notice. I go through all of those intersections probably every time I go to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and almost every time, I go to El Camino for one thing or another. I wonder how many of the patients using the services do that. Commissioner Eakins: Could we have some substantiation of the frequency of vehicles going to Highway 101 from the proposed site, mostly by employees, I think, because that comprises most of the peak hour traffic. This assumes that most people want to get to Highway 101, and I would like to have some reassurance that that is really so, if we will have to factor that into a decision. Mr. Struecker: Yes, we can provide that. Commissioner Schmidt: On Page IV.B-81, where we show the El Camino/Embarcadero intersection, we are showing an existing break in the median strip where people could turn in or out of Town and Country Village, right or left and across El Camino. Is it intended to retain that capability? Mr. Struecker: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: I am concerned with additional traffic going both up Embarcadero and along El Camino there making left turns in and out of Town and Country Village. On both sides, it is going to be messy and complicated. It often backs up in both directions with traffic now. I would want to know that we have looked at that well enough to think that it still works, or whether we need to have a right-turn only or something of that nature coming out of Town and Country Village. Chairman Beecham: To follow up on that, right now as people turn left from Town and Country Village onto El Camino going southbound, as the light stops at the Embarcadero intersection, you have some clearance there. Now you will have a new light a bit north. Is that new light going to queue back up and block that exit, which is what I think Kathy was thinking about, too? I am wondering how much it would block it up. Mr. Struecker: I do not think it will, but we can tell you what the queue distance would be. Mr. Stoffel: Also, the new light will create a new gap in the southbound direction that may not be there now, because there is no signal for quite a ways to the north. So the new signal will stop people heading south, and it would help people getting out of Town and Country Village for that side of the street. That may offset something else. Chairman Beecham: yet? I take it that that has not necessarily been analyze~ 11/29/95 -34- Mr. Struecker: In terms of the queue lane northbound? Chairman Beecham: Or just the ability to turn southbound. Mr. Struecker: What Carl said is true. There are not a lot of cars that will want to do that. A single left-turn lane would, in effect, take away at least the left turn out during quite a bit of the peak hour. What you have is a queue length that extends back through that location, and in a sense, you have cars that would be queued across that opening. Mr. Stoffel: The answer to your question is that we have not looked at the Town and Country Village left turn in and out in much detail in terms of how it might be affected, other than the fact that it will still be there. Mr. Aqqarwal: Actually, the double left-turn pockets on El Camino at Embarcadero Road and the new signal at the medical foundation site will both help the left turn out of the Town and Country Village for three reasons. One is that the new traffic signal will provide gaps in the southbound direction. Two, if we did not have the two left-turn pockets and we only had one, that queue will build up much longer, and we will not have the right storage capacity. With two left-turn pockets, we will have the right storage capacity, and therefore, the left-turn pocket itself would not queue up back to the Town and Country Village driveway. Three, if for some reason, council decided to not go along with CalTrans, if CalTrans comes back andrequires us to provide two left-turn pockets, then another solution that CalTrans would like to proceed with at some time is to lengthen the left-turn pocket. The reason for that would be to keep the left-turning traffic out of the through traffic and not create safety problems. That will force the issue of closing the left turn out of the Town and Country Village driveway, as well as the left turn in from southbound El Camino. So those are three good reasons why I believe the two left-turn pockets will be helpful, as well as the signal. Commissioner Cassel: The veterinarian this evening raised the question of parking. For next week, can you have talked to him about how much parking he needs? .Obviously, they had two streets that they parked on, and if that road is vacated, he will-have less. Can you find out what his needs are and what mitigations can be made to meet those needs? - Mr. Schreiber: Yes, we will certainly follow up on that. Chairman Beecham: I have a final comment on the two maps on Page IV.B-50 and 51, the maps showing the destinations by percent of people coming out of the existing and the proposed site. I understand from the text that these destinations are based on zip codes that people give on where they are heading, not taking necessarily into account tome of the questions that Tony and others had about how people may use different routes locally to their destination. My guess is that people will change how they go. If I am downtown and am close to University Avenue, I will take it. If I am not close to University Avenue, but Embarcadero Road now ~becomes closer, I will change my route to get to Highway 101. I would like to see a bit more of an assessment to verify that these proportions do not significantly change from what is currently being assumed. I would have the same comment for going southbound on El Camino. You show 11/29/95 -35- 6 percent going past the Page Mill Road intersection and 4 percent on Alma. I think that if people are already on El Camino, they may stay on El Camino, as opposed to getting onto Alma, which may be what they currently do, or vice versa. So I think that number may not be the same in both cases. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question regarding why we chose the location for that traffic signal. Why is the entry into PAMF at that location? Why couldn’t it be at Encina or farther south? Mr. Schreiber: I believe the site planning needs and desires are the initial driving force in terms of where that was located. Mr. Jury: That is correct. We really had a very strong desire to have an entrance from El Camino Real instead of from Encina. We only have a 50-foot-wide block on Encina half-way down the street. We felt that with a turn signal on Encina, we would really need to establish our main entrance on Encina, as well, rather than requiring people to make a U-turn and come back to the front of the foundation. A lot of it became a matter of a statement we wanted to make. We really wanted to have that presence and the ability for people to come in and go out directly so that when they get to this signal, they can see where they are going. They know that they are either coming in or going out at that signal. They are coming into the medical foundation proper, rather than making a U-turn or going down Encina to an entrance farther down the street. When they are leaving the property, it seemed a lot better for them to emerge from our parking and have direct access to El Camino to leave. Mr. Schreiber: I would refer to my opening comments regarding the initial site planning work and the April 20th preliminary ARB review. That site plan had the entrance closer to Encina. The problem that we ran into in that situation was the weaving distance from the southbound Palm Drive on-ramp to El Camino, with cars trying to get across El Camino to turn left into the medical foundation. That weaving movement clearly would have been a significant environmental impact, and certainly a very significant safety problem. The solution to that has been two-fold. One is to push the entrance as far north on El Camino as you can get it, as close to the point where the ramp from Palm Drive enters El Camino. Second is to extend the ramp down and provide a barrier so that if this all goes ahead, and you are on Palm Drive or University Avenue and you want to go southbound on El Camino, you would go down that existing ramp. It will be narrower, extend somewhat farther, and have a barrier so that you cannot get onto El Camino until you get to the intersection. Then, with the signal, you will have a separate phase for entering El Camino Real. So if you are on the ramp southbound when you get the green signal, (I) you will be Unable to make a left-hand turn because you Gill have three lanes of traffic immediately to your left as you are sitting there waiting for the light to change, and (2) you will have a separate phase so that when you are going, other traffic is not moving. That allows you to get out there and weave over, do a left turn at either unsignalized Town and Country Village or at Embarcadero/El Camino. To avoid people trying to make that weaving route and get into that main entrance, the intersection was pushed back up El Camino as far as possible, and the 11/29/95 -36- on-ramp was extended as far down as possible to not only discourage people but also to make it all but physically impossible to do that movement. Commissioner Carrasco: Ken, would they still be able to make a left on Encina in the configuration that you are talking about now? Mr. Schreiber: Encina is right in, right out. You would have to go down to that unsignalized Town and Country entry at Stickney’s. Chairman Beecham: Regarding the_southbound ramp off Palm Drive, on Page IV.B-58, you talk about the weaving issue as people try to go from the southbound ramp and attempt to turn left at Town and Country Village. You indicate that it would be difficult if, at the medical foundation light, they had simultaneous green signals I presume for both the on-ramp, as well as for southbound El Camino. So you say you can take care of that. I wondered what you mean by "taking care of it." Do you mean that one has a red light while the other has a green while they are also getting a turn from the medical foundation southbound? Mr. Struecker: The phasing, which we went over with CalTrans, would be that the ramp traffic would go in conjunction with the northbound El Camino traffic. So you would have four phases through the intersection. One phase would be the ramp traffic and northbound El Camino traffic. Then the ramp traffic would stop, and southbound El Camino traffic would go with the northbound El Camino traffic. Then the northbound traffic would stop, and southbound traffic would continue to go, and you would have the left in from El Camino. Then everything would stop except for outbound from the project site. There would be various overlaps of those things, depending upon volume. The north and south versus the southbound left turn would have adjustments made, based on volume. Chairman Beecham: Thank you. Also a small question on the same page on your mitigation measure. In the last line, you talk about the use of "programmed visibility signal heads." Is that a stop light or something else? Mr. Struecker: Actually, CalTrans has overruled that. They want to go with the louvers. The angle between the ramp and southbound through traffic is so close that it would be confusing to the driver unless it is set up exactly right as to which signal is his. You would not want the southbound traffic to think they were supposed to go when you really wanted the ramp traffic to go. The programmed visibility signals are the ones that are very directional, but CalTrans wants signal heads with the metal louvers. Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to better understand how the decision gets made as to whether or not Urban Lane can go through to the circle and actually become the throughway that we would like it to be. Mr. Schreiber: The decision on implementing that extension is a combination decision. The parking lot is operated by the Joint Powers Board. The land I believe is technically owned by the Joint Powers Board, but Stanford is a party of interest. When you go all the way back to the early days of Stanford’s granting land for a variety of transportation uses, they were able, at times, to either grant an easement or grant fee title, but there were stipulations in the grants that caused the reversion 11/29/95 -37- of that land to Stanford if it was not used for the proposed and agreed-upon transportation purposes. So there is a question between Stanford and the Joint Powers Board as to whether the land would revert to Stanford if the center of the parking lot were used as a public roadway. That is an issue on which I am not qualified to give you a firm opinion as to who is going to end up with what there. Suffice it to say that we have the Joint Powers Board as a very direct party of interest because it is their parking lot. We have Stanford as a very interested party because of their potential reversion ownership of that situation. You have the City of Palo Alto having a significant interest there in terms of its being a proposed public right-of-way. The process that has gone on thus far has been a Stanford/Joint Powers Board/City of Palo Alto/Palo Alto Medical Foundation joint working committee to work on design issues and also to work on the overall implementation of this. Clearly, from the standpoint of the Joint Powers Board, it is a significant policy issue in terms of giving up something that they have now. We heard the presentation earlier this evening from their representative, expressing very significant concerns about the loss of parking. Staff shares those concerns. There are five alternatives in Appendix F on ways of doing the road extension. The one that is recommended results in the least loss of parking. You can lose a lot more parking with the other alternatives. We have not recommended those and would not want to see them pursued. What must happen, assuming all of this is going ahead in a positive manner, is that the Joint Powers Board, Stanford, the medical foundation and the city are going to have to come to an agreement regarding approval of a roadway and who ends up with maintenance responsibility, who ends up with ownership responsibility, and who gets some money, probably, for what land interests change hands in all of this. The mitigation measure that is proposed is that the medical foundation incurs the cost of the extension. I have personally talked to Stanford staff and have encouraged them to not only cooperate, but have also suggested to them that it is in the interest of the university, as well as the interest of the general public, to not only have this extension but to have it in a way that does not unduly hit the foundation financially. What I am trying to do is to encourage Stanford not to come up with a land value and then pass that along to the foundation. Eventually, that will be an issue between the foundation and Stanford, with the Joint Powers Board probably in the discussions. That whole arrangement needs to be worked out, assuming the project goes ahead, in the reasonably near future. One of the conditions that you will see in the packet on Friday in terms of the use permit, as well as the subdivision, will require that there be a signed agreement approved by the responsible parties, whether that be the Stanford Board of Trustees or the Joint Powers Board of Directors and other bodies, regarding the future of that roadway before there would be any excavation, grading or building permits. If that roadway is not possible, we have a very major problem in terms of this site plan and this project. The medical foundation has been very aware of this for a long time. They have been made very aware in discussions that obtaining that access is a very critical factor for making this whole thing work. Without it, we are looking at a different distribution of traffic; we are looking at internal circulation problems; we are probably looking at some type of substantial revisions to the site 11/29/95 -38- pl an. Commissioner Schmidt: Is there any sort of consideration, looking at the proposals that were made for the Dream Team in that area, for possible changes to the underpass, etc., and how the connection would work, or is that just rusting away on the shelf? Mr. Schreiber: No, there are at least three ways that the Dream Team work in this area has been quite important in terms of the site planning and discussions on this project. The first is that the Dream Team effort identified the need for and value of a connection between University Circle and Encina, and eventually, to Town and Country Village. That was a major factor in city staff actively working with the foundation to obtain a north-south connector road. In the Dream Team process, that north-south connector road was described as not Serving as a major road and not serving as a short cut bypass for El Camino Real, but to serve the properties in that area and facilitate the movement of traffic into and out of that area by people who really want to do that. We think that the road, as proposed, will do that and will achieve those purposes. That is a very important contribution of this project to the overall public street network and to the flow of traffic within that area. Second is that the initial Dream Team proposal was to lower the railroad lines and really reconfigure that whole area. Subsequent work indicated that it was not technically or physically feasible to do that. So we are not looking at lowering the railroad line. If the Dream Team proposals are ever fully implemented, there may well be changes in the Joint Powers Board parking area, but the proposals that are part of this right now, such as the Urban Lane extension, are essentially using existing paved area and modifying it, ~but it is not putting in an extremely expensive, elaborate physical solution there. It is something that, if it did have to be changed at some point in the future, it is quite changeable. We are not talking about structures or anything like that, so this would be compatible with future implementation of a Dream Team concept. Third is the issue of the underpass from the Alma side to this area. That came out of the Dream Team discussions very directly. It has been extensively analyzed in this process. The environmental impact team included engineering expertise that expended considerable effort trying to find a way to make it work. There is a way to make it work. As I indicated in my opening comments, it can be done, although it is physically somewhat difficult. It is certainly very expensive, so we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that that tunnel, while we still feel it is a very good idea, is not achievable within this process. So the best we feel we can do at this point in time is to make sure there is an arrival or landing point for that tunnel on the medical foundation side of the tracks, that their site plan would not preclude it, and to work into the use permit and perhaps other approvals a condition that would commit the foundation to working with the city, facilitating and helping, not in a financial sense, but in a site planning modification sense, with any future effort to install that tunnel if someone can come up with the several million dollars that it will take to do it. Commissioner Schmidt: I was assuming that the connector road across the back and the other things you mentioned were ideas from the Dream Team effort. I was primarily concerned whether we would be able to connect at 11/29/95 -39- the circle. I was very happy to see those things incorporated in there. Chairman Beecham: Since it is 10:40 p.m., I would like to finish up with Transportation tonight, and continue the rest for next week. Mr. Schreiber: Staff would strongly encourage the commission to give us questions and issues on other parts of the EIR where you feel you need some response from us for next week so that we can have the right people here to address those issues. Commissioner Eakins: I have questions relating to the trees and shrubbery. I noticed that most of them were evergreens. I didn’t know why. In my opinion, an all-evergreen landscape plan can be gloomy. So I was interested in having a look at that. Mr. Borock raised the question of the replacement rate. I noticed that the trees that would be taken out are not exactly highly desirable trees, but I still think that that rationale needs to be explained. With respect to the grading, I am not at all comfortable that I have a sense of how it is going to look and feel around the site, whether you are driving in a car on El Camino or you are in Dr. Weigel’s building, or you are on Encina. I am just not sure how this raised pad with these big buildings is going to feel, moving around it. Once you are on this big plateau, it may be fine, but next to it and around it, I would like to have a sense of what it is going to feel like. The model is very instructive, but I was trying to think about how small an object you would have to have to represent a human being in relation to the grade level changes there. I didn’t think I could see that, so I would like something that had a scale showing what it is like for a person around that grade. I am very concerned about what I saw in the diagrams of the sample modules of the interiors. I understand these are called thick buildings, when the windows from one are not visible from the interior. So many employees are going to be working only in artificial light..I am concerned that people are not going to like working there. So if that could be addressed, as well. I have questions about why it has to be so big. To be blunt, why is the project so ambitious in thi.s age of declining and highly competitive medical facilities? Is such expansion really needed when across El Camino, there is more expansion being talked about, and whether there is duplication? I know there is all this talk of cooperation, but I am concerned about overbuilding with duplication. I would like to have all of that explained. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: -I have a question about the drop-off areas at the front of the building and at the back, and whether or not there is space for a person to pull up, take out someone who needs assistance, leave that person on the edge and then go and park the car. How is that going to work for people? That is the problem at the present time. You are dropping in the middle of a driveway. I know there is van space underneath to come in. I also have questions about recycling and how that is being planned for the site. This type of a site uses a great deal of materials. How are the hazardous waste materials.going to be handled? Also, what is being 11/29/95 -40- done to encourage recycling within the facility to help out our garbage problems? Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question about public access and how it works. Is it really a public street or a public easement or what? I would obviously prefer that it be a public street. In my conversations with David Jury, he assures me that it will be open to the public at al~ times. That is one question relating to all of the alleys and driveways, etc. Let me step back and give you the context of that question. During the Comprehensive Plan committee meetings and deliberations, we heard a whole lot about urbanism and streets that connect the cityscape to new projects and that these new buildings that front on streets fit in with the existing urban fabric. I am wondering.whether some of these alleys that are created on the south side do, in fact, touch the existing buildings and existing land uses in adequate ways. Regarding the veterinary hospital, for instance, I want to look at much more detail around it as to how that sidewalk works and how close it comes to the buildings and sections there so that there is adequate space for street trees, etc., so that those streets really look like streets. On what seems to be an alley side, which appears to be raised up by means of a retaining wall, I am also concerned that that alley feel like a reasonably well landscaped mini-street. It seems to be functioning as such. I would like to see the cross-section on that alley to see if there is enough room for some substantial trees that might mask that 400-foot elevation which is 50 feet high and quite long. Commissioner Schmidt: My primary concern right now is the circulation within the site. You mentioned in the staff report that it is circuitous. I find that it is indeed circuitous and confusing. I want to better understand how the many first-time people coming to the site will be able to get in the entry, drop people off, weave across possibly and go down into the parking garage from the front or know where they are supposed to go, whether they should go to the back. As they drive to the back, they might be crossing paths with the service vehicles coming to the service site behind Building A or going over to the service drive, or they might run into trucks unloading at the current warehouses on Wells Avenue. There is traffic coming in from many, many directions and coming in and out of various parking lots. It just seems that the circulation is fraught with potential accident situations and just plain difficulties. I would like to have a better explanation of how it might work. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question somewhat related to what Kathy just brought up. I would like to understand more from the architect why the site plans work in this way. Why, for instance, did we choose an overriding front cul-de-sac? Is it an image issue? Is it a functional issue? For instance, could the buildings not be turned around to Wells and that alley that could very well be a street? The buildings would then face out towards the community. This relates to an economic issue that is coming down the road. Around these kinds of land use engines come ancillary uses such as doctors’ offices, etc. There are the ancillary uses that could happen around it, and this campus attitude focuses inward rather than outward towards the community. I would like to know what was the thinking in choosing this model, rather than an outward-facing, community-emphasized model. 11/29/95 -41- Chairman Beecham: My colleagues have had philosophical questions, whereas mine are more specific at this point. On Page III-19, for example, it talks about 65 spaces being reserved for disabled parking. I would like to know if that is the ADA required number, or is it based on an assessment of what the medical foundation truly needs. Based on that, I wondered if there is any flexibility allowed so that neither are we reserving spaces for disabled parking that is not used nor not have enough spaces lined up for disabled people. One Page IV.A-8, at the top, you talk about land use and that one of the relevant policies and programs in the Urban Design Element is to discourage massive, single uses. Then it follows up by saying, let’s talk about that later in Section IV.C, which I find not quite addressing this issue. On Page IV.B-6., you have a nice table on accident rates in the area. wondered if there is a similar table available on injury rates, since I would expect most accidents in these areas are at very slow speed, and probably do not cause many injuries, but I would like to find out if that is accurate. On Page IV.B-15, this is something that was talked about a bit tonight. It talks about the percent of PAMF personnel that do not drive by themselves to the office, that is, they either carpool, walk, bike or use transit. My suspicion is that on the new site, it is not as walkable and not as bikeable as being in the residential area near downtown. I would like to know if you can give a better estimate as to what changes might occur there. My understanding is that PAMF does a better job than required in terms of their parking and meeting their targets, but I suspect things will fall in terms of getting people out of cars when they move to the new site. We talked quite a bit about the traffic light that would go in for the foundation on El Camino. On that light, I believe there is a pedestrian crosswalk. Mr. Schreiber: We could accommodate a crosswalk if it is ever needed in the future, but right now, a crosswalk is not anticipated unless there is some way to get a bus stop there, but that has not thus far been discovered. Chairman Beecham: The map on Page IV.B-34 has a pedestrian crosswalk drawn into it. If that is not accurate, you may want to revise that map. Something else discussed in here is on Page IV.B-37 where you talk about the Urban Lane extension and a 24-foot roadway. I am sure that, in part, that is kept small so that you can do as much parking as possible. You do mention that it will be a slow roadway. I would like to ensure that it is not so slow that it discourages people from using it during peak hours because of people pulling in and out from the perpendicular parking. there. That completes the questions and comments, so for tonight, I will close our discussion of Agenda Item 3. The public hearing is continued on this item until next Wednesday. 11/29/95 -42- AGENDA ITEM 4 ADOPTED PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN: Consideration of First Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s Specific Plan area near downtown Palo Alto. Chairman Beecham: Our only task on this item is to continue it until next Wednesday. AGENDA ITEM 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORYCOMMITTEE. Chairman Beecham: We had discussions on Monday night with the council on Governance. The council took a major portion of it and sent it to the Policies and Services Committee. That committee will meet on December 19th. Mr. Schreiber, do you know when the council address the remaining five goals? Mr. Schreiber: As of this mo~ning, we believe that Community Services will not be taken up until January. We have work to do in that area~ and did not anticipate the council’s taking the action that it did in referring Governance to committee. The only date available is too soon for us to provide information to the council that is needed for that discussion. I believe that the Governance discussion will be taken up by the Policies and Services Committee on Tuesday, December 19th for their first discussion. AGENDA ITEM 6 NEW ISSUES IN PLANNING. Chairman Beecham: We have two new subcommittees that we set up at the retreat. One is the Streamlining Subcommittee comprised of Jon Schink and Tony Carrasco. The other is on FormCode comprised of Tony Carrasco, Kathy Schmidt and Sandy Eakins. I would like to have a report by the two subcommittees regarding your plan of attack on these items at the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM 7 REPORTS ON COUNCIL ACTIONS. None. ADJOURNMENT: The planning commission adjourned at 11 p.m. 11/29/95 -43- Wednesday, December 6, 1995 Special Meeting PLANNING COMMiSSiON MINUTES MEE3’3NGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GONVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 CONTINUED BUSINESS o 795 EL CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. 4 o ° 300 Homer Avenue and Adjacent Properties Included in the Adopted Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan: Amendment of Development Agreement. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. New Issues in Planning. Reports on Council Actions. 45 12/6/95 Page 1 12/6/95 Page 2 The planning commission met in a special meeting on Wednesday, December 6, 1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Beecham presiding. ROLL CALL Present:-Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins and Schmidt Absent:Commissioners Ojakian and Schink Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Consultants Present: Lisa Newman, Newman Planning Associates Anne Moore, Moore Consulting Dennis Struecker, Korve Engineering Karl Heisler, Environmental Science Associates Mr. Schreiber: The two commissioners absent for this item both have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot participate. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Beecham: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. We have one speaker tonight. Irvin Dawid. 3886 La Donna Avenue. Palo Alto: (Passes out a newspaper reprint) On November 10, in The City Voice, there is an article on an action taken by the San Francisco Planning Commission. They approved a Walgeen’s Drug Store, and the way they did it was to impose a set of conditions on its approval, including one which disallows the sale of alcoholic beverages, and one which requires Walgeen’s to pay for Muni Fast Passes for its employees to encourage them to come to work by public transit. I wanted to bring that clipping to your attention. I find that very interesting, very innovative, very progessive, and I am hoping that you will consider doing something similar in the future, suggesting to a developer or to a merchant, etc., that they consider doing the same thing. Also, by giving everyone a fast pass, not only does it help to alleviate the parking issue, but it also helps to eliminate congestion. People might ordinarily have 12/6/95 Page 3 someone drop them off to go to work, but if they have their own fast pass, they do not even need to get that lift to work. So it is not just parking. It is also congestion. That pales, however, in comparison to today’s Peninsula Mercury, Page 1 of the Peninsula section, where there is a picture of an empty parking lot in the City of Palo Alto. It is Parking Lot S. It says, "Palo Alto parkers get a lot more at a price. Free spots converted to Pay by the Hour." There is a picture of a gentleman complaining about having to pay in the new lot, and he states, "I cannot imagine it is paying its way. Look at all of these empty spaces." That is funny, because every time I come here, I also hear counci! members or commissioners or others talking about our parking problem. Alas, it looks like we may really not have a parking problem. I would like you to consider the fact that simply charging for parking really does create a whole new way of looking at the parking issue in this town. Thank you for your time. CONTINUED BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM 795 EL CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Architectural Review Board (AR~) Approval, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. Chairman Beecham: I will reopen the public hearing on this item. Susan Wexler. Co-Chair of the Public Art Commission. 805 Tolman Drive. Stanford. CA: I know-that you all received a copy of our letter from the co-chairs to you about the project, but I wanted to point out a few things again. I want to thank staff for getting the letter to you, and I wanted to point out that we are going to have a meeting next week with some of the members of the project team and also with the-medical foundation. We are really pleased about that. I will just read a few parts of the letter, and I will add some comments. It opens by saying, "As Co-Chairs of the Public Art Commission, we would like to express our interest in seeing art included in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation campus project. Any project of this size, scale and scope should have public art as one of its basic concepts." The letter goes on to point out the various aspects of the project that are very suited for this, such as way-finding signage, sense of place, walls and other blank fa,cades, public plazas and atria. All of these places call out for public art. As you know, we do not have a percent for art in this town, so this is why we get up every time and try to encourage it in projects. 12/6/95 Page 4 On the second page, it states, "It is a lingering myth [I want to really emphasize this] that art is an expensive add-on to an architectural project. This is not necessarily true. When money has already been set aside for various items, such as benches, paving, retaining walls, clock towers, etc., an artist can provide very cost-efffective, increased value to the things the project must have. By the creative use of standard materials, money can be saved that would have gone into more extravagant materials." This has been shown over and over again throughout the country in various projects. "Aside from the cost issues, the value of art in a medical facility cannot be underestimated. Most of the visitors to a medical center range in attitude from mildly apprehensive to completely terrified, anxious, nervous, sick, dying, and worried about themselves or their loved ones. The workers and professionals are continually dealing with life, health, death, the subjects of art. In this atmosphere, art can provide comfort, soothing distraction, inspiration, and a sense of place in a bewildering environment. All of that is another source of healing." It cannot be stressed enough. "So it is our position, as the Public Art Commission, that some requirement for public art be made of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation by the planning commission and/or the architectural review board for this project. We can offer assistance. We will be happy to offer assistance, and we will be beginning that next week." I wanted to point out that now is the time to do this, not later. It is very important not to delay so that the art projects, (and to reiterate, we are not just talking about putting a statue somewhere or hanging a painting on a wall), we are talking about projects that are an integal part of the building which needs to start now, not really any later. We, again, are happy to be of help to anyone on the project team at any time. We would love to- interact with the people and help this to happen. I have passed out Xerox color copies to you, with apologies for the quality. Natalie Wells took these photogaphs of the existing frescoes that are downtown at the present medical foundation building. That is a start. It is wonderful to think that back in the 1930s, they felt that yes, indeed, we need art here. It is important, and we certainly hope those are not going to be lost. There are various possibilities that we do not know of yet, but I wanted you to be familiar with them. I was so delighted to have found them. You should all go and see them on Homer Avenue. Thank you very much for allowing me this time. Again, I want to stress that for this size project, this is really very important. Commissioner Eakins: Susan, can you tell us where those frescoes are? Ms. Wexler: Yes, they are on the old building on Homer, as you are heading west on Homer, before Bryant Street, they will be on your left. You will not notice them from the street, driving by, but if you get out of your car and walk up the little path, there is a covered porch, and they are in there. That is why they have probably been preserved so well. They are there since 1932. Natalie Wells is doing a lot of research on them, so we will find out more about them. 12/6/95 Page 5 Commissioner Carrasco: Susan, have you explored with David Jury or the architects for the new site if there are locations such as the existing facility where you could put such murals and frescoes? Ms. Wexler: Not as yet, but we are having a meeting next week. It all depends on whether that building on Homer will remain. If it does, the frescoes wil! remain. If the building were to go, I envision them not necessarily sunk into a wall at the new site. They could be free-standing as sculpture. There are really wonderful, and there is quite a number of them. They could be in an atrium. We have not discussed that yet. Beyond that, we hope for more, as there are all kinds of possibilities for art at the new site. Ruth Anne Gray. P.O. Box 575. Palo Alto: Honored members of the planning commission, staff of the City of Palo Alto, representatives of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and members of the public. In this review of the draft EIR put forth by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and in regard to their proposed new facility located at E1 Camino Real, I wish to express some concerns regarding aspects of the EIR concerning historic preservation. That would be for buildings both at the downtown Palo Alto site, as well as possible historic archaeological sites at the new location. The EIR briefly mentions the possible existence of archaeological sites at the new location, yet there is no remedy mentioned regarding the preservation of these sites, if and when they are found. I wonder what will happen to them. I believe it is to all our benefit to make every effort to try and preserve these sites, if they are found. On this issue, I ask that the commission please consider our common heritage and history for the mid-peninsula. Also, it is unclear in the draft EIR regarding preservation of historic structures and buildings and sites at the downtown Palo Alto site, regarding properties which the Palo Alto Medical Foundation owns. As you might be familiar, I have done extensive research on one building in particular, which is the former AME Zion Church located at 819 Ramona Street in downtown Palo Alto. That is one building that I feel merits attention regarding the proposed future of the downtown site. The information regarding the particular church is on file at the Palo Alto Historic Association archives and is available to the punic. The building’s local history, gowth and contribution to the community is well documented. It is the only building in Palo Alto which, by its very construction, reflects the positive racial and ethnic unity of the City of Palo Alto and of the area, in general. Additionally, this building is important to national history, as well as to California history. The religious denomination that established this church is over 200 years old. The first church that was established in the State of California was in San Francisco in 1852. This particular building at 819 Ramona Street is part of the expansion of the denomination between the years 1881 through the 1920s. Therefore, 12/6/95 Page 6 it certainly.does merit your attention. The Afro-Americans in the area settled here, owned property and prospered. They were in Palo Alto before the turn of the century. So clearly, this church merits respect and preservation. The current draft EIR makes no mention of preserving the historic buildings at the downtown site. The Ramona Street church should be preserved and recategorized to recognize its history. This building is currently categorized as a Category 3 and 4, which would not help very much in preserving it. Furthermore, I have been informed that the City of Palo Alto has entered into an agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to prevent an upgrade of this building to a higher category. This is not acceptable. If this is true, I would like to know why this has happened. If there is, indeed, any agreement, the public should see it and have it on file, along with the draft EIR. This is information that I received from the historic resources board because I have been before them several times to addressthe issue and to ask for recategorization of the building. Since the City of Palo Alto has spent at least one year working with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation on their new location, I ask that the city also offer a balance regarding its own resources and its citizens, and spend an equivalent amount of time and effort in seeking positive, nondestructive solutions to the downtown site, particularly regarding preservation of historic buildings and the history that we have there. I know that the citizens of Palo Alto are concerned with, and continue to be concerned about, their environment and the quality of life here. In conclusion, I would like to say that there are always alternative choices, always._ We hope that the planning commission will work towards a positive resolution to preserve our history and not allow this particular aspect of the very large and complex EIR to be buried. I believe that the destruction of historic sites is not a solution. We cannot afford it, and I look to you for solutions. Thank you very much. Susan Frank. 325 Forest Avenue. Pato Alto: Thank you, commissioners. I am the Executive Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I speak in that capacity tonight on behalf of the Chamber. The Chamber has been, and continues to be, a long-time supporter of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and its proposal to move to Urban Lane. Before supporting their current project, we supported their proposal to remain downtown. They are a long-time member of the Chamber of Commerce, and continue to be active on many of our committees. The value of the foundation to the community is immeasurable. The fact that they do not expect their patient count to increase considerably speaks to the fact that the clinic has operated in a clearly inadequate environment for some time. The new campus, at significant financial and resource cost, will be a welcome addition to the Palo Alto community. The Chamber also continues to be an advocate for improving transportation in our city, whether it is suggesting a coordinated approach to downtown parking problems 12/6/95 Page 7 or supporting, independent programs like the Marguerite shuttle program. I have to admit that when the foundation materials were sent to me several weeks ago, I did not immediately delve into them. Credit is due city staff for their obvious hard work in putting the information together and spending the last one year plus on the EIR. It was not until about two days, when it came to my attention that the planned connection to downtown Palo Alto was not included in the foundation plan, that I began to actually look over the information. From the moment that it became clear that the foundation, the anchor tenant of downtown Palo Alto, was going to move out of the downtown, the Chamber went on record to express its belief that a connection must occur in order to possibly salvage the financial loss associated with the foundation’s move. It has been an assumption for months that the connection to downtown was part of the project. Given that assumption, a number of questions have come up for us at the Chamber, and I am posing them to you tonight simply with the hope that some of them will be answered. The first question is, why has the tunnel connection been removed from the plan? I understand there have been some fig-ures attached to it to the tune of about $2 million. Are those realistic costs? Are there no other options for lowering the cost? Why haven’t we looked at improvements to our existing underpass? It is under used and not very pedestrian- friendly. Why are 10 td 60 parking spaces being removed from the current CalTrans parking lot, spaces which serve the downtown area? Some will say the answer to this is that with the foundation’s move, hundreds of parking spaces will be freed up for downtown shoppers. However, the CalTrans lot is a permit lot and is used primarily by employees of the downtown area, a very different user than the shopper. Why has there been no discussion of a shuttle connection to downtown? The Marguerite system is mentioned in the reports, but it will only run, as I understand it, between the foundation and the train station, with nothing happening to downtown. Perhaps most odd, something I just noticed in the Development Agreement is the $200,000 expense for an area-wide study of the foundation’s current location. Has this area-wide study been approved? Did I miss something? Why would the foundation be required to spend $200,000 to fund a study of an area that 99 people out of 100 agree should be for housing. Is that the right amount of money, typically, for an area-wide study? Even the Chamber has agreed that housing should be there, so I am not quite clear on why that money is now a part of the program. The first challenge that anyone might have is our basic assumption that the foundation move will economically impact, downtown. Some will argue that construction on the current site, giving rise to new residents, and therefore, shoppers, combined with only a slight decrease in revenue from foundation employees and patients, makes for a not so bleak scenario. I would argue that the impacts are very 12/6/95 Page 8 difficult to estimate, with two major unknowns -- convenience and habit. Habit is what we are used to. Foundation employees and patients are used to walking or biking to downtown, spending money on lunch, shopping, butting essentials. If you take away the convenience and the habit of walking or biking, the habit will change. I want to be clear that the Chamber also represents business districts like Town and Country Village. Clearly, the Village will benefit from the foundation’s move, and we are thrilled for them. However, the Village cavmot offer the magnitude of services that the downtown can, simply due to its size. I realize that I have posed a number of questions, some of which may have very simple answers, which I hope will be discussed tonight. The Chamber is not simply in the business of asking questions. We would like to be part of the solution-finding process, as well. We look forward to conversations with the foundation and the city. Finally, the reason why you do not see more business people here tonight is probably because they do not realize that there is no clear physical connection to downtown included in the plan. Perhaps there will be no need to bring this to their attention in the coming weeks, because there will be a way to find that connection after all. Thank you. Sister Donna Doshack. 159 Washin~on Boulevard. Fremont: Good evening, commissioners and staff. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this evening on the proposed medical office plan. I am here to represent Marie Braga, owner of the Greer property at 51 Encina Avenue, just at the south end of the proposed project. You should have received a letter from Marie Braga dated November 29, 1995, in which she wrote her responses. She regrets that due to previous ministry commitments that she had made, not knowing the impact this project would have on her property, she could not be present herself this evening as she simply could not get out of her other commitments. She has asked me to come and speak on her behalf. As you are aware, this Greer property is an historic property in the City of Palo Alto, owned and built originally by the pioneers of Palo Alto, Maria Luisa DeSoto and Captain John Greer. It now appears that this piece of property will be greatly overshadowed by a 56-foot-high building directly at the back of it, with a five-foot wall to the rear. I understand this evening that a wall is also to the side. While Marie was not opposed to bringing this beautifully landscaped piece of property here and pulling together the medical offices, she does have some concerns. They are, one, the 3.6 percent grade at the back of her property to Encina, the five-foot retaining wall that will be at the back, and now along the side, gradually sloping down to the street. I did talk to Mr. Jury this evening, and he assured me that this should not be a problem. Another problem that she had was the drainage that we heard referred to last week, 12/6/95 Page 9 and that there would be proper drainage and it would not be coming onto her property. Another statement that she wanted me to make is that there be proper landscaping along the edge of her property, and not just a five-foot retaining wall. She asks that trees and shrubs be on the foundation’s property along the back and the side. This, to shield both the building itsel£ as well as the noise. Another concern was the new street that will connect the medical office complex to Encina Avenue. This could conceivably become a thoroughfare or shortcut for people from University Avenue over to the shopping mall, bringing in a lot of traffic. Hopefully, something would be done so that this would not become another through street and cause a lot of noise. Another concern is that delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc., would not be operating late at night or very early in the morning. We do have residents, sisters, who are living at that property at this time. They are working people ~vho need their sleep, so she hopes there is not a lot of traffic in and out at night. Regarding the landscaping, we would hope it would not only go through the back but also along the side. In summary, Marie is concerned about proper drainage at the back, the landscaping along the wall at the back and along the side, that traffic be kept to a minimum, and that noise be kept down as much as possible. I thank you for this time to speak with you about these concerns of Marie Braga. Patrick Burr. 1249 Harriet Street. Palo Alto: I am here representing the University South Neighborhood group. Our organization is a group of homeowners, renters, businesses residing in the area bordered approximately by Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Alma Street and downtown. Our group was founded for the purpose of working together in a spirit of community to enhance relationships and the neighborhoods. Our objective is to anticipate, research and address productively and creatively neighborhood issues. We work together to discover processes to enable residents, businesses, city government and others to work toward constructive outcomes. In that light, over the past year-and-a-hal~ we have been attempting to address in a proactive way the issues regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s impending move. In addition, we have consistently supported the general plan for the new Urban Lane campus, and we would like to continue to support enthusiastically the basic concept and design of the new site. We wish to help support the time schedule for its approval, as well. Over the past several weeks, we have attempted to review the EIR, the amended Specific Plan Development Agreement, the staff report on the new campus and the proposed coordinated area plan model. All of these documents constitute quite a body of information for folks who have jobs and families. It has 12/6/95 Page 10 been quite a whirlwind to try and understand these documents. Consequently, as recently as your November 29th meeting, we have not yet determined our positions on these issues. After meeting with city staff and PAMF representatives, we would like to convey the following concerns and recommendations. First, regarding process issues. For the reasons previously stated, we believe that the public approval process has been too rapid to allow adequate public participation and consideration of such a significant and complex project, with transportation impacts on neigtiborhoods and a residential arterial which the council has recently recognized as having major problems with its current traffic loading and design. Second, regarding traffic impacts. The two left-turn lanes from E1 Camino onto Embarcadero will significantly increase the volume of traffic that is fed onto Embarcadero and will exacerbate the already severe Embarcadero Road problems. It will increase the traffic diverted onto side streets in our neighborhoods. It seems that this impact is fundamentally in conflict with many of the CPAC proposals and contradicts the recent city council action in directing staff to develop plans to reduce the strain on residential arterials. That recommendation had, as its foremost focus, Embarcadero Road. In addition, we believe that the draft EIR inadequately addresses the impact of the transfer of auto trips from University to Embarcadero resulting from P~’s relocation. This, combined with the overall increase in trips for the new campus, will combine the impact on Embarcadero and the nearby streets. We recognize that the second turn-lane is being mandated by CalTrans based on the size of the project, and we would like to volunteer to work with PAMF and the city to try and alter the CalTrans’ decision. Thirdly, we were surprised regarding the pedestrian underpass. We were surprised and disappointed to discover that this component has been dropped from the plan. The underpass was a primary mitigation against increased trips, as well as providing a vital link of PAMF to the SOFA merchants and linking the new bike path to the downtown and our neighborhood. We believe that PAMF and the city should place greater priority on addressing this issue, especially in the context of the increased burden of the new campus on the city’s infrastructure. Fourth, historic buildings. We recommend that the Development Agreement include a provision that potentially, historic buildings at the old site not be allowed to be demolished until after the completion of the coordinated area plan. For the reasons stated above, we believe that the current EIR is not adequate, consequently, we request that the planning commission not recommend certification of the EIR and campus plan in their present form, and that you request staff to work with PAMF and community representatives to pursue mutually acceptable modifications prior to the council consideration of the issue. Alternatively, that conditions be attached to your 12/6/95 Page 11 recommendations requiring resolution of these issues prior to council approval of the project. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. We look forward to working together with PAMF and the city to resolve these issues in an expeditious and mutually beneficial manner. I would like to add that we had a very constructive meeting this afternoon with PAMF representatives regarding these issues, and we are scheduling a series of meetings to attempt to resolve them. We welcome the participation of other stakeholders in these discussions. In addition, we have attached to our written comments the results of a recently completed neighborhood survey regarding the backfill location of the old PAMF site, with a detailed analysis of the interests of residents, both homeowners and renters, as well as businesses, regarding the future uses 0fthat site. We circulated a petition to over 500 businesses and residents, and had a response of almost ! 50 replies. That will be attached with the written comments. Thank you very much. Will Beckett. 4189 Baker Avenue. Palo Alto: I am here this evening representing myself and my concerns over traffic issues in the City of Palo Alto. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee has not had a meeting in many months. Very few of the issues raised by this project have been addressed specifically by the policies and programs currently under review. The theme of some of these policies and programs could be used to help guide you through a difficult process. The Transportation Committee, Co-chaired by Yoriko Kishimoto and attended by seven other CPAC members, including myself,, had great concerns about traffic congestion and how land use affects the flow of traffic in our city. We had very strong feelings about the retention of the 25 mile per hour speed limit for residential arterials and about the need to have all residents in the city share the traffic problems equally with the careful planning of land use throughout the city. Suggestions were made for an open grid system so that no one street bears the full traffic burden and for calming and smoothing traffic flow. In addition to this, we strongly support east-west routes for bicycles. It is important to keep these suggestions in mind as you consider the complexity of the traffic flow in this project. I would not think we would want to encourage the more extensive use of Embarcadero by creating two left-turn lanes at the Embarcadero Road/E1 Camino Real intersection. Also, it would be important to consider the positive and negative aspects of the Dream Team proposal for University Avenue and how it would affect the traffic flow here. Most importantly, it is critical that we give as many access points as possible to spread the traffic impact to as many city arterials as possible. I would like to suggest an alternative for access to the site -- an additional garage access for entering and leaving, using Alma Street under the railroad tracks, including access for pedestrians and bicycles. The vision I have would be an open channel between Alma and the railroad tracks for a ramp allowing southbound Alma to enter 12/6/95 Page 12 the garage. It would also allow drivers to exit the garage to southbound Alma Street. The ramp would allow bicycle access to the other side of the tracks. One additional tunnel could be added, as previously proposed, to allow access on the east side of Alma. Yes, this is expensive. I wonder if we are willing to pay for this important improvement, or one like it. Would those on Embarcadero Road be willing to help pay for this if it eliminated the CalTrans’ requirement for two left-turn lanes at E! Camino and Embarcadero? Would people in the downtown area be willing to help if they had the ability to walk easily to the medical foundation, as they are used to doing now? Are downtown businesses and the medical foundation willing to help with this type of access in an effort to reduce overall traffic congestion? Traffic management solutions can be expensive. It is time for us to make hard decisions and pay the money if we are serious about solving the traffic problem. Thanks. Joan Jack. 1005 Bryant Street. Palo Alto: Mine is somewhat of a reiteration of previous concerns that you have heard, so I will try to keep this brief. I am speaking as a 27-year resident of Professorville adjacent to the Palo Alto Medica! Foundation properties and as a long-time historic preservationist. I understand that there is a design process that encourages the active involvement of neighbors and relevant others in determining the future use of this site. My concern is that older buildings on this site might be demolished before the design process is completed. I am thinking particularly of houses along the Bryant side of the Bryant/Emerson/Channing/Homer block. Most of you who have seen those houses may think there is really no architectural or historic value in those houses. They are in a very sad state of disrepair. However, their design really is in keeping with turn-of-the-century style of homes similar to what you see in Professorville and in other parts of Palo Alto, as well. i would hate to see them bulldozed before there was an opportunity to explore the possibility of restoration. I would draw your attention to two homes, one on the corner of Lincoln and Waverley, and the other on the corner of Kingsley and Waverley. The one at Lincoln and Waverley was a tear-down and rebuild. It really is not in keeping with the character of the historic neighborhood. However, the one at Kingsley and Waverley has painstakingly been restored to its original levels, and Palo Alto now has a wonderful gem, and our neighborhood has a wonderful gem. It lends a wonderful character to our entire city. The same can be said of the Downing House on Cowper Street, of Waverley Oaks, and indeed, even of the psychiatry building of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, which, too, has been lovingly restored. More importantly is the Roth Building, a Category 2 building, which was the site of the first medical group practice in Palo Alto and one of the first group practices in the west. Given the popularity of health alliances today, you could consider Russell Lee as a remarkable visionary, so that the building is quite significant, along with the frescoes that are on it. If you want to 12/6/95 Page 13 know more about the frescoes and see them first hand, I would encourage you take one of Past Heritages’s weekly tours, although the one for Professorville is only on the first and third Saturdays of the month. They cover the entire history of those frescoes, so I think it would behoove you to see them. They are an interesting part of our history. At any rate, I just want to caution you not to allow any demolition of buildings on that site before this excellent design process is completed. Thank you. Chairman Beecham: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public portion of the hearing on Agenda Item 1 and bring it back to the commission. I would now like to open the hearing on Agenda Item 2, that is, the Development Agreement for the current downtown site, so that members of the public do not have to wait for our deliberations on Agenda Item 1. Do we need a motion to address that item? Ms. Cauble: Since the two hearings are related, I do not believe there is any procedural problem with that. Then you can close both of the hearings and begin the deliberative process. Chairman Beecham: With that, I will open the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, which involves the Development Agreement between the city and the medical foundation. I have one member of the public who wishes to speak. Judith Kemper. 326 Addison Avenue. Palo Alto: Thank you for taking me out of turn. There are just a couple of items on the Development Agreement, and they are related to several of the items that have been mentioned already. First is the shuttle service. I believe it says in the Development Agreement that if the Marguerite shuttle is not, for some reason, available for use by the medical foundation, the medical foundation will pick it up. I think it would be appropriate to put some level of service requirement in that agreement, making sure that it serves not only the train, but also the major bus routes, including the Dumbarton Express and those bus routes that serve within Palo Alto, as well as outside Palo Alto, and perhaps downtown, as well. The second is the existing structure, which Joan has just talked about. If we could put that into the Development Agreement also, that the existing structures remaining on this property remain there until development of the current site has been planned. The third is the issue of the underpass. I understand that that is expensive and that the foundation certainly could not be expected to fund $2 million for an underpass, but when ~ve met with them this afternoon, they suggested that they would be willing to contribute $150,000 toward the development of an assessment district. I suggest that the $150,000 be mandated in the Development Ageement and that the foundation be asked to work actively to establish this assessment district, in particular, to solicit the 12/6/95 Page t 4 financial support from many of the developers in downtown Palo Alto. Many of those same developers spoke very eloquently at the EIR for the development of the current site, saying that PAMF is their anchor tenant. So I am sure they would be very happy to help support this underpass in order to maintain access to their properties. The last thing I would like to address is the coordinated area plan. As residents, we strongly support this and are thrilled that this is going to take place. It is a very thoughtful process that staff has put into developing this process, and we want to compliment them on it. Regarding that Development Agreement, I think that it states in there that it will start no later than 18 months after the approvals are obtained for the new site but that the foundation can initiate that process earlier. I think that because the proceeds from the sale of that site will be considerable, there may be some impetus for the foundation to start that process sooner than 18 months. What I would like to ask is that if they would like to start sooner than that, there be some advance notice given so that the rest of us who would-like to participate in that process have time to prepare. Thank you, very much. Chairman Beecham: With that, I will temporarily close the public hearing on Item 2, with the intent of reopening it when we get to it later this evening. The public hearing on Item 1 is now closed and comes back to the commission for our consideration. Does the applicant have any comments? We heard, in particular, that between the applicant and the owners of the Greer House, there may be some agreement with conditions, especially regarding noise and other operations. Can you clarify for us your understanding of that? David Jury. Real Estate Manager. Palo Alto Medical Foundation: I did speak with representatives of the Greer House this afternoon. They told me of their request, first of all, on the drainage issue. I assured them that we will have adequate drainage on site, and the city will also see to that. There will not be a drainage problem with any water coming onto their site from ours. Secondly, regarding the noise issues, a few days ago the planning director gave me a suggested wording which I believe came out ot’the Maximart~ry’s approval from the city council. We are willing to agree to it, which is that there will be no truck traffic noise or noise-creating activities along that service road except during the hours of 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. on week days and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. We are willing to agree t_o that condition. The third concern had to do with trees and landscaping on our property. We are absolutely willing to satisfy their desires and requirements for landscaping on our side of the property, line to adequately screen the premises. We expect that it will be trees and shrubs. We will strive to get some trees that are tall enough to make some 12/6/95 Page 15 difference now. We are limited in the amount of space that we have, so we will have to use varieties that grow tall and slender. That is the idea that they are looking for as well. We are willing to get enough of them, placing them close enough together that they will provide an adequate screen. Chairman Beecham: Is the intent in that location to have small bulbs for the plantings, or a continuous planter strip along that portion? Mr. Jury: I believe at this time the plan is for a continuous planter strip. Chairman Beecham: How wide would it be? Mr. Jury..: It will be a couple of feet wide. Chairman Beecham: Two or three? Mr. Jurv: Yes. Chairman Beecham: A question was raised in some of our correspondence on Wells Avenue, also for noise control. Are those hours that you mentioned, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends, acceptable to truck traffic and other significant noise sources on Wells Avenue? Mr. Jury: I think that would be acceptable. Chairman Beecham: Do you have anything to add regarding the pedestrian underpass at this point? Mr. Jury.: Well, we would like to see an underpass. We originally suggested one when we first brought this project forward. At that time, we were anticipating a small bore underpass, and we were hoping it would cost in the neighborhood of $100,000. That underpass is now at a couple of million dollars, and it has grown way beyond our abilities. We still would like to see an underpass there. We would love to be responsible for helping that come about, but we just cannot.pay the bill ourselves in its entirety. We would probably be willing to participate in an assessment district, and we would be willing to come up with some seed money for that assessment district. In fairness to everyone, that is the kind of a project that needs to be funded through capital improvement funds from the city or through an assessment district over a very wide area, rather than a very select, small area. Chairman Beecham: There is another question that has come up regarding parking on Wells Avenue. Previously, there has been informal parking available on Wells, and that now essentially goes away. Do you have any suggestions on ways of making 12/6/95 Page 16 that up? Mr. Jury.: We have parking permits for our employees. They are currently required to have a parking permit in their vehicle to park in any of our parking lots. We anticipate that we will continue to have parking permits when people are parking at the new facility. We want to be able to tell who is who. It will be very easy for us to see a car parked on Wells with a permit. Every permit has a number, so we can look up that number, talk to that person’s supervisor, and ask them again not to park on Wells. We will be happy to cooperate in that way. We did bring our civil engineer tonight if you want to get into the issues of how much space there is and where the parking is, those types of questions. Commissioner Carrasco: David, regarding this underpass, ~vhen you first came before the planning staff,, you said you did think that an underpass ~vould be valuable, that a pedestrian and bicycle underpass would be an important criterion of your plan. Could you describe to me what kind of underpass you were thinking of at that time, and why it was important? Mr. Jurv: Originally, the idea was that we wanted to have some connection with the downtown. We knew that was important to the downtown merchants. What we had anticipated was a small bore tunnel, Probably large enough to walk through but not tall enough to ride a bicycle through, probably, wide enough to have bicycles and pedestrians mixing. It would literally be a very small bore tunnel. Commissioner Cassel: Could you have the civil engineer explain the parking arrangements on Wells, please? Mr. Jury.: Certainly. I was also reminded of the fact that when we were first considering the tunnel, we did not have our minds on the Urban Lane connection. We also were not considering Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Those things were not considered at that time. Sam Zullo. from Mark Thomas and Company. 30 Archer Street. San Jose: Mr. Chairman, we have put a little exhibit on your overhead projection showing a blowup of the area. This is the veterinarian building. What we have shown for Wells Avenue is the existing building to the north, and we are showing a five-foot future sidewalk width strip adjacent to that building, then a 30-foot curb-to-curb street width. Then a five-foot planter width, plus a five-foot sidewalk width. The last five feet is going to require an additional five feet of widening when the properties north of Wells redevelop. Chairman Beecham: Is there any place there where parking is appropriate? t2/6/95 Page 17 Mr. Zullo: A travelled lane is normally 11 to 12 feet, sometimes as narrow as 10 feet. If you had a lane in each direction, it is possible you would have parking on one side of the street. Commissioner Schmidt: Do you feel that those widths would still be adequate, considering that there currently would be large trucks going to the warehouses on that street? Mr. Zullo: Yes, I believe that with maintaining just two-way traffic, you could park on one side of the street. Mr. Jury: One of the concerns of the operator of the veterinary hospital is the fact that currently, his staff parks on Wells Avenue right next to the building. By putting in a five-foot planter strip with trees along that frontage, he is afraid that that parking will not be available to his staff. Mr. Schreiber: Since this issue has been raised in a number of letters, city staff has looked at this also during the past few days. I would like to have Carl Stoffel follow up on this discussion with some additional information regarding Wells Avenue. Carl is a Transportation Engineer for the city. Mr. Stoffel: I met with a Public Works engineer out at the site this afternoon to go over what is planned. My understanding from him is that the five-foot section next to the warehouse buildings will not actually be sidewalk. It will be a dirt area to accommodate utility poles, fire hydrants, and could be a future landscaped strip which indeed could have some landscaping there now. But it will not be a sidewalk. The sidewalk will be on the PAMF side, as shown. When you get to the veterinary hospital, there is five feet less because the PAMF will be providing an additiona! five feet of width. My understanding is that that will not be a planting strip next to the veterinary hospital. It will be a sidewalk. The width of the travelled way is being reduced. Right now-, it is 40 feet, and is just for cars, no sidewalks out there. Fort?" feet does allow ample room for parking on both sides and ample room for traffic movement. Under the proposal, since we are adding amenities for pedestrians and landscaping, we are going to have 30 feet, which allows parking only on one side, which has been stated. The question is, which side? My understanding is that the parking should take place on the warehouse side of the street, not on the side of the PAMF project or veterinarian hospital. The primary reason for having parking on the north side of Wells is because those warehouses need to have their loading access right next to their warehouse doors. If parking were prohibited on the north side of the street and was, instead, put on the south side, I would imagine there would be some difficulties there with their truck functions. They would still park on the north side and load and 12/6/95 Page 18 unload, tending to block the street. If the parking is to go on the north side where it is planned, the existing parking for the veterinarian hospital, which has room for about five or six cars (which were parked there today when I observed it and there were more parked further up), that parking would go away. However, on the other side, we would be creating some new parking spaces, as there will be a curb going in there. This large parking area will be constrained a little more, and there will be normal driveway access going in. Our estimate is that we can actually gain several spaces on the other side, and it also looked like once we have a driveway and curb next to the veterinarian hospital, even if we do put the sidewalk along by the veterinarian hospital and lose those five spaces, we would gain another four on the other side. So the veterinarian employees could park on the other side of the street. Parking, of course, will be available, as it is now, alongside the warehouses. That is public parking, not warehouse parking, which is available to anyone, except, hopefully, PAMF employees. There would be approximately ten spaces all along the warehouse side up to Urban Lane, for a total of about 14 spaces along the north side. It is definitely less parking than there is now-, but it does appear that the five spaces along the frontage at the veterinarian hospital that would be lost can be accommodated on the north side. As for additional veterinarian hospital parking, they would have to find places on the north side alongside the warehouse. So parking is available; there will be less of it, but of course, we will have an improved street with sidewalks, planting strip, etc. There are other alternatives to consider, as well. The planting strip next to PAMF does stop, but if you just dropped the sidewalk, you could park alongside the veterinarian hospital as well. You could park on both sides of Wells Avenue in the area where the veterinarian hospital is. There would be no sidewalk, and pedestrians would walk on the street. Our intent, however, is to create a full, almost standard city street cross section with landscape strip, sidewalk, and a future landscape strip and sidewalk on the north side. So not putting in the sidewalk and curb along the hospital probably would not be the best alternative. Hopefully, that is enough for you to go on now. Chairman Beecham: Thank you, yes. Does staff have any comments for us at this point? Mr. Schreiber: I would like to have Karl Heisler and Dennis Struecker review information that is at your places tonight. There is a handout in the same text and format as the draft environmental impact report called Master Response on E1 Camino/Embarcadero Intersection. This is work that has been pulled together from existing material and additional material, prepared since our meeting last Wednesday 12/6/95 Page 19 night. I would like to have Karl and Dennis just walk you through that, since it would not be fair to expect you to have read it in this short amount of time. Dennis Struecker. Korve Engineering. 1570 The Alameda. San Jose: I want to briefly hit the highlights of the information that was given to you tonight. The intersection of E1 Camino Real and Embarcadero Road currently is at Level of Service D in both peak hours. In the 1998 baseline, which is the baseline for this analysis, when the project traffic is added through this intersection, based on the desired travel paths, it will also continue to operate at Lev. el D, although it is getting pretty close to Level E. The EIR found no significant impacts at that location, based strictly on the significance criteria of the EIR. As we were well aware at the last meetings, CalTrans has requested that a second left-turn lane be placed there, because the volume is projected to go over 300 vehicles per hour, which is their threshold at which they would want a second left-turn lane. Currently, it is at about 250 per hour, so it is very close right now. We also did some queueing analyses at that location last week. Currently, the existing left-turn lane is approximately 325 feet long. That is from the stop bar at Embarcadero to the opening for the left-turn lane into Town and Country Village. That is the existing queueing area that we have. Existing volumes would indicate that 175 feet of that should be used. With the project added to that left-turn movement, the queue is expected to go up to 375 feet. So the queue would extend back across the opening for the left turn in and out of Town and Country Village. In jumping ahead to 2010, there is additional traffic added to the intersection by other development. The level of service at the intersection is projected to go to Level F. That is what triggered the cumulative mitigation in the EIR for the second left-turn lane. The queueing analysis indicates that now we would have 750 feet of queued vehicles there, which would virtually take up all of the left-turn storage space that exists for the movement onto Embarcadero, as well as the opening for Town and Country Village, plus the left-turn storage that is placed in there for the Town and Country Village movement. There is a new mitigation measure listed on Page IV.B-3, and I would like to read that. This would be a mitigation measure that is proposed to be added. It says, "Although the project would not result in overall intersection operations at E or worse, and would not result in an entering volume in excess of the city’s approved 2010 volume, the project would result in a southbound, left-turn volume at E1 Camino Real and Embarcadero Road substantially in excess of CalTrans’ 300 vehicles per lane standard in the p.m. peak hour. The city will support CalTrans’ stated requirement for construction of a second, southbound left-turn lane at that intersection as part of the construction of the PAMF signalized entrance." I spoke already about the queueing analysis, and there is a Table A on Page 5 which indicates 12/6/95 Page 20 the level of service and delay for the various scenarios. As we can see on the far right, the queue distance exceeds the 325 feet of available distance for the baseline plus project with only one lane, and the cumulative plus project with only one lane. believe there is a typo on Table A, however. Under Scenarios, the fourth row says, 1998 base plus project, one-turn lane. That should be two turn lanes. I want to conclude my comments by talking about the induced growth of the second left-turn lane. There are a couple of key issues that we need to keep in mind. First of all, the traffic volumes that are reported in the EIR are our estimate of what the total demand would be. That is the total demand, even if two lanes are provided. So the volumes on Embarcadero that are reported in the draft EIR would not increase if two lanes ~vere provided. A second thing I want to point out is that CalTrans is not making this request from a capacity standpoint. There are two reasons why they are requesting the addition of this second left-turn lane. One is the queueing distance and associated safety operations with that. Vehicles that want to turn left at Embarcadero do not want to get into that turn lane prior to the Town and Country Village median opening and left turn pocket because they do not want to get stuck behind a vehicle waiting to turn into the Town and Country Village. So if there is not sufficient distance, they spill back into the southbound through lanes, causing a safety problem of potential rear-end accidents and a capacity problem of the southbound through movement. The second reason is that when you have a lot of vehicles (and the reason they use the 300-vehicle threshold) is that once you exceed that, you need to give more green time in the cycle to that movement, and that penalizes the other movements. That is why they set that threshold. It is a guideline that they use. Once you start to exceed 300, particularly when you start to exceed 300 by quite a lot (as we are projecting here), they like to go to the two lanes so that when the green arrow comes on for the left-turn movement, you can move a lot of cars through there, and you do not have to give that movement an excessive amount of time. Saying that, we looked at the capacity of what that lane really is. Its capacity is in the neighborhood of 500 or a little more. That is the volume we could handle through there, irrespective of the effects on safety and on Town and Country Village access that that queue would have, and that is the amount of traffic that physically could be pushed through there. By 1998, we are slightly over that, so we would expect that employee traffic, in particular, which comes there every day and knows there is a big queue there that they would like to avoid, would probably use Urban Lane to go to Alma Street. Then they could either continue south on Alma or they could get onto Embarcadero at Alma and avoid the queue. So they are still on Embarcadero, but are not on the underpass portion. When we get to 2010, with the capacity of about 500 or a little more, we are looking 12/6/95 Page 2 ! at probably being unable to handle the neighborhood of 125 to 150 vehicles of the projected demand in the EIR. So now we are talking about diverting more traffic in the immediate area on Embarcadero in the Waverley and Bryant areas. The estimate of employee traffic in that area is in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 p.m. peak hour outbound movements. So if all the employee traffic that was in the immediate area did not use that left-turn lane and instead, went around on Urban Lane and used Alma, we would still need to find another 70 or 75, about half the volume there, that exceeds the physical capacity of the lane, would need to find another route to go east. Once again, they could use Urban Lane to Alma, but they will want to get onto Embarcadero as soon as possible. So my point is, yes, it will increase traffic on Embarcadero Road close to E1 Camino Real, but it is fairly localized, and sooner or later, the Embarcadero traffic will want to get to where it is going. At the top of Page 8, we have listed some travel distances. From that intersection of Embarcadero Road to E1 Camino Real, we scaled it off at 2.25 miles. Going to Churchill, it is approximately a half-mile increase to 2.75 miles, and going all the way to Oregon Expressway, it is three-and-a-half miles. Those are the real alternatives, other than going along Universi~ Avenue to get to Middlefield and Highway 101. So for everyone who says that adding that left-turn lane will increase traffic, yes it will, but definitely not for the entire length of Embarcadero Road. There are some other options that may occur. The change in travel paths to Alma and to other parallel streets with Alma will handle the majority of the traffic if the left-turn lane is not added. A second option would be that people would change their travel patterns a little. Employees would have staggered work hours, coming in a little earlier or leaving earlier, to avoid that congestion. Patients may not schedule appointments in that time period, but we do not think that is a very big amount of shift in traffic because all we are talking about is one real bottleneck to the system. It is not like this bottleneck affects the whole travel path. A third option would be that trips would simply not occur in this area. Traffic would go somewhere else than a movement that goes through this intersection for shopping or for business, etc. The trip becomes too burdensome, thus it occurs somewhere else. Once again, since this is just one intersection where we are talking about diverting traffic, we do not see it as a big point. Finally, I made one point on Town and Country Village that the second left-turn lane really allows the entrance from E1 Camino Real to function, and it is not blocked because of the additional queue Storage. The other point is that the entrance at Embarcadero from Town and Country Village will work better with the ~7o lanes. This goes back to the point of the reduced amount of geen light time for that left turn. We looked at the scenario where there was only a single left-turn lane there, and the demand reached the physical capacity of that single left-turn lane. We then are looking at approximately 33 percent of that cycle time being required to serve that 12/6/95 Page 22 left-turn lane. Left turns out of Town and Country Village onto Embarcadero cannot occur simultaneously with the left-turn lane traffic from E1 Camino Real. When a double left-turn lane is added, that 33 percent of the total cycle time is reduced to 22 percent, so there is an increase of one-third of that time that movement can occur. So a double left-turn lane does have a positive effect for Town and Country Village. In summary, the significance criteria in the EIR and the construction of a second, southbound left-turn lane would not result in any other significant impacts than have already been addressed in the draft EIR. Chairman Beecham: As Ken surmised, I have not had a chance to go through this yet. Is there something in here that confirms that at the Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection, there is not any significant growth of traffic at that intersection among the various alternatives? Mr. Struecker: At that point; we wo~ld expect all the traffic that wants to use Embarcadero to find its way back to Embarcadero either via Alma to Embarcadero, Channing to Middlefield to Embarcadero, or some similar route such as that. Chairman Beecham: So assuming that PAMF is on E1 Camino, whether there is one lane or two turning left, it is your assessment that the traffic volume at Middlefield will not change. Mr. Struecker: That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: Would you remind me whether all of the calculations were done as worst case scenarios with all medical foundation employees and patients using cars? Mr. Struecker: Yes, it was what we reasonably felt would be a worst case scenario. The trip generation was based on standard medical center trip generation rates, similar to what has been observed at the existing site. There was a five percent reduction in those rates for Transportation Demand Management measures, such as the availabiliV of CalTrain and proximity to downtown, things like that which allow a slight reduction. So yes, I would say it is the worst case scenario. Mr. Schreiber: The rates used were applied to the total square footage. Since there is increased square footage, you have also increased traffic over the existing site traffic. The medical foundation, in the letter from their attorney, indicated as we have heard repeatedly from them during the preparation of the EIR, that they disagree with this assumption. They do not see that level of activity or level of patient growth at this site because of the way in which they see this site functioning. But we took that per-square-foot figure for all of the square footage in order to come up with what we 12/6/95 Page 23 regard as a reasonable worst case situation. Chairman Beecham: And that includes Building D, as well. Is that correct? Mr. Schreiber: It includes Building D, but perhaps Karl or Dennis can comment on how this was handled in this analysis. Mr. Struecker: Let me go back and give you some numbers on the first comment that Ken made. The total p.m. peak hour trips from the existing facility are about 850, and new trips that we used in the analysis for the new site are approximately 1,200. This is an increase of about 30 percent in the traffic, just based on size. Building D was included as half clinic, half research. We considered the idea of trying to figure out what a Wellness Center would generate. Because the clinic and research would generate an equal or higher level of traffic, we decided to go with that. That way, if the Wellness Center did not prove to be a good use and it went to a clinic and research use, then we felt we were covered that way in terms of maximum traffic load. Commissioner Schmidt: To summarize, then, if the medical foundation is correct in their statements that this will not generate any more traffic than the current foundation does, then our assumptions are 25 to 30 percent traffic to be generated in our assumption versus what reality could be. Mr. Struecker: Correct. Mr. Schreiber: That is the basic analysis. Let me also add, primarily for the record, that there was some testimony expressing concern about Building D becoming some type of commercial health club. That would not be allowed in the Public Facilities zoning, so you are not going to get a commercial health club there. The Wellness Center, as it has been described, would have health-related facilities, workout facilities, but it would have to be in conjunction with the normal operation of the clinic if that facility went ahead as part of the ongoing work of the doctors there. It could not be a branch of Health Clubs International because they felt it would be a nice site close to downtown. Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you for that clarification. I was going to ask that question as to what, indeed, was the Wellness Center intended for. It does state in the staff report that it is intended to do what you said versus a public center. It is good to have that in the record. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a more detailed site question. At the E1 Camino/Embarcadero intersection, if you have these two left-turn lanes, is there enough room at the median for some street trees? We are always concerned about the 12/6/95 Page 24 shading of asphalt. A four-foot median is described in your section, and I wondered if that allows any room for street trees. Mr. Schreiber: I would say the answer is no, not with a four-foot median. You may be able to get small trees to grow in there some distance away from the sisal. We do not normally regard that as being wide enough for what you and I think of when we say "street trees." Commissioner Carrasco: How wide does it need to be? Five feet? Six feet? Mr. Struecker: Four feet is the total width, so part of that width would be taken up by the curb. You really do not have four feet ofplantable area there, only about three feet. I am not a landscape architect, but I would think you would need five or six feet of plantable area. Mr. Schreiber: I think the medical foundation landscape architect or the architect may well have some response in terms of what width you would need to have for street trees, as we think of street trees, not lollipops. Sandra Beck. Project Manager for Ellerbe Becket. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Architects: As an example, the street trees that are being planted along the Urban Way extension are being planted to city standards, which is a five-foot-wide planting strip and a five-foot wide sidewalk. So five feet should be sufficient, if you have area for root growth underneath that can expand out to city requirements. Mr. Stoffel: There are some limitations as to where you can put trees when you get near signal lights and intersections, etc., so you may well find that you could not put in that many, even if you had the proper width. But you certainly can put in some shrubs. Commissioner Carrasco: But Carl, if you have five feet, this is clear of curb to curb, so probably with six feet, you could get some kind of street trees, given the requirements that you cannot get close to signal lights. How close can you get? Mr. Stoffel: I am not sure, but I would g~aess at least 100 feet away. Also, you will have the PAMF intersection up the way, as well. Antonia Bava. Landscape Architect for the Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation: I could give you an opinion. In the middle of a roadway like that, I would say you need a minimum of eight to ten feet, mostly because of the root growth, but also because of the fact that the branches are going to get hit with tall vehicles going by, so you really need a width not just for the root growth but also for the branching habit. So I would say a minimum of eight to ten feet to get something in there that would be small, and 12/6/95 Page 25 even more if you wanted a very large tree with a big spread. Commissioner Carrasco: There are some new trees planted on Santa Cruz Avenue, and it seems to me they are planted in a four-foot wide median. They were put in as very large trees so that the problem you described did not occur. They seem to be growing well over the last two years. Ms. Bava: I have not seen them, so I am sorry, I really cannot comment. I would have to know more about the species of tree. Mr. Schreiber: I cannot visualize the Santa Cruz Avenue trees either, but certainly one of the points that members of the Tree Task Force have been making with great regularity to city staff and to others over the past few years is the concern about soil volume and adequate space. The point is that you can plant trees in almost any area, but that does not mean they are going to mature to a size that would be commensurate with what we think they should be. Even if you plant a large tree, it may not ultimately grow to be very large if it does not have enough soil. The problem of planting and expecting to have large trees in a relatively narrow median is that you do not have aeration, and you have relatively little soil exposed to rain and the natural elements. It is also a rather hostile environment to begin with in the middle of a roadway. Then when you restrict the amount of aeration and soil, you end up with stunted trees. They just cannot push their growth beyond a certain limit. Most of the rainwater does not get beneath the pavement, so the tree will remain relatively dry throughout the year. Commissioner Carrasco: I am concerned that given the circulation shift here, only right turns are going to be possible from the Town and Country Village site. Also, on Embarcadero Road, it will probably be more difficult to turn left, as well as left onto E1 Camino going south from the two existing driveways currently there. In that case, how is the circulation of this existing facility going to work? Mr. Struecker: Are you saying that is if we still remain with a single left-turn lane on E1 Camino? (Yes) The left turns onto Embarcadero can still be made, but they would just lose some oi’the opportunity they would have if that other, left-turn lane were added. In terms of the left-turn lane in from E1 Camino, it can still be made, but they just need to await their turn in that queue. In terms of left turns out, they will virtually be prohibited during peak periods because of the queue of traffic. Once that queue of traffic disseminates and the green arrow goes off for the left turn onto Embarcadero, the next signal sequence would be for the northbound through movements to occur. There will just not be a break in there for drivers to cross northbound E1 Camino Real and enter the southbound lane. After the northbound traffic passes, then the queue will have built back up again. We measured that traffic from Town and Country, and it is about 10 to 15 vehicles in the typical peak hour. 12/6/95 Page 26 There is not a whole lot of traffic that wants to make that left turn, but there is some traffic that wants to do it. Once they turn left onto E1 Camino Real, they have three alternatives. They can either turn right and go into Stanford, or they can continue south on E1 Camino Real, or they can get in the left-turn lane and turn onto Embarcadero. They would have to travel thorugh the site, through Town and Country Village, and then either make a right so they can continue on Galvez or get into the left-turn lane to go south, or they would have to make a.left and go to Embarcadero, if that was their destination. That is really the only movement that would be prohibited or very difficult to make. Chairman Beecham: Are you talking about the single lane option now? Mr. Struecker: Yes. With the double lane option, it works. I cannot speak for CalTrans, but if,, through negotiations, they said, okay, we can live with a single lane, I think their next statement would be, you have to close the opening to Town and Country. That is total speculation on my part, but I think it is probably something that would occur. Commissioner Carrasco: So if you did not have a double left-turn lane on E! Camino going south, would there be some economic impacts on the shopping center? Mr. Struecker: There would need to be changes made to the travel patterns. I would not want to say anything about the economic impacts. There is enough redundancy that they can be made, but they would just have to be made differently. Mr. Schreiber: My sense, also, is that CalTrans would jump at the opportunity of closing the unsignalized entrance into Town and Country Village. That is based on past staff discussions with CalTrans, as well as recent staff discussions. They really do not like it from an operational standpoint. I would think there is a good likelihood that that would be the reaction to not having the double left-turn lane. Chairman Beecham: Let me try to focus our discussion here. As we talk primarily about this intersection and traffic from the proposed site and down Embarcadero, we have a couple of broad tasks ahead of us tonight. One is to assess the adequacy of the draft EIR. So we need to determine whether, in particular, that is covered adequately in the draft EIR. Secondly, we need to make comments on the site and design of the project and what we think of it. Does anyone have any comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR regarding this intersection and traffic on Embarcadero? Commissioner Eakins: We didn’t have this letter before tonight from Mr. Aikins of the .foundation’s law firm. He does address the traffic issues in that. I would like to be walked through this analysis of the draft EIR with respect to the intersection. Would that be possible? 12/6/95 Page 27 Chairman Beecham: Also, one difficulty I have here is that we have a stack of about 30 pages at our places tonight that I have not read yet. Ms. Moore: For clarification, what Mr. Struecker did this evening was essentially to summarize what is in that written material, so we are already providing you with information that will be put into the final EIR. We have augmented the information that is in the draft EIR, so in terms of the question of adequacy of information, I would want you to take into consideration also the additional testimony that you have received which summarizes the written materials. That is indicative of what will be in the final document presented to the city council. Chairman Beecham: I am still concerned because I have not yet read this material. We have a request to be walked through the attorney’s letter. Doug Aikins. 400 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto: I will be happy to answer particular questions. I hope the letter was self-explanatory. Chairman Beecham: It may be self-explanatory, but we have not yet read it. Mr. Aikins: Starting with the project overview on the issue of traffic, the point to be made is that the relocation of the foundation facility from a residential neighborhood to an area served by regional collectors, from a traffic perspective, will be conceptually a positive environmental benefit. It will put traffic on major streets, signalized streets, where traffic of this magnitude belongs. The amount of traffic generated will not substantially change. Instead, it will simply be relocated from its current location, surrounded by housing, elementary schools and other "sensitive receptors" (as they are called in the EIR) to an area that is commercial, light industrial and institutional in nature, where traffic theoretically has far less of an impact. The point on Page 4, II-8, comments on the characterization in the EIR of the "Reduced Density Alternative" as the "environmentally superior" alternative. The point of the letter there is to offer an alternative characterization, which is that the project itself is the environmentally superior alternative, given the general traffic effect that I just outlined, which is that the effect of the project is to move traffic from a residential neighborhood to an institutional neighborhood. The conceptual point is that if you move less of that traffic out of the residential neighborhood, then you have produced less of an environmental benefit. To the degee that operations, services and facilities remain in the downtown area or are replaced in that area through normal foundation operations, that traffic would remain in that area, and the purpose of the project and the purpose of the optional Wellness Center would be to take all anticipated foundation services and put them in a better location, trafficwise, a more benign location. 12/6/95 Page 28 A point on page 5 of my letter, II-14, comments on the potential feasibility of acquisition of right-of-way for right-turn lanes, as described in Mitigation Measure B.9.b, which are at the intersection of Page Mill Road and E1 Camino. As you may know, those right-turn lanes have been the subject of quite a bit of anticipation by most Palo Altans for 20 years. There are substantial problems in acquiring that right-of-way, either on a consentual, negotiated basis or through the use ofemminent domain. According to the studies available to the foundation, the benefit of improving traffic circulation movements through those intersections would be at or below the threshold of measurement, potentially indiscernible, and depending upon traffic assumptions used, potentially not a benefit at all. Given the cost and prohibitive feasibility issues posed by acquisition of right-turn lane rights-of-way, the contention on Page 6 of my letter is that it may very well be that the benefit produced by acquisition of those right-turn right-of-way lanes would not be either justified or even significant at all. I will be happy to respond to questions throughout the deliberation process tonight. Commissioner Cassel: Menlo Park had some questions on the adequacy of the EIR in terms of some intersections within its jurisdiction. Can someone comment on those questions? Mr. Struecker: We have not looked at those intersections yet. We just received that letter, but we can include that information in the final EIR. Chairman Beecham: Would the impact be based on a proportional increase in traffic due to the larger size, and ifI understand your charge from last week that we talked about, the portion of traffic going on each of the various routes stays as it is today. So the traffic from the medical foundation would increase by whatever the proportion of square footage is. Mr. Struecker: Right. As you get farther away from the site, the increase becomes just the proportional increase. There is no expected change in travel patterns for Menlo Park traffic. We will address those intersections. Commissioner Schmidt: If we approve the adequacy of the EIR, the EIR would now recommend or state that we need the double left-turn lane at E1 Camino and Embarcadero. Is that correct? Ms. Cauble: The EIR takes the approach of recommending mitigation measures for two categories of potential impacts. Those which are deemed significant for which the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires us to identify impact mitigations and various other items which might lend themselves to appropriate project conditions for a variety of reasons but do not address impacts that are considered significant in the CEQA sense. My understanding of the analysis in the 12/6/95 Page 29 supplemental report that you have been given today which Dennis went through quite thoroughly is that the proposed double left-turn lane is recommended not as a mitigation measure for a CEQA-signifcant impact but as that second category, of impacts, one that raises operational concerns that CalTrans has addressed with us. Therefore, it would be contained in the EIR, but it is still a matter for discussion by the city as to whether or not that mitigation measure is included. Ken may wish to add to this. Mr. Schreiber: Staff has talked a lot about this internally over the last few weeks. Staff would support the double left-turn lane. It was certainly stated very clearly to us in a letter that it would be a CalTrans requirement. Although perhaps the first time one thinks about it, it may seem somewhat counter-intuitive that the second left-turn lane does not lead to more traffic on Embarcadero, especially as you get from Waverley or Middlefield on toward E1 Camino. Dennis said there may be some relatively small shifting around, but essentially, the EIR picks up the volume of the double left-turn lane and cranks it into the Embarcadero movement. We think that for both safety reasons on E1 Camino resulting from the potential spillage of traffic desiring to make a left turn off into the through lanes and into the Town and Country Village entrance crossing (which was certainly expressed to us by CalTrans staff as a critical concern of theirs), for the functioning of the Town and Country Village facility, which has been a concern of staff from the beginning of this process when PAMF first came in and talked to us about it, we would support a double left-turn lane lane. If this were 250 or so left-turn movements going to 330, no, we would say, monitor it. We would feel that is a relatively small volume over the design capacity. But we are not talking about those figures. We are talking about going from 260 up into the 500s. That is so far beyond the design capacity that even if the EIR has overstated the traffic by a notable percentage, we would still be way, way over the 300 figure. So our conclusion is that the double left-turn lane is needed and that CalTrans will require it as stated in their letter. It is an appropriate requirement from CalTrans and we should not try to stymie it. The results of stymying it, if we were successful, are going to cause both safety and functional problems in that area. Commissioner Schmidt: So you would not recommend monitoring it to see if the traffic really does build up that much? Therefore, would the lane reconfiguration of E1 Camino be during construction of the medical foundation project? Mr. Schreiber: Yes. Again, if the numbers were close to the design, we would give you a different answer, but given the excess over design that is projected, it is much better to have one construction project and have the construction of that second left-turn lane occur when the medical foundation is not in operation and you are dealing with existing traffic, rather than waiting until you have all of the traffic there, 12/6/95 Page 30 then have the problem, and then have a construction project in the middle of the problem. That is just going to aggavate what would already be a less than desirable situation. So the best thing to do is to try and get it cleaned up as part of the main intersection construction project, making sure that when the medical foundation opens up for operation, the facilities will be in and we would not have to have another construction project in the immediate vicinity shortly after that. What staff has hoped to do, certainly our intent in the information you have gotten tonight and potentially additional information in responding to comments, etc., that will be provided for the city council, is to provide enough environmental information that we have an adequate environmental assessment of the mitigation measure. Then when council takes action on the project, this is carried forward as part of that action. We have recommended in our use permit conditions and conditions that will be going to the architectural review board that the medical foundation will not be allowed to start ~ading or excavation, much less actual building, until a lot of issues are resolved. Our concern here is that this is one of those things that, if not resolved early on, could well cause a notable delay. So our sense is to move forward with it as part of the basic project approval, including its incorporation into the EIR. Commissioner Schmidt: Also, you do not feel that since this, in theory, will not produce any more traffic on Embarcadero except between E1 Camino and Middlefield, along with the other project that the city is looking at for adding landscape changes to Embarcadero to make it more of a residential arterial, these two things will not be in conflict because we are not ultimately increasing the total, overal! load on Embarcadero. Mr. Schreiber: The overall traffic load on Embarcadero will go up. It will go up due to general gowth in the area, so I do not want to leave the impression that traffic on Embarcadero will not go up. The city is less than blessed by having some of its main connections into and out of town be residential streets for much of their len~h. Embarcadero serves a very critical function in terms of moving traffic from Highway 101. Dennis Struecker, in his written material and in his commentary, noted that alternatives to using Embarcadero are not very many and are not very desirable. You are not logically going to get traffic to go down and use Oregon Expressway and cut over. It is simply so much longer. You really do not want to encourage people to use Churchill, with the train tracks and delays during rush hour. That is already a difficult situation. And you do not really want to encourage people to loop back through the edge of downto~vn and then cut up Channing or Addison and out Waverley, filtering through the neighborhoods. One of the things we are trying to do in this whole process is to eliminate, to the extent we can, the negative impacts of the medical foundation on that neighborhood. This would be adding one impact back that we really do not feel needs to be added back in. 12/6/95 Page 31 So traffic wanting to use Embarcadero is going to end up using Embarcadero. University Avenue is an unlikely alternative for people going in that direction, so they are going to use Embarcadero, and whether it is a single left turn or a double left turn will probably not make any notable difference, as Mr. Struecker has indicated, to the traffic volume at the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero. That traffic is going to get there in some fashion or another and head on out to Highway 101. Commissioner Schmidt: Did the city and the medical foundation discuss the possibility of any sort of Park and Ride shuttle lots for medical foundation employees to be located near a freeway, possibly bringing in and out less traffic? Mr. Schreiber: No, we have not. That issue has come up at a number of different times during my 20+ years with the city. I think that staff has never felt that shuttle busses from an outlying parking lot had a significant likelihood of carrying much traffic unless you had some substantial constraints on site, whether that be simply a lack of parking or perhaps quite high parking fees, that is monetary disincentives to park. The time lost for someone commuting (which is the most likely use of an outlying lot) in terms of going to the lot, parking, waiting for the shuttle bus, boarding it, taking the bus in, is notable enough and the time spent driving that last distance is short enough that certainly all I have read about transportation behavior would say that the time factor would be a very major discouragement to using a shuttle bus in that situation. But again, this is unless you had some type of constraint where people could not park at al! or they were penalized in some type of substantial way. - Chairman Beecham: Let me try to segment where we are and check on how we are proceeding. We have two aspects of transportation here. One is if the project goes through, regardless of the intersection configuration, there will be in general about a 40 percent increase in traffic based on scaling up from the current square footage to the ne~v square footage. The medical foundation says no, no, that won’t happen, but it is not a bad idea to scale up and see how- it works. So for all of the arterials and streets that anyone uses, in general, we can expect about a 40 percent increase in traffic, just based on the scaling up in square footage of traffic by the medical foundation. So there will be increases on Embarcadero, on E1 Camino and on other streets. On Embarcadero itself, the analysis indicates there is not any significant decrease in level of service at any intersection. So on that, aside from the question of the turn lanes, does anyone have any concerns about the adequacy of the draft EIR regarding traffic either on Embarcadero or any other aspect of traffic at the moment, again not related to the left-turn lanes? Commissioner Carrasco: Related to Urban Lane, after reading this letter at our places from Stanford, could you please clari~ for me if Urban Lane is, in fact, considered in 12/6/95 Page 32 the EIR, or is it not? It was underlined by Mr. Schreiber in the letter from Charles Carter. Mr. Schreiber: Karl Heisler is taking the mike, so I will let him respond. Karl Heisler. Environmental Science Associates, San Francisco: The Urban Lane extension is adequately covered in the EIR to the point where it could be approved in the areas that we looked at, areas where we felt there could be a physical change. In addition to the traffic, we looked at noise, and we looked at whether there would be an additional problem with runoff because there would be a relatively minor change in the way drainage is handled. It is very minor, going from what is now a swale or little depression to a curb, but essentially, the drainage runoff would be handled in the same way. So yes, it is covered in the document. Commissioner Carrasco: And is it considered a mitigation for general traffic? Mr. Heisler: As Mr. Struecker explained earlier, under CEQA, there is no significant impact of the pi’oject itself on traffic, using an overall intersection leve! of service as the si~ificance criteria, as is done routinely. Urban Lane is essentially included because the project does not work without Urban Lane. It is not proposed as part of the project directly, because the foundation does not contro! that land. All along, it has felt uncertain about saying yes, we propose to do this while at the same time, they are saying, it is not our land. The funding for Urban Lane is part of an overall Memorandum of Understanding that would have to be agreed upon before the project could go forward. But as we discussed last week, since the traffic coming from the Palm!University on-ramp to southbound E1 Camino cannot get onto the medical foundation site, being expressly precluded from doing that by the extended ramp that was put in to prevent people trying to make a dangerous weave across all of those traffic lanes, there needed to be another way to get vehicle traffic in, especially from the university side. Obviously, people on Palm Drive can take Galvez instead and make a left turn to go northbound on E1 Camino. Secondly, in order to have any direct transit access (and this is where the Urban Lane mitigation measure does show up as a mitigation measure) because as the EIR explains, it is not likely that there will be county transit stops on E1 Camino directly in front of the PAMF site, although the medical foundation has been willing all along to provide a northbound stop on its E1 Camino frontage, transit agencies generally (and the county transit has confirmed in its comment letter) put transit stops together because there is not much likelihood of getting a southbound transit stop without encroaching on Stanford’s Arboretum reserve property. Stanford has indicated they are not supportive of that at this time. The nearest transit stops would be at the intersection of E1 Camino~mbarcadero and at the transit center. So the Urban Lane extension actually serves as a mitigation measure to allow the Marguerite shuttle, 12/6/95 Page which Stanford has indicated could run through the medical foundation site, assuming arrangements can be worked out, but they do not want to duck in and come out on E1 Camino and then go over the overpass. They want to be able to go through the medical foundation site directly to University Circle. That is one of the primary functions that the Urban Lane extension would serve. So that is essentially how Urban Lane has come to be as far as the EIR is concerned. Commissioner Carrasco: Did I hear you say there is still a question about who pays for it? I know you said that you cannot make this project function without it. Chairman Beecham: Tony, ifI can help, what happens if Urban Lane does not occur? Mr. Heisler: For that reason, there is explicitly an alternative in the Alternatives Chapter of the book called the No Urban Lane Alternative. It essentially contemplates virtually the same site plan in terms of-building, etc., but it moves the signalized intersection down to Encina, and it does not have a break at the median at the PAMF main entrance on E1 Camino. That main entrance remains, and you have heard the foundation explain their planning process in terms of not having a wide enough street frontage on Encina for them to consider that as a main entrance. So they would retain the ceremonial main entrance on E1 Camino Real. It would still be available for right-turn in, right-turn out movements to and from northbound E1 Camino only. The Palm/University ramp, under this alternative, would not get extended. It would stay as it is, and people travelling from University Avenue downtown and from Palm Drive would be able to enter southbound E1 Camino and enter the medical foundation site, turning left at the signal light at Encina, then enter through the relatively small Encina Avenue, or they could make a U-turn at that light and enter through the main entrance. But that causes a potential weaving problem, so the short answer is, it is covered, but a longer answer is, there might be some additional changes if the Urban Lane extension did not go forward, which the foundation may wish to speak to. Mr. Schreiber: For the project that is in front of you, staff recommendations are that it be conditioned upon the signalized intersection at E1 Camino and on the Urban Lane extension. If the Urban Lane extension is not feasible, the project in front of you cannot be implemented. The medical foundation would have to come back through the review process -- the ARB, the planning commission, the whole process -- with modifications to the project. Now the modifications may be as relatively simple as modifying the front entry to right-in, right-out and moving signals to Encina. I think staffs hunch is that if that happened, there would be a ripple effect of other changes on the site plan. But essentially, the bottom line is that the foundation would not have approval for a project without the Urban Lane extension. 12/6/95 Page 34 Secondly, in terms of who pays for it and who does what, the recommended condition is that there will need to be an agreement reached between the medical foundation, the city, Stanford and the Joint Powers Board regarding the implementation of an Urban Lane extension. I fully expect, and I think the medical foundation does too, as they certainly have indicated it, that they are paying for the Urban Lane extension. There is no indication of any city dollars going into that, and I would not anticipate that the Joint Powers Board or Stanford will want to pay for part of that. So who pays for it? The answer is the medical foundation. If it does not happen, we essentially have a project approval that cannot be implemented, and we are back into the review process. I might add that Stanford staff talked to me today, and they are working with the Joint Powers Board. There have been questions regarding ownership of the land. Between the Joint Powers Board and Stanford, they feel they have a resolution to that, which is good news from my standpoint. They anticipate that in the very near future, they will again resume working with the medical foundation and the city regarding the overall implementation of this proposal, assuming it gets approved in the city review process. Chairman Beecham: As we slowly progress, it does become apparent that we will not finish this item tonight. This is currently scheduled to go to the city counci! on January 22, 1996. If they are at all able to meet that date, we need to finish this up within one week from tonight. (Dates for completing this item were discussed. Tuesday, December 12 at 6:30 was selected.) Now we shall try to resolve ~vhether or not the draft EIR is adequate on Transportation, particularly in regard to the intersection at E1 Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, traffic on Embarcadero, and other aspects, excluding internal circulation on the site. This is in regard to external traffic. Does anyone have an,vthing to raise about inadequacies of the draft EIR? Commissioner Carrasco: I take it that you are looking at the traffic issues of the underpass separately from traffic. Is that correct? Chairman Beecham: Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Cassel: Do you want someone to say they feel it is adequate? Would that help? Chairman Beecham: No, I am willing to conclude that, if nobody says they have a problem. I do, hereby, conclude that. Let us, as a group, move forward. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question for staff. It seems to me that earlier on, 12/6/95 Page 35 this underpass was thought of as a good idea, the connection along Homer from the east side of the railroad tracks to the west side. It seemed like it was in the applicant’s mind that this underpass would cost $100,000. Was there some big issue where the ADA was not considered and therefore, this figure was $100,000? I would like to ask at what point did it go up from $100,000 to $2 million. It seems difficult to understand. Mr. Schreiber: I don’t believe the underpass was ever anything close to $100,000. I cannot remember any detailed conversations several years ago when this whole thing started, but from staffs standpoint, the idea of an underpass has never been a minimum opening just for pedestrians. It would need to be an opening that would accommodate bicycles and meet various transportation, ADA and other standards. If I were asked early on about the cost range on this, I probably would have said close to a million dollars. What we have found is that the distance of it, after being investigated, would be somewhat longer. The million dollars was based partially on some relatively casual information from the City of Mountain View regarding a somewhat similar facility in Mountain View. The facility here would be more complicated, would be longer, and it has more access difficulties on both ends. So that has resulted in the cost going up from perhaps from $750,000 to $1 million to approximately $2 million. Chairman Beecham: Is there any chance of doing an assessment district on this? Mr. Schreiber: I am not qualified to give you a response on that in any definitive sense, but I would be doubtful, because you need to spread the benefit over properties that clearly would have a benefit. It may be quite difficult, for other than the medica! foundation property, to spread the benefit, which is a benefit for pedestrians and bicyclists from various parts of the community coming to that, using the facility, going back and forth. It would be a significant benefit for Palo Alto High School in terms of facilitating students getting under the tracks and to the bicycle path and down toward the high school. I certainly have significant doubts that an assessment district could be assembled to do that, at least in terms of the way we think of benefit assessment districts, which is that properties benefit and there is a relationship between the benefit they receive and the cost they incur. It is not something we have investigated in any depth. My knowledge of assessment districts is relatively casual. Mr. Heisler: Mr. Chairman, because you are raising this under the issue of Transportation, you had asked the specific question last week about alternate modes of travel. Most eve~one is ageement as to the desirability of the undercrossing, but from the traffic and transportation perspective, with or without the undercrossing, it would not be expected to make any difference in terms of any of the really big traffic 12/6/95 Page 36 issues. As part of the packet that you got but did not have a chance to read tonight, there is a response to your question. It points out, as pointed out in the draft EIR, that currently, approximately 3 percent of medical foundation employees bicycle to work, and about 3 percent walk. Without the undercrossing with the project, as currently proposed, there is some possibility, depending upon how far people are walking or biking, that those numbers could go down slightly. We also think that transit could be a bit more accessible, particularly with the anticipated shuttle connection to the CalTrans station. So the overall percentage of people who do not drive alone should not go down with this project. Even if you were to put in the undercrossing, there is no reason to think that all of a sudden, more people would start to walk or bicycle than are doing so now. In terms of whether this makes any difference to the intersection at E1 Camino Real and Embarcadero Road or to any other intersection, it is safe to say the answer is no. I want to make sure that is on the table in terms of your decision-making process. Chairman Beecham: That is important to understand. As an alternative, if that undercrossing is not feasible, due primarily to cost, the undercrossing at University Avenue is a dismal place. Is there anything that might be done, within reason, to improve that? Ms. Cauble: IfI may comment, we can talk conceptually about what might be done to improve that. There are probably lots of topics, like how much better our city parking garage looks, now that it has been painted, but in terms of this project, there is a legal issue as to whether there are increased burdens created by this project that necessitate or cause us to find that a mitigation measure is appropriate. So your first threshold question is, is there ans~hing about this new project that is going to exacerbate the dismal condition of the University Avenue undercrossing? If you say yes, then we can explore mitigation measures. Chairman Beecham: In that case, I will pose my question not under the draft EIR but under the site and design medium. Ms. Cauble: But the legal question is there, regardless. We need to have a nexus to impose a condition on the project. Karl has pointed out that from environmenta! perspective and a trip analysis, it is not a significant difference. If you are thinking of other impacts of the project, those need to be articulated on the record. Commissioner Cassel: In other words, the issue that was raised by the businesses in the community that they are going to lose a great deal of business downtown if the site moves, does that become a nexus? The concern is that that be an attractive underpass for people to use in order to get to the businesses downtown. 12/6/95 Page 37 Ms. Cauble: Not solely, no. I do not think this project has an obligation to support the businesses downtown. We could look at Comprehensive Plan policies and whether there is anything about building this project in the absence of that undercrossing, or some undercrossing, or an improved undercrossing was in some way contrary to Comprehensive Plan policies. That is the kind of analysis we would have to look at to try and support a condition of this nature. Mr. Schreiber: The economic analysis that has been included in the material that you received with the environmental assessment is not required by the California Environmental Quality Act. It is not directly a basis for imposing mitigations. So the shift in some business from downtown to the Town and Country Village, unless it had some direct physical impacts that can be identified, and I do not believe we have found any, would not provide the nexus for mitigations or conditions. Commissioner Carrasco: So if this undercrossing cost $1 million, staff would not have backed off from requiring it? Is it only because it goes up to $2 million? Is that why staff is now not recommending it? Mr. Schreiber: No, staff has had a strong, sometimes emotionally strong desire to t~~ to bring about an underpass in this location. From the very beginning, staff has also encouraged the medica! foundation to seriously look at an underpass as part of this project. At no point in the process would city staff have been comfortable recommending a half million or more dollars of city general funds to go into the project. I serve on the city staff Capital Improvement Progam Review Committee. I can assure you that there is a long list of capital projects related to existing deteriorating infrastructure and highly desired improvements that are not being funded. If we cannot take care of our existing facilities, it is very, very hard for staff to recommend taking a large sum of money and shifting it out of that type of work and putting it into something that is a nice improvement but probably does not rank with many of the park and other projects that need to be done. Commissioner Schmidt: We have a condition requiring the Marguerite or another shuttle to provide shuttle service from the site to the transit terminal. I would imagine that people could connect at that location to a downtown shuttle, or is it possible to require the shuttle to go downtown at lunchtime or certain other times of the day? Do we not have the appropriate nexus to make that a requirement? Mr. Heisler: If it is the Marguerite which everyone anticipates it would be, the Marguerite would go to the transit center, as it does. One of the major functions of the transit center is as a transfer point. I am not going to speak for where the Marguerite may go in the future, but the route they are proposing would be the route that runs to and from the transit center, up and down E1 Camino, Galvez and into the campus. One of the big advantages of having the Marguerite serve the medical !2/6/95 Page 38 foundation site, as noted in the EIR, is that Stanford University has a large percentage of its staff as patients at the medical foundation. So that would be a clear benefit to Stanford, as well as generally to traffic. But in terms of getting the Marguerite to go directly downtown, I do not see that as being likely. If for some reason, the Marguerite were not to happen, PAMF would have to provide its own shuttle, then you might talk to them about whether it could go farther. But I do not see the Marguerite serving that function. Commissioner Eakins: I am beginning to understand that we are groping and having trouble moving on forward. It seems to me that one of the things we ought to just get out of the way is the EIR, and then focus on the things that are not necessarily covered by the EIR but that we care about that come under the Comprehensive Plan. I see a lot of heads nodding in agreement. Is this something we can do? We do not have to agree with the content or with all of the recommendations or proposals to say the EIR has been found to be adequate. Isn’t that correct? Mr. Schreiber: Yes. Commissioner Eakins: I would feel energized if we got this one large hunk out of the way. Maybe it is the sheer bulk of this document and the weight of the maps that are intimidating us. If we could just get to the point where we could say that it is adequate, that it is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, that it adequately analyzes the potential impact and related mitigation measures, and not feel that we have to solve everything that is of concern. If we could just get this early at the next meeting (as I do not feel we can do it tonight), and then work on the rest of it. Is that something we can agree to? Chairman Beecham: Part of my thinking was that as we discuss all the various aspects of parking, circulation, etc., the discussion bounces between what is in the draft EIR and the plan itself. If, on the other hand, we have all gone through the draft EIR and we do not have any points in there that we are concerned about as being inadequate, and we can make a summary statement that it is adequate, then we can do so. Are there any comments? I am trying to think that for myself,, can I say now, for each section, that I do not have any concerns, without having thought about it a bit more? Commissioner Eakins: I will have to read all of the materials that have been sent to us, and reread the consultants’ and staff reports. Then I feel I could get to the point where I could say yes or no. Chairman Beecham: Then let us plan to raise at the next meeting, for the first item, anything we believe to be inadequate. If none of us has anything to raise about inadequacy, then we can vote on it or address it at that point. 12/6/95 Page 39 Mr. Schreiber: To the extent possible, if you have items that you have already identified as needing information, if we could know those tonight or even over the weekend, that would be of great help. Ms. Moore: To clarify on the EIR, there really are two things you do with it. You evaluate it to ensure that it is an adequate information document. Then you are legally obligated to review it and use it in the course of your evaluation of the merits of the project. So while we may be asking you to find the draft EIR, plus the additional information that will be added to it, adequate under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, we are not precluding you from using that document and referring to it probably extensively in your upcoming discussion. So it is not as though you will deal with it, put it aside and not talk about it anymore. We would hope you would continue to use it and the information in it. But there really are two separate things you are being asked to do. One is, is it adequate as an informational document? Two, use it as an informational document as you evaluate the project merits. Chairman Beecham: From my own point of view on the draft EIR at this point, I do not have an.vthing to raise about any inadequacy. My concern primarily was over the impact of Embarcadero traffic. I believe that has been clarified tonight, and I do not have any other issues to raise on inadequacy. Does anyone else have issues of inadequacy to raise? Commissioner Schmidt: I said last week that I was somewhat concerned about the safety of the circulation within the site. I do not know" if this is a question in regard to the draft EIR or to the project discussion. I am concerned about dropping people off.. trying to go across the lane to get into the underground garage, just the circuitousness of it with traffic coming in from several points into the circulation, if one starts at the front and drives around to the back. I know- it is discussed. Does it need any more discussion in regard to the EIR, or is it a project discussion? Ms. Moore: The question you are raising was evaluated by the EIR consultants and staff in preparation of the draft EIR. In fact, in a prior iteration of the project proposal, there was the conclusion that there would be difficulty at the entrance oval because of the way it was designed. The entrances to the underground parking were much closer to Embarcadero, and we found that there probably would be stacking circulation difficulties at the entrance oval. We had a very good meeting at Environmental Science Associates. The revised project that PAMF came forward with and is the subject of the draft EIR in front of you resolved that issue. So the EIR looked at internal circulation and essentially found there are no significant problems with internal circulation at this time. But it is important for you to know that there have been defects that were identified before being rectified by the applicant. In fact, they were detected through the environmental review process at an earlier stage. 12/6/95 Page 40 Mr. Stoffel: I would like to add something to that. The EIR definitely concludes that there are no safety issues with regard to the internal circulation and no significant congestion kinds of issues. However, there are congestion problems on the site, and it is going to be quite congested during the peak hour, for instance. There will be difficulties in moving around. But they are not significant in terms of CEQA. Commissioner Cassel: In terms of hazardous waste, there is an indication here that there will be no increase in the amount of hazardous waste at the site than there presently is, because there will be no increase in use. They have stated that they are adding two linear accelerators. The way medicine is developing, a great deal more is being handled at the clinic sites rather than in hospitals. In addition to that, I think initially they probably will not have any more people on site, but the nature of an effective business is that it grows, so they will grow into it over time. So I am curious about the fact that there are no increases in the waste, and there were no numbers given for any of it. It was extremely general. Is that adequate, normally, in an EIR that there are no figures? You gave all the figures for every turn lane on every road, and no numbers at all for any of the amounts of hazardous waste generated. Is that normal? There is a whole list of procedural items that they use, and I know they have those in any medical facility for getting rid of waste. Mr. Heisler: We did the best we could with the information we were able to get from the applicant. We were not able to get more quantifiable information. Commissioner Cassel: Would you have liked more information from the applicant? Mr. Heisler: Our hazardous materials analyst is satisfied with the discussions he had, subsequent to the initial data request going in, with staff of the foundation both on their research side and on their clinical side. He also spoke extensively with city staff in environmental protection, including the fire department, and everyone came to agreement internally that the information is adequate, based on the project being presented. I think that your question obviously raises implications as to how medicine is evolving, and I am not sure anyone would feel comfortable with going out on a limb and making a statement that yes, this is likely to happen or not likely to happen. Your point about procedures being described extensively is well taken and should be looked at in light of the fact that when those procedures are followed correctly, the risk of mishaps with hazardous materials, with bio-hazards, with radioactive materials, etc. is really substantially minimized. That was one of the large points of discussion that our staff had with city staff. We were in agreement that the procedures, if implemented properly, really leave you at a point where under the California Environmental Quality Act, you do not have a significant impact likely as 12/6/95 Page 41 a result of the routine handling of materials that they handle now and will handle in the future, and will handle under better conditions, particularly at the Research Institute. I have not been inside of it, but I have been told that the handling and storage facilities are certainly not state of the art. Commissioner Cassel: I would presume that one of the advantages of going to a new building would be that the handling of materials within the building would be better, that safety procedures can be better, everything can be updated, and the whole system will be much better off for everyone. I was thinking in terms of disposal of waste products. Where do they go? Do we have sites for them or are we impacting that? Mr. Heisler: We did identify, particularly in terms of radioactive materials, that I believe the only site that is available for certain materials is out of state. That site in South Carolina, in fact, was closed for a time to waste from California, at least. It is now operating again. As you probably are aware, there has been a long, drawn out discussion at the state and federal level about locating a low level radioactive waste disposal site in Ward Valley in Southern California., and that is an ongoing controversy. No one is prepared to say when that site may be available, so it is an issue of concern, but as the city attorney pointed out, what we are looking at here is, what is the increment of the project. From the best information everyone was able to come up with, we are not talking about a new facility. We are talking about mostly existing operations moving to a newer and different site. The disposal issues remain as they are issues now. Mr. Schreiber: To underscore one aspect of Karl’s response, the EIR consultant worked very closely with the fire department, particularly Doris Maez, the Environmental Protection Coordinator, and I know that Doris was also involved in the 1990 Specific Plan Process EIR, so she had quite a bit of background in terms of this particular applicant. I know that Doris certainly had a variety of data and other needs, and she worked with the EIR consultant. They worked together with the applicant, and every indication we have is that the fire department is satisfied and Doris is satisfied with the conclusions in the EIR. Commissioner Carrasco: Regarding on-site circulation, it turns out that the applicant is recommending that we have access easements rather than rights-of-way. I do not know what that means in terms of the ability for any kind of traffic to pass at any time. Mr. Schreiber: It should not make any difference at all. Many streets in Palo Alto are easements rather than owned by the city government in fee. One of the critical reasons why stafL particularly the Public Works Department, does not want to have ownership is that a significant part of the north-south collector road will be on top of the parking structure. We do not want to have the maintenance responsibility for a 12/6/95 Page 42 road sitting on top of a structure. That could have very significant maintenance and other problems with it. Public Works has been very clear and very emphatic that they do not want to own that roadway on the site. From the standpoint of public access, it does not make any difference. For example, Page Mill Road is an easement. Also I believe University Avenue is an easement. Chairman Beecham: Does that complete your comments, Tony? (Yes) With that, staff can safely assume that if the commission does come up with any questions next week, they will be of a minor sort. You can prepare most of what you want to do this week. Commissioner Eakins: Other people’s comments and questions have stimulated my tired mind. I flipped through this and looked at the charts. I need help in determining if the disaster remediations are present. There is very limited access on and off this campus-type site. If everyone needs to get out at once, how are they going to do it? If that is covered in there, that is fine. That is a question I have, that is, circulation in case of disaster in this system of limited access. I am not sure that the question of aesthetics and these very big buildings up on a platform of a raised site has been addressed adequately. So tell me again, so that I understand whether or not that has been addressed adequately as far as CEQA standards and utilities, that is, the increase in demand for utility service there. I am sure the old warehouse and old buildings did not require nearly as much as a modem, state-of-the-art medical facility will require. Just show me how that has been done adequately. Thank you. Mr. Heisler: In terms of the utilities, I can tell you without question, with the probable exception of Transportation, that that section of the EIR was reviewed more closely by city staff than any other section. Essentially, it incorporated an extensive reworking of the first draft from the various utilities -- water, gas, wastewater, electricity. City staff was satisfied with the final results. The mitigation measures do require that the foundation will have to provide additional information to utility staff prior to going ahead with construction, but all of the items that staff wants to have addressed are in the document. In terms of disaster access, there are mitigation measures both in terms of police and fire departments to make sure they are satisfied with access to and from the site and on the site. Commissioner Eakins: Is that in case of emergencies? Ms. Cauble: Right. If you look at Page IV.D-26, it does conclude that there is adequate access and adequate response time. It is in the middle of the emergency 12/6/95 Page 43 remaining empty for a period of time, can the medical foundation give short-term leases to small businesses? Ms. Cauble: Not as currently drafted. That is part of the reason why staff, in negotiating the amendment, was willing to commit to a timeframe within which we would start the planning process. The neighborhood is going to be anxious to start it, and the property owner is going to be anxious to start it, because its being completed is the condition for reuse of these properties. So the medical foundation has ageed to the limitation, with the realization that it is a finite period of time wherein which, for some period of time, they will be working on completing their move. The planning process will start and end; everyone will know what the allowed land uses are, and that process will then begin. Until the property is replanned, this document does not anticipate reuse of those structures. Commissioner Schmidt: My question is focused more that even if the project is replanned, and it is a wonderful plan that everyone loves, if there is not a developer, or the real estate market is not such that someone wants to spend money at that time, and the property sits vacant for a long period of time, what happens then? Can it sit there for ten years? Five years? Mr. Schreiber: As the Development Ageement is recommended to you, that is, the amendment, they could not reuse the buildings as they currently sit there until the reuse of the site is resolved. If, in the decisions regarding reuse of the site, some interim use was allowed, that would be a possibility. But it would take another specific city action, reviewed by the commission and the council, to allow any type of interim use of any of those buildings. Commissioner Schmidt: So if there is an interim situation, we would be able to deal with it. Mr. Schreiber: It would have to come through as either a further amendment to the Development Ageement or as some type of zoning or city action that would be a land use action that would come before the commission. I might add that in terms of that ongoing use, there are two exceptions to that -- the SurgiCenter, which for some reason was included in the specific plan but is not owned by the medical foundation, and the second is that the foundation has indicated all along that they wanted to have space for a small medical office in the downtown area. It may well be in this area somewhere, although not on the two main blocks. Chairman Beecham: If that completes the comments, I will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, December 12 at 6:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 12/6/95 Page 46 service discussion, but you might want to take a look at that part of it for a more specific answer to your question. Mr. Heisler: And again, it also calls for the police and fire departments, as required by the city for any development project, to have to give their approval to the site design and to continue to work with and consult with the project sponsor as the project goes into a more detailed design phase. Mr. Schreiber: In terms of internal safety and function in the event of an emergency, built to current standards, the medical facilities will be substantially safer than the existing facilities which were built, in some cases, many years ago under very. different codes. So this facility, in terms of the occupants, will represent a substantial increase in on-site safety in the event of an emergency. Commissioner Eakins: There is a difference between my question about disaster and the response about emergencies. Emergencies can be a few people. I mean where something horrible happens, such as a bomb, is everyone lined up at the two exits from this place to get out? That is what I am getting at, disaster at a limited access site, a campus design rather than a gid or permeable site. Mr. Heisler: From my discussions with fire and police staff., that is something they have clearly taken into account in their review of the site. Probably the more likely disaster that will happen is an earthquake. The more structural issues are covered extensively in the geology section. I know that is part of the planning that goes into the police and fire department’s review of the site plan. There are not specific mitigation m~asures dealing with site access specifically, vis-a-vis a major disaster such as you were talking about, distinct from the police and fire departments’ normal project review. They have not identified any concerns for us beyond what is discussed in the document. Ms. Moore: I am sorry I cannot be more specific regarding the statutory requirement, but a number of years ago, I believe it was federal OSHA-type legislation that had to be implemented by individual states for al! businesses with over a threshold number of employees, and that number was quite low., because I remember the State Chamber of Commerce was not particularly excited about the proposed legislation, saying it would be a burden on small businesses, all businesses are required to have safety plans written that are prepared with certain signage instructions prepared for their employees for the kind of disaster incident that you are speaking of. Hence, many of the signs that you see around City Hall here are not done just because Palo Alto is a good employer and a good agency. There are requirements in that regard. Commissioner Cassel: In addition to that, you are instructed on how to handle the patients that you are with at the time, also how to check rooms for patients and what 12/6/95 Page 44 exits you take. You practice it on a regular basis. Commissioner Eakins: I just want to know if anything is required by CEQA but is not in here. That is what I want to know for this exercise. Ms. Moore: It is not discussed specifically because the underlying assumption in this document is that this employer is going to comply with the statutory requirements. Chairman Beecham: So I think the direct answer to Sandy’s question would be that in staffs opinion, the CEQA requirements are fully covered in the draft EIR. Is that correct? Ms. Moore: Yes, i{ is. Chairman Beecham: In that case, I believe we are once again at the point of saying that this commission does not have any other concerns on the adequacy of the draft EIR, but we will advise you finally next week. I will now close discussion of Agenda Item 1, with the understanding that we will be continuing it next week. AGENDA ITEM 2 300 Homer Avenue and Adiacent Properties Included in the Adopted Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan: Amendment of Development A_m’eement. Chairman Beecham: Does anyone wish to speak to this item from the public? Seeing none, I have opened the hearing, and I now close the hearing. Is there anything else, procedurally, that we need to take care of tonight? Ms. Cauble: I would just ask if there are any specific concerns that the commission has on Item 2, the Development Agreement, I would be happy to hear them so we would be better prepared to answer them. Chairman Beecham: Does anyone have any questions for staff on this item? The only question I have was a followup to some comments tonight on prevention of any demolition before there is a plan. I am sure we will be covering that next week, as I saw staff making some notes. Ms. Cauble: Yes, we will consider possible amendments to the document that might address some of those concerns next vveek. Commissioner Schmidt: Is it allowable for the medical foundation to lease any of the vacated buildings, once they have moved? If a new developer does not buy the property right away and begin development immediately, and there are buildings 12/6/95 Page 45 remaining empty for a period of time, can the medical foundation give short-term leases to small businesses? Ms. Cauble: Not as currently drafted. That is part of the reason why staff, in negotiating the amendment, was willing to commit to a timeframe within which we would start the planning process. The neighborhood is going to be anxious to start it, and the property owner is going to be anxious to start it, because its being completed is the condition for reuse of these properties. So the medical foundation has agreed to the limitation, with the realization that it is a finite period of time wherein which, for some period of time, they will be working on completing their move. The planning process will start and end; everyone will know what the allowed land uses are, and that process will then begin. Until the property is replanned, this document does not anticipate reuse of those structures. Commissioner Schmidt: My question is focused more that even if the project is replanned, and it is a wonderful plan that everyone loves, if there is not a developer, or the real estate market is not such that someone wants to spend money at that time, and the property sits vacant for a long period of time, what happens then? Can it sit there for ten years? Five years? Mr. Schreiber: As the Development Agreement is recommended to you, that is, the amendment, they could not reuse the buildings as they currently sit there until the reuse of the site is resolved. If.. in the decisions regarding reuse of the site, some interim use was allowed, that would be a possibility. But it would take another specific city action, reviewed by the commission and the council, to allow any type of interim use of any of those buildings. Commissioner Schmidt: So if there is an interim situation, we would be able to deal with it. Mr. Schreiber: It would have to come through as either a further amendment to the Development Agreement or as some type of zoning or city action that would be a land use action that would come before the commission. I might add that in terms of that ongoing use, there are two exceptions to that -- the SurgiCenter, which for some reason was included in the specific plan but is not owned by the medical foundation, and the second is that the foundation has indicated all along that they wanted to have space for a small medical office in the downtown area. It may well be in this area somewhere, although not on the two main blocks. Chairman Beecham: If that completes the comments, I will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, December 12 at 6:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 12/6/95 Page 46 Tuesday, December 12, 1995 Special Meeting PLANNING Attachment S COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LiVE ON GONVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 CONTINUED BUSINESS 795 EL CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. 2 o 300 Homer Avenue and Adjacent Properties Included in the Adopted Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan -- Amendment of the Development Agreement. 3O 12-12-95 -1 - The planning commission met in a special meeting on Tuesday, December 12, 1995 at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Beecham presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins and Schmidt Absent:Commissioners Ojakian and Sc_hink Staff Present:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Consultants Present: Lisa Newman, NewTnan Planning Associates Anne Moore, Moore Consulting Dennis Struecker, Korve Engineering Karl Heisler, Environmental Science Associates Mr. Schreiber: The two commissioners absent for this item both have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot participate. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Beecham: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. At this time, any member of the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak this evening? Seeing no speakers, we will move on to the next agenda item. CONTINUED BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM 1 795 EL CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOL~DATION) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Variance and Vacation of Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. 12-12-95 -2- Chairman Beecham: This is a continuation of a meeting that we had on Wednesday, November 29 and Wednesday, December 6 regarding the application by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to relocate to E1 Camino Real. We have two items on our agenda to complete tonight. One is the project itselL including quite a number of actions to be addressed, as well as the design review. I would like to ask staff about the status of the action on the development agreement for the existing site, which is our second item. Ms. Cauble: We are asking the planning commission, if it is prepared to do so, to recommend approval of the agreement in substantially the same form as it appears. There will still be some wordsmithing among the lawyers as this moves on to the city council. The basic terms are there, and we are asking for your recommendation of approval tonight. Chairman Beecham: We had three items at our places tonight. One is a letter from Yoriko Kishimoto, summarizing some of her previous comments. Another is from staf£ a revision of what they provided us with last week, entitled "Master Response on E1 CaminoFEmbarcadero Intersection (revised)" on which I believe staff will have some comments to help us understand the revisions. The third item is an outline for commission discussion. Earlier this week, Mr. Schreiber and I talked about how to ensure that what we will go through takes care of staff requirements and is effective. This is an outline of the actions that we need to address tonight. My thinking is to go through these actions as much as possible, holding for the end the general discussion that we normally have on site and design. We will now hear the comments by staff. particularly on traffic and on landscaping. Mr. Schreiber: Anne Moore has comments on landscaping and Ashok Aggarwal has comments on traffic; therefore, I will just note for the record that the public hearing on this item has been held and was closed last Wednesday, December 6, so there is no further public testimony. Ms. Moore: Too late to be included in your packet was information received from the applicant. It is in the mail to all of you, with apologies for not getting it to you on time. I can summarize the information that was provided by the landscape architect, Antonia Bava. There are 20 existing trees on the site which are to be removed in conjunction with the proposed project. There are 320 trees to be planted on site with the proposed project. Of that, 90 to 100 of them would be on the parking structure, therefore, smaller in stature relative to the other trees when fully grov~’n. The horticulturist prepared a value analysis, using the standard appraisal numbers that are used for trees, for example, oaks are of a higher value than most other species, and the size of tree is included in that. The value of the trees to be removed, with this standardized horticulturist approach, is a bit under $43,000. The estimated value of the trees to be provided on the site is $120,000. All of that information has been provided, and staff feels very comfortable with that analysis. There is also a discussion regarding the evergreen and deciduous tree mix. The applicant’s designers can respond to that question in more detail if you desire more information. 12-12-95 Mr. Aggarwal: Basically, in the revised master response, the changes relate to the length of the storage in the left-turn pockets. Now the conclusions have changed from what was discussed the last time, as they relate to the 1998+ project scenario. The reason for the changes in the storage lengths is due to the CalTrans Highway Design Manual which states that the storage area should be long enough to the point where there should be one-and-a- half to two times the space needed for a uniform arrival of traffic. The main reason for that is that traffic does not arrive in a uniform manner. It arrives at random. The numbers that were included in the handout that you received on December 6 were based on uniform arrival, not at-random arrival. So we could go page by page, pointing out all of the changes, but the net effect is that overall, we need more storage length, whether it be for one left-turn lane or for two. As a result, under the 1998+ project scenario, in last week’s packet, it was mentioned that we need a length of 375 feet for a single left-turn lane. It should actually be 550 feet, as an example. In terms of the conclusions, none of them has changed as they relate to the 1998+ project scenario. For example, the existing left-turn lane is approximately 325 feet from the intersection north to the median opening into Town and Country Village. The existing left-turn lane queue is currently accommodated within the existing left-turn lane. In 1998, with additional project traffic, with a left-turn lane, the left-turn queue would block the median opening. However, with two left-turn lanes, the queue will be accommodated within the available queueing space. These were the four conclusions that were also shared with the commission last Wednesday. Those conclusions are still correct today. Chairman Beecham: This indicates on the bottom of Page 2 that these random numbers are at the 95 percent confidence level. (Yes) Does that mean that 95 percent of the time, the queue is smaller than this? Mr. Aggarwal: Or you might say that in only 5 percent of the cycles, the queue will be longer than what we are going to provide. Chairman Beecham: So there are some occasions when it will be longer, but most of the time, it is shorter than this. Mr. Aggarwal: That is correct. Chairman Beecham: Also, is the 25 feet per vehicle a realistic number today? Mr. Aggarwa!: Yes, that is realistic. Chairman Beecham: I note in here that it indicates that with the two left-turn lanes at the limit of the queue, even with the two turn lanes, by the year 2010, I believe it said that the exit from Town and Country Village will be impacted, that the queue will extend beyond that point. Mr. Aggarwal: That is correct. 12-12-95 Chairman Beecham: Since there are no other comments or questions, let us turn to the outline for commission discussion. Item #1 is to address the adequacy of the draft EIR. Can the staff counsel help us to understand what "adequacy’.’ means? I -know it does not mean that we agree with everything and that not all of us could ever agree on everything in here probably. Ms. Cauble: As you ~know, the role of an environmental impact report is primarily an informational one. So in trying to determine whether or not it is adequate, first, in a general sense, you should be asking yourself whether it analyzes the important issues to a sufficient degree to allow your commission and the city council to make an informed decision on the project. That is the general test of adequacy. More specifically, you need to ask whether or not it has identified and evaluated all potentially significant adverse impacts of the project on the environment and whether it has identified and analyzed mitigation measures to address those significant impacts that have been or should be identified. Also, whether it has analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project which might be analyzed competitively and might lessen some of the impacts of the project. So you are making sure that the potential impacts are identified and studied, the mitigation measures are identified and studied, and a reasonable range of alternatives is studied. The courts say that an EIR does not need to be exhaustive, but of course, on any project, we could generate ten more stacks of paper. It needs to meet the basic test that it is a sufficient document to allow you to make an informed decision on the project. Chairman Beecham: Over the past two weeks, we have had quite a few discussions on the range of the impacts, and have focused a lot on the intersection at E1 Camino and Embarcadero, traffic on Embarcadero, and other associated traffic impacts. At the last meeting, we attempted to identif)~ any other issues that the commissioners might have had, where they felt there was something that was either inadequate or not fully discussed in the draft EIR. I believe those things have been covered by staff or by our discussions. Does anyone have anything else they wish to raise regarding the adequacy of the draft EIR? Commissioner Schrnidt: The statement before us in the Outline For Commission Discussion says that the draft EIR will have responses to all comments submitted during the public review period. We had several comments that were received last week. They may or may not have been in the public review period which ended December 4, I believe. Will responses to all of these questions be made? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, in putting that wording together, I used "public review period" rather than the "45-day public review period" because we did extend the public review- period through last Wednesday’s public hearing. All those comments will be picked up. Chairman Beecham: And on that point, will there also be a public hearing at the city council level on this? Mr. Schreiber: Yes. It is the final EIR, but the council will take public testimony. Chairman Beecham: Given our extensive discussions during the last two weeks, does anyone else have an.vthing to say regarding the adequacy of the draft EIR? 12-12-95 MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that the planning commission finds that the Draft EIR, with responses to be prepared to all comments submitted during the public review period, has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the project and related mitigation measures. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. Chairman Beecham: Given the criteria for us to evaluate this, that is, that it does provide the information needed to make an informed decision, even though in our discussions, we all questioned some various aspects of either the information or the detail or some of the conclusions, in a basic sense, we believe that the significant impacts have all been identified, and the mitigations or possible mitigations have been thoroughly discussed. A wide number of less than significant impacts have also been identified, with mitigations for them also discussed. The available, reasonable alternatives have also been evaluated. So I am happy to support the motion. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Carrasco, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to recommend that the draft EIR is adequate and consistent with CEQA, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next in the outline in front of us are two items regarding the Comprehensive Plan. One is in regard to the approval of an amendment on the land use designation, changing it from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other item is to modif3; the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element for the downtown site. Are there any comments on the first item? Commissioner Cassel: I do not believe we have had a discussion about using a PC for this site. The proposal is to turn it into Major Institution/Special Facilities, which has traditionally been a zone for something that the city owns. Apparently, at the hospital, we have a contract with Stanford Hospital. The question is, why have we chosen to do this as a Major Institution/Public Facilities, and does it set any precedents for the future? Mr. Schreiber: Let me tI3r to separate out the Comprehensive Plan decision from the zoning decision. The issue that is raised is really a zoning issue. The existing downtown Palo Alto Medical Foundation site has been designated Major Institution~ublic Facilities ever since 1976. There have been repeated findings by the planning commission and the city council that the medical foundation’s use, both the clinic and the research institute, are consistent with that land use designation. While most of the Major Institution/Public Facilities-designated sites in town are governmental, clearly "medical" is a part of this. Stanford Hospital and that whole area is Major Institution/Public Facilities also. So the land use category is not limited to government functions. Again, this is an appropriate community facility in terms of that land use classification. 12-12-95 Commissioner Carrasco: I think it is appropriate that we change the designation to Major Institution!Public Facilities. If you stand back from this whole issue, the importance of this institution moving from a residential neighborhood to what is clearly a much better site in terms of access, as well as in terms of not infringing upon a residential neighborhood, it is far better in this location than at its current site. Because in its existing location it has been classified as Major Institution/Public Facilities, I think there is eminent reason why it should stay in that same designation in a better location. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: Therefore, I move that the planning commission recommend approval of an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial to Major Institution!Public Facilities. SECOND: By Commissioner Casse!. Chairman Beecham: Let me make a general statement which will apply also to a number of the motions before us tonight. What is in front of us is basically a win/win situation for the community. The medical foundation has, for a long time, lived in the downtown area. It is historical that it is there, and has greatly outgrown that location. We went through a veD, difficult Specific Plan sometime ago to give them additional space, but it still did not really satisf), their total needs. It allowed them to continue in that location. The idea of moving to E1 Camino greatly relieves the pressure in the dowT~town area, and it keeps the medical foundation in a centralized location in Palo Alto, making an excellent use of the Urban Lane area, which has been under-utilized for some years. At some point, it would have been redeveloped, in any case. So I have a lot of confidence, as we go forward with this, that the basic idea of the medical foundation moving from downtow-n to E1 Camino is entirely appropriate. As we continue our discussion tonight, we will, at some point, get into details that involve optimizing the move and exactly how to perform one aspect or another, but in genera!, the idea of their moving from downtown to the E1 Camino site is entirely appropriate, so I will be happy to support the motion, as well. Commissioner Cassel: I also agree that this is a better site. I am aware that as you move into a new medical facility from an old facility, there are times when a complete change from the ground up is needed. The needs of medicine -- the requirements, the safety, the space to move equipment that is within a particular room in order to meet the needs of the client and the doctor providing the services and the nurses and others providing those services -- have changed so dramatically over the last years that I can understand the need for a completely new site. So I wish to confirm what Commissioners Carrasco and Beecham have said, and I will support the move. Commissioner Schmidt: I, too, support the move for all of the reasons previously stated, and in addition, to mention something from the staff report. One of staffs reasons for recommending this is that at the current site, the changes and planning of the area downtown will now go through a public participation process and be well regulated and planned by the city. That will be an added benefit of this. The surrounding neighborhoods will be much happier with this involvement in the future planning process. 12-!2-95 Commissioner Eakins: When the medical foundation was told it could expand on its existing site, I felt that it was a real stretch to find that to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It certainly stretched my credulity that it was in keeping with Palo Alto’s attention to and maintenance of its residential areas. Moving to this site is a major achievement. It looked like something that could not be done, and I congratulate the people at the foundation, particularly Mi’. Jury, who were able to put together all of these parcels to make this happen. That is not to say I won’t have some concerns, complaints even, about some of the details on which Bern predicted we would have some discussion later, but I do feel that the move is definitely in order, and the community wilt be much happier for it altogether. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next is an item regarding amending the zoning ordinance to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medical and related medical research. Commissioner Schmidt: To reiterate, it was my understanding that outpatient medical and related medical research is one use. Mr. Schreiber: That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: So this is a very specific addition as a conditional use. Mr. Schreiber: Yes, this does not open up the Public Facility zone to medical research uses, of which we have numerous in various parts oftow-n. We are talking about a free-standing medical clinic with an associated research facility. I might add that there were several comments made.in the public testimony about Stanford Hospital having clinics, asking if Stanford was in violation of anything. The answer is no, the Public Facilities zone allows hospitals as a conditional use. We have always regarded the clinics on the Stanford Hospital site as ancillary uses to the primal-5’ use, which is a hospital. So it is a hospital with related clinics. That is all right, because the primary use is "hospital," and that is a conditional use. In this case, we are talking about a clinic as the primary use. Commissioner Cassel: That is probably wise, since today, medicine is going to the point where the clinic will be the center, and the hospital wi!! be more the satellite. The clinic is going to be the center of our care, and the hospital is going to serve it, spending most of our time in the clinic, not in the hospital. MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that the planning commission recommend approval of an amendment of the zoning ordinance’s Public Facilities (PF) text to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medical and medical research, as in the ordinance attached to the 11/29/95 staff report. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. 12-12-95 8 MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next, we have an action regarding approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to modify Housing Program 1A regarding the Downtown Specific Plan. Any comments or questions? Commissioner Carrasco: I would ask staff how this relates to Item #8 in the Outline for Commission Discussion, the Amendment to the Development Agreement for the PAMF Downtown Specific Plan. Ms. Cauble: They work together. Essentially, it is what we proposed in terms of amending the Housing Element. As it is written now-, it anticipates the expanded medical foundation site downtown. So what we have proposed here is some simple language that says, if you get the approval and implement the Urban Lane site, the existing language in the Housing Element allowing the expansion of the downtown site will no longer be in effect. It coordinates with the amendment to the Development Agreement, but does it in both a negotiated sense and in a Comprehensive Plan sense. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move that the planning commission recommend approval of an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to provide for modification of Housing Program 1A to the Dow:ntown PAMF Specific Plan upon occupancy of the Urban Lane Campus, per the resolution attached to the 11/29/95 staff report. SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, please say Aye. Any opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next, we have an action concerning the rezoning 0fthe PAMF Urban Lane Campus from Service Commercial (CS) to the revised PF district. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that the planning commission recommend approval of an amendment of the zoning for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial (CS) to Public Facilities (PF) per ordinance attached to the 11/29/95 staff report. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? This certainly fits with what we did earlier on the PF district. All those in favor of the planning commission recommending approval of an amendment of the zoning for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial (CS) to Public Facilities (PF) please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. 12-12-95 -9- Next we have as an action before us a conditional use permit approval in which we approve the operation of an outpatient medical and medical research facility at the Urban Lane campus, with the findings and conditions in Attachment 1 of the December 6 staff report. This includes approval of Building D, which has the condition that it come back to the ARB for approval, since we have little detail right now on Building D. There is a list of approximately 20 other conditions that accompany this. Commissioner Schmidt: In our discussions over the past few weeks, we have discussed the addition of some potential conditions. I would guess that at least one or two of them would fit in here with this conditional use permit. One was the specific hours for truck and delivery traffic, and were to be the same as for the Fry’s Electronics site. I would suggest adding that here, that is, truck traffic is allowed from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on week days and from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. Mr. Schreiber: That is correct, and we recommend that. For the record, we will certainly work with the applicant, assuming this a!l goes forward, to ensure that truck traffic includes garbage pickup, so that garbage trucks do not come in at a very early hour, waking people up. Chairman Beecham: Does that include Encina Avenue only, or Wells Avenue also? Commissioner Schmidt: I was including the entire site. Commissioner Cassel: It was the Holiday Inn site that was also concerned about that issue. Mr. Schreiber: Yes, Mr. Chen raised a concern regarding Wells Avenue. Staff would concur that it should be the entire site, rather than just the Encina site. Commissioner Carrasco: On Attachment 1 to the December 6th staff report, under 1.a.(3), we talk about some public easements and access, etc. If.. down the road, we desired to modify the internal circulation, would that have to be changed? In approving this condition, would we be limited to these public easements? Ms. Cauble: Commissioner Carrasco is reading from the recommended findings for approval of the use permit. As I understanding this finding, what we are trying to get at is that essentially, there is adequate provision for public and private circulation through the site. Therefore, were some later rearrangement deemed to be appropriate, it might or might not trigger an amendment to the use permit, but it certainly would not undermine the finding that there is adequate circulation. Commissioner Schmidt: There are some other conditions which may or may not be appropriate here, but one of the things we talked about was adding some landscaping behind and next to the Greer House to shield it from the service drive and the rear of Building C. Is that something that would be appropriate to add as a condition, or just as a recommendation somewhere? Mr. Schreiber: It will almost undoubtedly pop up as an ARB condition, but it would also be appropriate as a use permit condition. We have no problem with its occurring in two different places. Commissioner Schmidt: Then I would like to recommend adding that condition. Staff can word it appropriately. Chairman Beecham: That condition would be in concert with what was discussed last week about whether the two- or three-foot-wide planting strip was sufficient for the trees to be healthy there. Mr. Schreiber: Mr. Jury has indicated great willingness to provide whatever type of landscaping the owners of the Greer House would like to have. We will work with them, through the ARB process, to ensure that the owners of that house are quite satisfied with the type of plants, size, spacing, etc. Commissioner Schmidt: There was a lot of discussion and recommendations from the Public Art Commission about involvement of the art commission. On at least one other project, we recommended that the art commission help in the design of and placement ofpubtic art in a facility. I would highly recommend that we do that here. I do not recollect exactly how we phrased it in the past, or if we just recommended or required that the owner and designer work with the Public Art Commission to come up with appropriate locations. Mr. Schreiber: I can think of some examples where that has come up with Planned Community zones. I am trying to come up with an example on a conventionally zoned site. There may be one, but I cannot think of what it would be at the moment. That issue is certainly a valid issue, and is probably most appropriate in your comments and recommendations to the Architectural Review Board. We will not lose track of it, and will come back to it if you do not. Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Chairman Beecham: Kathy covered my thoughts on the conditions. Are there any other comments on this item? Commissioner Cassel: I am not sure where this fits in, but in terms of traffic mitigations and using staggered hours, would that be appropriate in these conditions? Ms. Cauble: If the commission wants to recommend staggered hours, it should be a part of the use permit. Commissioner Cassel: Then I would like to recommend that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation use a staggered hour system and other mitigation measures to minimize traffic impacts on the surrounding areas, and that it be a part of the reporting back process that is being done for the city staff on an annual basis. Ms. Moore: If we could have a little more definition of what those staggered hours would be, we are assuming that you mean being consistent with what the applicant has represented as their intention, which is more of a 7 a.m. to a 6 or 7 p.m. time period, plus some Saturday operations, which are significantly expanded from what they have traditionally done. Commissioner Cassel: I was thinking in terms of its employment hours and the clinic operating hours in terms of its employment, as welI. A great deal of the staff on the more administrative level will be working a more traditional schedule. I am trying to mitigate that 5 o’clock deadline with everyone walking out the door at the same time. Ms. Moore: So you would include the requirement that PAMF maintain its existing flex program for administrative staff, non-shift staff?. Commissioner Cassel: Yes. Mr. Schreiber: With the objective, as you stated, of reducing to the extent possible the number of employees leaving the site in that peak period of 5 to 6 p.m. Commissioner Cassel: Yes. People tend to come in at staggered times for a variety of reasons, but they tend to a!l go home at 5 o’clock. Mr. Schreiber) This is certainly an appropriate amendment, along with the two that Commissioner Schmidt identified. Chairman Beecham: We are vvorking up a list of potential conditions, and this is probably an appropriate one to add to our list, and there will be one motion to incorporate all of them. To make sure that I understand this condition, it is to require that the medical foundation maintain their flex work program, with the aim of reducing their peak hour traffic. Commissioner Cassel: That is correct, and that it report back, along with its other reports to the city, on an armual basis. Commissioner Eakins: I would like to put on the condition list that the applicant continue to work with the city and the community about vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access on Homer Avenue to the site under Alma and the railroad tracks. We were calling it the bicycle/pedestrian connection and that it be a condition that stays on the table. Chairman Beecham: I am wondering how we can make that be effective. We can talk about it indefinitely. Commissioner Eakins: That is a good question. Mr. Schreiber has stated that it is of such a cost that it is out of scale with the project to demand that the applicant bear the whole burden of this. So it appeared that it was removed from the application process altogether. Last week, we heard the representatives from the applicant, and we heard from the public, and we have Judith Kemper’s remarks and Will Beckett’s letter in our packet, following up on his remarks, all relating to the interest of keeping this somehow- alive. I do not know how- to put that in at this point, but it needs to be monitored and there need to be milestones. We need to keep it in the discussion of the project. Commissioner Schmidt: Would it be appropriate to require the applicant to fund an appropriate engineering study of what can be done and how much it would cost? Right now, the costs that have been discussed have not actually been studied. Ms. Moore: To clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding (and I have even gotten a call on this), some people think that this Homer undercrossing was, at one time, a part of PAMF’s application package. It never was. They always expressed interest in this, seeing that it could certainly have some benefit to their campus, and I believe they had done some preliminary research and knew that these kinds of improvements tended to be quite expensive. We have already had this applicant voluntarily fund, through the EIR, the preliminary engineering and cost estimates of this improvement. Given the lack of any conclusions in the EIR or any of our analyses that there are significant adverse impacts that need this improvement as a mitigation, I feel we would have a difficult time in adding a requirement that they be obligated to fund additional engineering. However, as I recall, Mr. Jury, representing the foundation at your last meeting, testified that they would certainly participate with other people interested in pursuing ways to fund this improvement and get it put in. So if the condition were couched in a way that you are acknowledging a commitment that the applicant made at your public hearing to continue to work with staff and others interested in pursuing this, that kind of a condition is fine. But for any-thing more than that, the nexus between the project and its impacts and the proposa! is a bit unclear. Commissioner Carrasco: It is clear that PAMF has indicated interest in doing some kind of connection, and I agree with staff that the kinds of cost numbers we have heard would make it exorbitantly expensive for one applicant to fund. While it is a good idea, and we all agree that it is a good idea to include this in our package, I would recommend that we start some kind of fund. Staff will have to guide me on how the applicant would contribute not less than $250,000 towards that fund and that the fund go towards looking at planning solutions first, then engineering solutions, and then look at either an assessment district or some such mechanism to gain better connections between the Urban Lane site and the downtown area. Ms. CaubIe: Mr. Chair, in order to impose a fee upon this project to fund some portion of a future capital improvement project like the pedestrian undercrossing, we need to have a record which explains the manner in which this project has contributed to a need for that improvement, followed by an analysis of proportionality. That is, why a particular number was chosen and how it correlates to the burden imposed by this project. Commissioner Carrasco: I would then suggest that staff come up with that number, because clearly, if it was thought of as being an important aspect of this plan, there is some nexus, some connection, either an economic one or a physica! one or a convenience one or a transportation one. There seems to be some connection. I do not know- about all of the legal ways in which you could calculate the number, but I suggest we add a condition that says that staff will work with the applicant and come up with a legal number that reflects the nature of the planning issue. Commissioner Cassel: The planning issue is that we are trying to encourage people to walk and go by bicycle, rather than by car. That part of it seems relatively simple and straightforward. We want people to connect to downtown with this very large site. How much of the burden falls on this applicant who has already agreed to put $150,000 into it is something I do not know. How well you can condition it or whether we can do something else with it I do not know. Besides the two left-hand turn lanes at Embarcadero, this is the other issue that people keep calling me and talking to me and writing to me about -- is there some way to make a connection. The other question Tony has brought up is whether the money should be put into the Dream Team kind of 12-12-95 - 13 - thing so that that area opens up and people can get through. What people are saying is, not only you cannot get through Homer but you cannot get through in the area that we know needs to be changed and opened up, and is there some way of doing it. That walking connection seems to be bothering a lot of people. Commissioner Carrasco: To clarify, I did not mean to connect it with the Dream Team ideas. Commissioner Cassel: You did not. I did. Chairman Beecham: In terms of what the project does that requires this as a mitigation, ifI understood what counsel is getting at, I also have received calls and letters from a wide range of people, including the Chamber of Commerce and the South University Neighborhood Group, and others, strongly supporting the idea of an underpass. But in everything we have had in front of us, to be honest, I have not seen anything that comes out and says, here is the impact that this project is creating, which requires a mitigation, such as would be provided by the underpass. There are certainly benefits that the underpass would provide, and I believe that people who currently walk and bike to work or go as patients to the foundation are more likely to do so if they have a convenient way of getting across the tracks. The University Avenue underpass and the Embarcadero underpass are not particularly inviting. Certainly one that opens up directly onto the campus would be very. nice, so that is a benefit, but I do not necessarily see an impact to be mitigated. It is something veD, nice and desirable. Likewise, I think many people would like to give the opportunity to the medical foundation patients and employees to get downtov~n easily, mainly to continue to collect some of their dollars, keeping the downtown healthy and viable. The fact that the foundation is moving from the downtown area is not, by itself., a negative impact that must be mitigated. In addition, in the draft EIR, there is an analysis of what is possible to happen in terms of homes being built at the existing site. In the tong run, I feel that will have a positive impact on the downtown area, although there will certainly be a gap of several years before that occurs. So it is certainly desirable to have an underpass, and staff concurs with that, but as I took at the draft EIR and the project before me, I do not see an impact that the foundation is creating with their project that would require or imply that it ought to be mitigated. This is something that is very desirable, but I do not see that as a basis for requiring the foundation to do something. That being said, if we have a condition where we accept an offer from the foundation, I presume that what that does is to put in writing the acceptance of an assumed or verbal offer made here last week. Can that be made a condition? Ms. Cauble: Well, it is not pure, but I guess it eliminates the likelihood of legal challenge if the applicant goes on the public record and says, here, please take this. I suppose it is a bar to his challenging of it later on. If you were inclined to want to recommend a condition based on what you understood to be the applicant’s commitment, it would be wise to clarify what that commitment is for the record. Even though the public hearing is closed, you can certainly ask for additional information from members of the audience. Chairman Beecham: For the applicant, our recollection is that you indicated a willingness to contribute up to $150,000 to the building of an underpass. Is that, in fact, an offer that you are willing to make and stand by? Mr. Jury: I would like to clarif?~ one thing very, very clearly. We are talking about construction. We are not talking about hiring more consultants to do more studies of the feasibility of maybe putting in an underpass under the railroad tracks. We have no desire to fund more consultant studies. We probably have close to a million dollars in consultant studies already. We would pass on that. As to our willingness to participate in the funding of an underpass, yes, we would be willing to participate, but that participation is going to have a lot of strings attached to it. We want full participation of the community. We do not want to have an assessment district that includes only us, or us and two other properties. We feel that it should be an area-wide sharing of the cost of that. We should also look at it in context with other items that we are going to be required to pay. I always hate to give away a few dollars here and a few dollars there and not be able to connect them. We do have the issue of the Urban Lane connection that we are going to be required to construct, quite a expensive road. The idea of that connection is to get to the Universit3, underpass, and hence to downtown, easier. The idea of then spending more money to build an underpass to get downtown easier somehow does not work. I would like to work with all of this money as one fund, and let’s look at what is the most important. Is it the most important to have the Urban Lane extension? Is it the most important to have the underpass? Where should we best spend our funds. Chairman Beecham: In partial response to that and in terms of ensuring that the money is spent effectively, given that a contribution of up to $150,000 sounds as though it is less than 10 percent of the project cost, a lot of other organizations and people must also believe that this is for a very beneficial program. So I do not think you or the medical foundation would be in the position of funding something that does not have a lot of belief in its benefit. Mr. Schreiber: It is important to stress for the record that the Urban Lane extension to University Circle is an essential improvement in terms of the functioning of this project. It is not something that would be nice to have. It is not something that fits into some planning dream. It is an essential fact. If it does not exist, the site plan is not going to work, and we will be back in some public process revising the site plan, revising the use permit, etc. As such, staff has maintained from the beginning that the financial responsibility for the Urban Lane extension, as well as the financial responsibility for the main entrance from E1 Camino, the signalization work, as well as any CalTrans requirements attached to that, are the responsibility of the medical foundation. They are not city general fund costs. They are not a new assessment district cost. I would certainly see that if the foundation is at all interested in assisting the funding of an underpass, if something does occur (and again, staff would love to see something happen there), it is a matter of priorities and money. If it does occur, whatever expenses are incurred by the foundation are above and beyond the Urban Lane extension and the costs of the front entry. 12-!2-95 -15- Mr. Jury: For the record, it is important that we make the distinction between an underpass and a pedestrian!bicycle tunnel. The word "vehicular traffic" was used a few minutes ago. At no time was there ever any consideration of automobile or bus traffic through this tunnel. Chairman Beecham: I believe that is the general understanding of the commission, as well. For staff., we talked about the idea of a condition that takes advantage of an offer still on the table from the medical foundation to assist, to a maximum of $150,000, toward the actual construction of a pedestrian/bicycle underpass connecting the medical foundation to Alma Street. Does staff have a suggested wording on how- that might work, or would staff like to work on that later? Ms. Cauble: If the commission includes that as part of the motion, we will develop appropriate language. I would note that if such a condition were imposed on the project, it would presumably be an A.B. 1600 fee so the city would be required to hold it separately and specifically for the purposes intended. After the requisite period of time, if we had not found the rest of the money, we would have to give it back. Chairman Beecham: I would suggest a time limit of five years. Ms. Cauble: The statutory time limit is five years, unless the council makes certain findings. For example, if you have just included it in your CIP and you are going to build it two years hence, you can make findings to hold onto developer fees. If we follow" the statute, we wilt be in good shape. Chairman Beecham: Are there other conditions? Commissioner Carrasco: Condition #12 talks about improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane. I do not know what is going to come out of the architectural review comments that are in Condition #7 in your recent package from staff, therefore, I would like to add, "Improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane and other public ri~hts-of-wav and easements from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle .... " In other words, if we decide that there may be some internal connections that need to be public easements, they should also have improvement plans that come before the commission or staff. It does not have to be limited to the northern edge, either. It could be east-west connections as well as north-south connections. Chairman Beecham: Does that lend any confusion in terms of saying "Improvement plans for other public rights-of-way or easements" regardless of ~vhether the improvement is for the purpose of the easement or anything else? Mr. Schreiber: No, there is no problem with that wording. We will put the insert in after the words "University Circle" so that it would read, "Improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle and other public ri_ghts-of-wa~v or easements shall be submitted and approved by the ci~." The "such as" is not needed. Chairman Beecham: Does staff have the five conditions? Mr. Schreiber: We have four conditions and one modification. The additions are (1) the hours restricting truck deliveries, (2) a condition regarding the addition of landscaping behind and next to the Greer House, (3) a condition regarding maintaining the flexible hour work program with the intent of reducing peak period traffic impacts and having the foundation report back to the city as part of the annual mitigation monitoring program, (4) relating to the wording regarding acknowledging the foundation’s offer of $ ! 50,000 to be used toward construction of a Homer Avenue pedestrian/bicycle underpass, and Tony’s modification of Condition # 12. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: The planning commission recommends approval of a use permit for operation of an outpatient medical and related medical research use at the proposed Urban Lane campus, with the findings and conditions attached to the December 6, 1995 staff report and the four conditions and one modification just made. SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Carrasco, that we approve the use permit for operation of an outpatient medical and related medical research use at the proposed Urban Lane campus, with the four conditions we have added and the one modification of a condition attached to the December 6, 1995 staff report. Al! those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next we go to an item regarding the tentative subdivision map approval consolidating the 13 parcels into a single parcel and vacating portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. Comments or discussion? Commissioner Carrasco: While I like the overall idea, there are aspects of the existing site that are more permeable than the proposed ones. In other words, there is more public access through the existing site than the proposed one. That concerns me a little. While I can support the tentative subdivision map, I would like to get to the permeability of the site in the ARB conditions. I will address those later, but given that we can maintain the same amount of traffic and pedestrian and bicycle permeability through the site, I agree that this tentative subdivision map should be approved by us. MOTION: (WITHDRAWN) Commissioner Carrasco: I therefore move that the planning commission recommend approval of the tentative subdivision map to assemble 13 parcels into a single parcel, and to establish needed roadway and other public dedications and easements with findings and conditions attached to the December 6, 1995 staff report. Commissioner Cassel: Did you suggest that we can discuss Wells Avenue later on when we do the site plan? Commissioner Carrasco: Yes, that is what I am suggesting. 12-12-95 -17- Ms. Cauble: Let me clarify" that by approving the map, there are certain parameters that you are fixing. I am not sure about the nature of Tony’s questions and concerns. For example, if you are talking about landscaping treatment or paving treatment, obviously those can still be addressed. If you are talking about the width of the street, now is the time to deal with that. You should not vote to approve the map unless you are comfortable with the dimensions shown on the plan. I was not sure which category, because there are lots of things that relate to your concerns about access. Commissioner Carrasco: In which case, I am talking about widths of streets and public access that are both east-west and north-south. If that is the case, then I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we take Item #5 after #6, if that is acceptable to other members of the commission. Chairman Beecham: That is fine. Mr. Schreiber: So that is a withdrawal of the motion, and you are moving on to Item #6. Chairman Beecham: Yes. Item #6 on our list regards ARB and Design Enhancement Exception Approvals. We have seven subheadings under this item. The first is in regard to proposed campus circulation. Tony, are you concerned about addressing this, as well? Commissioner Carrasco: Yes. I feel that the existing site does allow some north-south connections between Urban Lane, Wells Avenue and Homer Avenue. I would ask the commission’s opinion here. I feel that there should be some connection between this campus circle that is proposed and some east-west connection to Urban Lane either here or here. Chairman Beecham: Tony is pointing between Buildings A & B, wanting to confirm the passability between those two buildings, between the circle facing on E1 Camino to the north-south extension behind it. Mr. Schreiber: Let me indicate that on the screen. The existing roadways are Wells Avenue and Urban Lane. Then the existing roadway comes down Urban Lane to Homer. What is proposed to be vacated is Homer and Urban Lane to this location. What is proposed to be added is a widened Urban Lane here and what will probably become known as Urban Lane, but it is the north-south connector road that comes down to Encina at this point. In addition, there is a five-foot widening of Wells Avenue from essentially the edge of the medical foundation’s property, the pet hospital property, back to the north-south connector road/Urban Lane connection. The map showed the service drive to the south of the site as a public easement. That is not correct. That is an internal roadway and should not have been shown. We would not recommend it as an easement. It is not needed as an easement, and it would not be appropriate as a public road. If you made that a public road, you would end up with a variety of setback problems. In addition, you have the bicycle path which is on the edge of the railroad right-of-way. When that is built, it will take up this area, There are connections from the bicycle path over into this area, but they axe not public easements. There will be a utility easement on the north-south road also, a!ong the tracks, and two connections from the road to the track area. The location of these, in particular, will probably be slightly changed by the time we get to the final map, because there will be the final engineering, and that may shift slightly, but the locations are essentially correct. The issue that Tony is raising is that as you go out to E1 Camino, you have the main entu, you have the oval, which is not proposed to be public, and then you have a driveway route out to Wells. There is no public connection through this area. The original site plan back on April 20 at the ARB meeting did have a connection in the area between Buildings A and B, but it was one of the more confusing parts of a confusing site plan. We had ramps coming up and ramps going down, and circles, with pity for anyone who had to venture through that area for the first few times. Those 6f us in the review process were all glad to see that part of it go. So we have ended up with less public access. If you want to get from E! Camino only via public road, you would go to Wells and go back to Urban Lane. If you want to get out on the north-south extension, you would go down Encina and out, or out on Wells, where you can do a right turn out. Encina is a right-in, right-out, and Wells is a right-in, right-out. Commissioner Carrasco: And Homer used to be left turn in as well. I am tr3,ing to find a place to replace that aspect of permeability. I cannot design it, as it is immensely complex. I talked to David Jury and hope it is appropriate to ask about the problems he has had at this point, allowing that to happen. Chairman Beecham: If you are looking for a left-hand turn which will now be missing with Homer, the main entrance allows a left-hand turn. Commissioner Carrasco: It is for that reason that I want to connect Urban Lane to that main entrance for vehicles. Chairman Beecham: Or you can go through the parking lot and down Wells, if you want to do that. But what is the rationale for having that be a connector to go through the site? Commissioner Carrasco: The rationale is that the more connections there are, the easier the traffic is and the simpler it is for people to find their way around. That is the reason why more connections on gridded streets are better than streets with cu!-de-sacs. Chairman Beecham: I agree with the urbanized grid idea, but not for this site. I thought that initially, you were talking about pedestrian access from the circle to the passway between Buildings A and B to the eastern edge. Is that not your idea? Commissioner Carrasco: I would be happy with Wells Avenue connecting through the parking lot with Et Camino and the traffic light. 12-12-95 -19- Ms. Moore: The applicant has always indicated to staff that it is their intention to allow public circulation into the signalized entrance and oval area and through the parking lot next to Building A. But Commissioner Carrasco is correct. There are not any public easements proposed in this area. What that means is that the only location in this site plan where left turns in and left turns out can be made, technically, would be a private area where PAMF could presumably place some restrictions on it later if we did not condition the tentative map or something else. They have asked that this portion of the site not be accessible to large trucks. That is a restriction that they have indicated from the very beginning. They did not plan to restrict public access except for large trucks. That is why in quite a bit of the staff analysis work, we have talked about the difference there would be for large setice truck routing for the properties in the vicinity, particularly to the north. Commissioner Cassel: Could that, then, be conditioned so that the non-truck traffic would have access through that area? I know there are some problems with easements where you have to close it off every so many years so that it remains private. Ms. Cauble: I am not sure that I understand the question. Are you suggesting that it would be a public right-of-way easement with limited permissible usage? Commissioner Cassel: They do not want large trucks through there. They are willing to have cars go through. Tony’s concern is that it would be obvious that that is an accessible way to go. Ms. Cauble: One threshold question that relates to proposed changes to add additional public right-of-way easements would be whether or not those streets do, on this plan or could be revised, to meet our Public Works standards for a public street. I was just asking Carl Stoffel about that. When you look at the map, it is pretty obvious that these new areas we are talking about are substandard, compared to Urban Lane, which is already a somewhat modified public street plan, as I understand it. I don’t know- if Transportation wants to address that. If we are to accept it as a public right-of-way easement, our staff needs to be comfortable that it meets appropriate Public Works standards that it would be a safe street for us to have as a public street, whether trucks are allowed or not. Chairman Beecham: I just do not see enough public benefit to worry about making this an easement. The only traffic that I can see as having any benefit whatsoever is traffic that might want to get to the transit center. If someone is going north on El Camino, and they want to go east on University Avenue, taking this route basically dumps them right back at the light on University Avenue at E1 Camino. So they do not really save anything and they have not avoided any intersections or reduced flow of any significance. There is some small benefit, if they are going to the transit center, but I do not see that as warranting the necessary easements on potentially substandard streets to ensure that it always stays open. Again, the idea here is to set up a campus for the medical foundation. This is not a grid of residential streets or anything else. I do not see that it is to our advantage or to the advantage of the medical foundation to have transit center traffic heading through the campus. That is detrimental to making that whole section work. I cannot see having people driving around the oval to improve traffic flow elsewhere. Commissioner Carrasco: I think it is up to the commission. The existing site does have streets going through it, such as Homer, Ramona, Bryant and Channing, and it is a campus. It functions as one big medica! public facility. Chairman Beecham: This is a site where we are trying to avoid having cross streets cutting up the campus. Commissioner Carrasco: It is two different philosophies of allowing public access. Commissioner Eakins: I have wrestled with this, as Tony is. Visually, I think that where it is on Homer impacts the residents with parking. The parking lots are unattractive and impacts them with traffic. Of course, many residents cannot get in and out of their driveways because of the overflow. The proposed campus is a unified layout, with big, big buildings and just a few streets. That is a different philosophy. The main reason I care about the difference in philosophy is that I think that all the traffic in the Homer Avenue area at the existing campus is dissipated. It goes ever?, which way. There are not the bottlenecks that I anticipate with this limited access and the in-and-out lack of a grid. That is why we have had this great dilemma over CalTrans saying that two left-hand turns are inevitable. This is the outcome of having the limited access on this kind of campus where uses are bunched and there are so few choices. I tried to get through Menlo Park today, but due to the storm, all the traffic lights were out. There were so few choices about where to go. I couldn’t ge1 back on E1 Camino to look at the potential access to the future foundation site because of the limited access. I thought this may be presaging what we are going to be looking at. I agree with Tony philosophically that I would like to have the permeable grid. This is not what the applicant wants, and I think we are going to see a lot of congestion problems because of it. I know Bern is trying to steer us toward staying focused on what has been presented, but I wanted to express my support for Tony’s concerns. Commissioner Schmidt: I am also struggling with this, but I am comfortable with what has been suggested for public access. I think it is reasonable. What I am struggling with more is the internal circulation, when combined with the public easements. I would guess that the applicant can still work with it a little bit. If it brings about any major change, I suspect they would have to come back through some one of the bodies, but I, too, think there will be internal circulation bottlenecks and other problems. I lived fairly close to the current site of the medical foundation for years and years. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people on Homer and Channing weaving across both streets trying to figure out where to park, where to stop, etc. I don’t think we are going to be eliminating those people. I think they will be more confused than ever. Once people get used to the circulation it wilt be fine, but with the changing medical climate, I suspect we will be constantly having new people of all ages coming there. So I am comfortable with what is suggested for the public easements and rights-of-way. I would still hope that the applicant could make some improvements in the internal circulation areas. In getting in and out of the site, I believe there are numerous routes to get in and out Encina, Wells, with Urban Lane being a requirement of this, connecting out on both sides. You can actually wander out through the Tow~n and Country, Village, if one wants to, though it probably would not make Town and Country terribly happy, but that is a possibility. There are plenty of places to get onto Et Camino all primarily going right, but I think that is reasonable. I wanted to 12-12-95 -21 - bring up as a comparison with campus locations that there are office campuses, business park campuses around this area. I am familiar with the Sun Microsystems campus, as I work there. They have a new campus at the intersection of Willow Road and Bay Front Expressway. There are now 2,500 people working there. They have two entrances. One has a signal, and one is right-in, right-out. People come at staggered times of their own volition. There are no specific requirements for that. There will be another 1,000 people working there within the next six to eight months. There are some times when things are a little s!ow. Sun Microsystems has worked with CalTrans to get timing on signals modified in order to get people in and out at a better rate. That seems to work. People make suggestions. They experiment and make some changes. I think that for the quantity of people here, the number of access points and the public rights-of-way will work fine. Commissioner Carrasco: I suggest that we modify, Condition #6a to say that the proposed easements or rights-of-way do not decrease in area by less than + t 0 percent from the existing areas of existing rights-of-way, and that they be placed in such a manner that is acceptable to staff and the applicant. Mr. Schreiber: If you are comparing the existing roadways that are being vacated with the new right-of-way that is being gained, while I do not have the square footage figures in front of me, just looking at the map, I think there is probably a significant gain in public square footage because you have the whole north-south connector route. It is as wide or wider than Homer, and much longer. So you have a net gain. A second observation I would make regarding your suggestion is that there are easements and rights-of-way, and they all end up with a variety of problems, both site planning problems in terms of the zoning ordinance setbacks, things of that nature, plus the front oval and the area out toward Wells Avenue are not designed as streets. You would have a variety of ramifications there. However, if the commission so wished, you could add a condition that the front entry and the oval and the access to Wells be maintained as open routes for automobiles and light duty vehicles. By light duty, I mean the Marguerite shuttle bus type of vehicle, recognizing that trucks are probably quite inappropriate in that location. You do not want large trucks in the oval drop-off area. You could make it as a condition and not get into the questions of easements and rights-of-way and who owns the land, etc. Commissioner Carrasco: That is all I was trying to get to. I just wanted to be able to get from the signalized entrance to Urban Lane in some reasonable way, and not have that area be closed off. As it is proposed, it is totally private. I think it is the only signalized intersection in this location that CalTrans might allow between University Avenue and Embarcadero. I think it should be publicly accessible. Mr. Schreiber: Again, using the map on the screen, Tony’s concern is the front entry, then the oval and the access out to Wells Avenue. You could add a condition that those areas need to be maintained open to automobiles and shuttle buses, vehicles of that size. Ms. Cauble: I think that first of all, we are conditioning the internal circulation plan, but it will have the effect of improving public circulation to ensure that those key points are not blocked. It certainly is appropriate as a recommendation through the ARB process, since it is obvious that 12-!2-95 - 22 - several commissioners feel pretty strongly about this. You might want to make a motion to reconsider your action on the use permit. You certainly could do that and recommend adding a condition to the use permit that for the life of the use permit, those key areas of interna! circulation that Ken just identified will remain open. Mr. Schreiber: Staff does not have a problem with this. If it were roadways or easements, things of that nature, that is when our warning flags start to go up. Chairman Beecham: So if we want to make a motion to reconsider the conditions for the use permit to add this as a condition, that would be appropriate, is that correct? Ms. Cauble: Yes, procedurally, someone who supported the motion would move to reconsider. Mr. Schreiber: I am going to suggest that you hold this one and go through the rest of the site-and-design-related issues, since you may come across one or two more, instead of going back and opening and amending and c!osing and coming back again. Chairman Beecham: Tony, I understand that your intent is to move that we reopen the conditions on the use permit at a later point tonight. We still have the portion of the item regarding the vacating of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane. Commissioner Carrasco: Yes, and I would like to proceed with that. I will make a motion, with the understanding that we can open up the use permit issue later. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the vacation of portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane, finding that the vacations are in conformance with the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt’. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. - Next we have an action involving the approval of the design concept for the extension of Urban Lane. Staff does not mention anything about any one of the alternatives. Do you recommend Alternative #4? Mr. Schreiber: In Appendix F, there is one alternative that is called out as the desirable and feasible alternative. It is in Appendix F, Page VIII.F-3, and is also in Section IV.B-36. It talks about Alternative 4 being the preferred alternative. That is the diagram that has just been shown on the screen. The concept would be to retain the existing parking lot concept with 90-degree parking, with the roadway down the middle, 24 feet wide, with the bike path coming in behind the Wellness Center and colmecting out to University Circle along with a sidewalk. This is a schematic concept; it is not a final design by any stretch of the imagination. We are asking that the commission endorse this as the preferred alternative. There were four others, all of which resulted in substantially greater loss of parking and would, understandably, be vigorously 12-12-95 - 23 - opposed by the Joint Powers Board (JPB). We need their cooperation, and staff is in agreement with them that we should not be designing this so that they lose an excessive amount of potential, future train-related parking. Chairman Beecham: If I understand it, significant points about this are that the through traffic essentially passes between the two parking lanes. It is not a separate, through lane separated from the parking area. In addition, the eucalyptus trees are not removed in this plan. Mr. Schreiber: That is correct. And there is no encroachment on the Holiday Inn parking. Chairman Beecham: Currently, it shows what may be landscaping bulbs in there, but that is not a clear part of Alternative ,,4. Mr. Schreiber: The specific resolution of the landscape issues will need to be worked out with both the Architectural Review Board, as well as the Joint Powers Board and Stanford in terms of whatever relationship it is in terms of who owns the land. As the parties in interest, they will certainly have hea~ involvement in that. That discussipn will also involve the final design issue, and they will work with Mr. Chen and his staff at the Holiday Inn regarding the entrance to the Urban Lane parking lot. His concern was that this is too narrow an opening, and that is certainly an issue that will be looked at. Chairman Beecham: What is the financing situation of Urban Lane? Mr. Schreiber: The financing of the extension is the medical foundation’s responsibility. City staff has been encouraging Stanford, the presumed owner of the property, to be cooperative and not to try and gain a financial payment for land value. We have been encouraging the Joint Powers Board, as the controller of the property, to be cooperative and not try" to block this. That specific negotiation will still have to be resolved between the Joint Powers Board, Stanford, the medical foundation and the city. The financial responsibility, whatever it is, falls to the medical foundation. Commissioner Cassel: It appears to me, from that map, as though there are areas for landscaping that would not require bulb-outs. Couldn’t you actually have some landscaping in there and not lose some spaces? Mr. Schreiber: Probably not very much. These are the ones that are there now. The final design needs to be worked through. I would assume there will be some landscaping, and I cannot give you any assurance in terms of numbers of spots or anything else. Commissioner Cassel: And these numbers you gave us did not have any small car spaces so that spaces might be picked up? Mr. Schreiber: I will have Ashok respond to that, because we talked quite a bit about the size of spaces. 12-12-95 - 24 - Mr. Aggarwat: The way this lot is striped right now, it is based on the uni-size stalls. If we went with a combination of regular stalls and compact stalls, we would finish up with a larger than a 24-foot-wide aisle. Then we would not have enough space to do the things we want to do. It is essential with a 24-foot- wide stall that we go with uni-sized stalls. Mr. Schreiber: The reason for that is that you want a stall size that nearly all the cars nearly all of the time can turn into in one movement, and not have to turn, back up, and straighten out to come in. So the spaces are about a foot wider than normal. Commissioner Carrasco: Can you clarify a little for me what the concept includes and what it does not include? It is quite vague here. tn discussions with staff. I understood that the concept does include the idea that Urban Lane will look and operate like a street, with travel lanes and parking lanes and two sidewalks or maybe only one sidewalk, but it would feel like a street. In that case, there may be some parking that would be compromised in order to achieve this look and feel of a street. From the testimony by the Joint Powers Board, they were a little concerned about losing some parking spaces, i would like to express my belief that it is more important that this street look like a street with sidewalks and street trees, etc., than losing a few parking spaces. My qu, estion for staff is whether the concept we are being presented with here includes the idea that it will look like a normal Palo Alto street. Ms. Moore: One of the reasons why the appendix has so many alternative designs in it is because we wanted to look at designs that would achieve what you have just described. So we looked at alternatives that had the circulation separate from the parking. Unfortunately, we have a piece of property whose east-west dimension is so restricted that any of those options removed such greater numbers of parking than what has been indicated to us by the JPB representatives as their tolerance level. Most of those options would have lost in the order of 70 of the existing 170 parking spaces. They have indicated to us that anything more than ten would be viewed as an impact on their operation. So we tried. The only way to achieve what would be like a normal street with sidewalks and street trees on either side would involve moving into the Holiday Inn piece of property. Undoubtedly, that would have resulted in some loss of parking for that property. It was the only way to get a sufficient east-west dimension to do that. Mr. Stoffel: There are a few streets near the Stanford Business School that are similar to this. They have perpendicular parking and some diagonal parking. Personally, I think they look like a street, not a parking lot, but it does not look like a typical Palo Alto street. This may took something like some of the streets on the Stanford campus. Chairman Beecham: I would assume that those streets are a bit wider than the ones we are considering here. Mr. Stoffet: Yes, one drive aisle is quite a bit wider and another is similar to what we are talking about here. The perpendicular one that I have in mind is quite a bit wider than what we are talking about here. Chairman Beecham: So the tradeoff on Alternative #4 is that you maximize parking, you maintain the eucalyptus trees, but you have traffic flowing directly behind each of the parking spaces. There are no sidewalks, but you have the bike path in front of it. Mr. Schreiber: There is a sidewalk between the bicycle path and the easternmost row of cars. So you would have a sidewalk in this area as well as a bicycle path. There is a cross section showing that in Appendix F. Going back to the number of parking spaces issue for a moment, the three alternatives that came much closer to what Ton?’ wants ended up with ! 02, 106 and 107 parking spaces. It began with 170, so we were losing over 60 spaces in every" case, so it would be a very high percentage of loss. Mr. Aggarwal: If I might add to that, in addition to the loss of parking, there were also some circulation issues either involving the construction of a big circular island at the top as a turn-around or using the Holiday Inn property to go one way or the other, issues like that. Chairman Beecham: To clarify the action that staffis looking for, the summary" in front of us refers to the proposal in Appendix F, which is actually all five alternatives, and you are referring to Alternative #4 that you recommend. Mr. Schreiber: Correct. It is the preferred alternative. Chairman Beecham: Do we believe that Alternative #4 is the best of the five alternatives? For myselL I do, because the tradeoff between maintaining the parking spaces, maintaining the eucalyptus trees, and providing slower transit are appropriate tradeoffs. Commissioner Cassel: I will agree, although you want to make it as urban a street as you can reasonably make it. Mr. Schreiber: Right, and Anne just reminded me that when you start shifting the road location, you end up in some of the alternatives with having to relocate the high tension 60 KV lines in that area. It is a very expensive proposition to relocate high tension lines. So although we have no real love of eucalyptus and would have gladly sacrificed them, it was the wires above them in that same area that add several hundred thousand dollars worth of relocation cost. MOTION: Commissioner Eakins: I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the design concept known as Alternative 4 for the proposed extension of Urban Lane from University Circle to the proposed Urban Lane campus, as contained in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Carrasco: I would prefer that we lose some more parking spaces, but I do not know of the mechanism to make it a little more urban-like. Chairman Beecham: You could go on record as supporting one of the other alternatives that moves toward that direction. Commissioner Carrasco: I feel that this is the best alternative, but I prefer that we lose more parking spaces and have more landscaping and more pedestrian orientation than the parking lot look that it has now in Alternative 4. I would lose ten more spaces to have more of a landscaped look than the alternatives discusses now. Chairman Beecham: One part that is not clear is that the current alternative, in losing ten spaces, does not include the bulbouts. Is that correct? And if you include the bulbouts, you lose another 7 percent of spaces? Mr. Stoffel: I think that if you keep the bulbouts that are there now, you are not going to lose any additional spaces beyond the ten that are lost just in the design.. The idea is that if you add more bulbouts to more or less conform to our ordinance, that is when you would start losing more spaces than the ten. Commissioner Eakins: I made the motion not because I think it is wonderful but because this is typical of tight infill. We just have to hope that eye,one will make the best of what there is. I think it wilt have a hybrid look in driving through it. Maybe it will be a parking lot with yellow stripes throughout. I don’t ~know if it will be the best or worst of both worlds. It will never win "Street of the Year." Commissionei" Schmidt: I commend the staff and the applicant for working with staff to come up with the idea of bringing that connecting link through. I do agree with Sandy’s comments about its being a hybrid, and it probably will not be immensely attractive, but it will have a bike lane and a sidewalk along side, making it look somewhat like a street. As we are conditioning things, I have come to see that it is really a critical part of this project to have the Urban Lane extension there. Again, this did come out of the Dream Team thimking to t~ to bring some of that circulation through this area that has been isolated between the railroad tracks, E1 Camino, the circle and Embarcadero. I think it will be a great improvement, and I am happy to see it being done in a fairly simple manner, rather than to say we need to redesign the whole thing to make it function for traffic. I think it wil! function fine for the use that is going in there. So I am happy to support it. Chairman Beecham: I am also familiar with the streets near the business school that have the parallel parking. There is a street or two running from that street toward the museum which I believe have diagonal parking. They also do not win any awards for appearance, but they do function and parking is acceptable on them. You can get through with some decent speed. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval of Alternative 4 as the proposed extension of Urban Lane, please say" Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next we have Item 6 b, c, d, e and f regarding building heights, grade transitions, setbacks, parking spaces for vehicles and bicycles, and project coverage requiring approval of a variance, all tied up together. First, we will take up (b), Building heights and site grading for the underground parking. It is possible to make a determination that this fits in with the city’s 50-foot height limit, depending exactly on how one defines the application. If I understand it, basically the project has a 50-foot height limit as calculated from ground level at Et Camino. Is that correct? Ms. Moore: This listing here, absent those areas where you see a motion, was really dravv-ing for~vard in the list design aspects of the project that have been discussed in the various staff reports. So it is a prompt list, if you will, of some of the less than routine aspects of the project, things on which we generated analysis and discussion. So there are not particular actions that are needed, except where a motion is indicated. These are design aspects of the project that have generated more than passing discussion and analysis. Mr. Schreiber: At the bottom of Page 3 of the outline discussion, where we got through (g), Transit Access, we put in the essence of a summary’ motion of comments that you may wish to transmit to the ARB coming out of this general discussion. Chairman Beecham: There are several items here, (a) through (e) or (f), where we would be making recommendations to the ARB. Staff is looking for one motion, in particular, on the variance issue. We might want to take care of that first and then get into the other items which are more general site and design issues, where we would make recommendations tO the ARB. So let us move to (f), the request for a variance for project coverage, in case an additional structure is needed for parking. Commissioner Carrasco: I hope that it is never needed, but if this is the only mechanism we have in order to accommodate the level parking to square footage ratio that the applicant feels comfortable with and that staff feels comfortable with, and we do not anticipate that this will happen, I will be happy to support it. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I therefore move that the planning commission recommend approval of a variance to allow 31.9 percent site coverage where 30 percent is otherwise permitted, if and when a deferred parking structure is constructed, with the findings attached to the December 6, 1995 staff report. SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Cassel: I will support this for the same reasons that Tony gave. My feeling here is that I am try. ing to encourage every, other possibility except doing this extra parking structure. That is why I keep referring to an underground pass, do we have a walking path here, do we have a bicycle path there, in other words, eve ,rything we can possibly think about doing is essential and should be done. On the other hand, because of the limited access in and out and because we do not have a grid of streets so that we can park in front of someone’s house, although they may not like it, it is still a space, and you walk a little farther, all of that will be much more difficult here. So some triggering mechanism is necessary~ for what is going to happen, and we need to work at everything else possible. If we have another gas shortage, maybe people will use public transit. Commissioner Schmidt: I think the triggering mechanism is mentioned in the staff report, but I would like to know- what it is. Is it a triggering ordinance? It is in Municipal Code Section 18.83.120(e). Mr. Schreiber: The use permit conditions in Item 7 state, "As part of the armual mitigation monitoring report to the city, the permittee shall survey on-site parking occupancy and vacancy distributed by patient and employee parking spaces during peak hours on three consecutive work days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and provide these data to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for consideration relative to the deferred parking approval." There is not a specific vacancy percentage or an occupancy percentage that is a specific trigger. Certainly if parking exceeds 95 percent occupancy, that would be a pretty good sign that effectively, it is full. You very seldom get 100 percent unless there are a lot of people searching for parking. Certainly, my intent would be that if it did achieve 95 percent or above, there would be a need for some very serious discussions. My sense is that because the parking structure would be quite expensive, the medical foundation has a significant motivation to not get into that situation. Also, given that parking off the site is not going to be easily available and if people start parking in Town and Country Village, there would be a lot of complaining there, if the parking does become essentially at maximum, they will know about it long before we will. Patients will be having unkind words with the doctors, and the doctors who cannot find parking will be having unkind words with the administrators. They will have an internal problem that they need to address for simply the effective functioning of their facility as a state-of-the-art medical facility. So for both of those reasons, plus the cost of a parking structure, there is some very strong motivation to reduce parking demand to every extent possible. I am comfortable that that can be achieved, and as I indicated in my opening comments several weeks ago, it is very,’, very rare for a deferred parking requirement ever to kick in. There generally is enough motivation for whatever employer to take whatever actions are possible prior to that. Commissioner Schmidt: Also, to confirm, does the total parking required by code include Building D? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, and that is another factor. Building D is problematic in terms of whether it is built at all or whether it will be built to its maximum size. As the foundation has indicated, they are not seeking any type of final approval for that building at this point in time. It is a concept that has been presented to make sure that the EIR is complete in terms of potential activity, but that part of the project has an especially tong way to go before we would see a final design for ARB and building permits. Commissioner Schmidt: I also support the concept for reasons stated by others. I hope that we will never see it. I think the applicant will be motivated to try and deal with employee commute alternatives, etc., to help keep the parking available for patients in order not to have to build this additional parking. I also think this is a!ong the lines that we have talked about with many projects where we talk about looking at the possibility of changing parking requirements. This is a reasonable way of looking at it, saying we still have a mechanism and we have the total design load taken care of. if we need it, and we are willing to build this without building every single parking space that current codes require. So I like the idea of deferring the parking. Commissioner Eakins: I will simply say that I agree with what everyone else has said. 12-12-95 - 29 - Chairman Beecham: In addition to that, what we are also doing here is approving the variance to say that, should our optimism be unfounded and a garage is, in fact, required, we do believe the findings in Attachment 3 of the attached report are, in fact, accurate -- exceptional circumstances, no harm to adjoining properties, substantial property rights, etc. Since those findings are appropriate, should this come to pass, we find it th4refore appropriate that site coverage be up to 31.9 percent. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Carrasco, seconded by Commissioner Cassel, that we recommend approval of the variance to allow 31.9 percent where 30 percent is permitted, if and when a deferred parking structure is required, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Next we will take up Item 5, approval of the tentative subdivision map for consolidating 13 parcels into one parcel, which at this point seems to be an appropriate thing to do. It, too, has an Attachment #2 in one of the other reports that contains conditions and findings. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I will move that the planning commission recommend approval of a tentative subdivision map to assemble 13 parcels into one parcel and to establish needed roadway and other public dedications and easements with the findings and conditions attached to the December 6, 1995 staff report. SECOND: By Chairman Beecham. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by myself., to recommend approval of a tentative subdivision map to consolidate 13 parcels into one and to establish needed roadway and other public dedications and easements, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Let us nov,, take up the Development Agreement. As we talked about very., briefly and heard about some items in the public hearing held earlier on key elements in the development plan, the amendment is to prevent the medical foundation from occupying both sites at the same time. When they move into the new site, they must at some time soon thereafter vacate the existing site, and they will have to provide maintenance and certain security, obligations there. Perhaps most importantly, the agreement provides for a detailed process with the detailed involvement of the neighborhood to help determine what is the appropriate reuse of the site. To that end the foundation will make a monetary’ contribution. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question on the (c) part of#8 of the amendment. Would another process be faster and easier, such as going out and, in the worst case, have a competition between three developers of the foundation’s choice, or in the best case, they choose one developer and bring in a plan after working with the neighborhood, understanding what the neighborhood wants? Isn’t that an easier, faster process than this area planning study that you have recommended? Mr. Schreiber: My bottom line answer is, I do not think so. The area we are talking about is not only the medica! foundation but also the South of Forest Avenue area down to Alma Street. That was the area that was deferred when the Comprehensive Plan Advisor,;; Committee recommended this area for one of the workshops, and staff recommended that it not be a workshop. Then the council said no, it will not be a workshop, but we will come back and do something in this area. Something in this area would have been a one-day workshop. Essentially, our feeling is that the future use of the medical foundation properties is linked quite closely with the surrounding area, and it needs to be taken up in that context. As such, what we have put together we feel would be the fastest structured way to intensively involve the neighborhood, the community, the property owners, in a process that would very, clearly be intended to lead toward not only the medical foundation having a reuse plan, but the South of Forest area having a more detailed area plan that applied to it. We have looked at a variety of ways to accomplish that end, and clearly, the Coordinated Area Plan is a product of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. It was not initially a product of staff, but the more we looked at it and talked to a variety of professional colleagues and Daniel Iacofano, the CPAC facilitator, we concluded that this type of process, by structuring the public involvement and trying to do things in both a concentrated and intensive way, has the best chance of giving a widely acceptable result. If you have a design competition, my concern is that you then would have three or four designers all talking to the neighborhood, to begin with. Either they are going to talk to everyone and wear everyone out, or they wilt end up talking to different people and getting different impressions. Then you will end up with a variety of proposals, and the natural tendency there will be to try to pick and choose something from Proposal A and something from Proposal B and something from Proposa! C, because various people will like various aspects. My fear is that you wil! end up with a mish-mash of concepts and proposals which may not fit together as a whole and may not be economically feasible. An underlying and critical part of all of this, which the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee has stressed and which staff has picked up and has beaten the drum about, is that the results of this type of process needs to be economically feasible. It needs to be something that can be developed in a manner that is acceptable to the marketplace and can be developed in the sense of having realistic economics attached to it. As such, we see the product of this as being an integrated whole, yet not totally interdependent. We think that it needs to be developed under that type of hotistic concept and process. There are, then, some advantages over doing individual properties or trying to piece together different concepts from different sources. Commissioner Schmidt: Please refresh my memory as to what the process for this will be. There is the public process, and a recommended plan comes out of it. Does that, then, go through commission and council, or what? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, the objective will be to come up with not only a plan, but also the regulations that would be needed to implement it. That package would need to come through the planning commission, and then on to the city counci!, and certainly, the architectural review board would also be in on the review process. There would be a commission public hearing, a council public hearing, plus a whole variety of Comprehensive Plan amendments and regulatory amendments, so that when you finish the process, you do not have to go back and start into it to 12-12-95 -31 - then put together the details. The idea will be that yQu will have a whole package of things that can be adopted, and the next step would be whatever final design review that projects would have to go through prior to the building permit. Commissioner Schmidt: Would you imagine that there would be just one time through the commission and council versus a draft time through, as we are doing with the Comprehensive Plan? Is it realistic to expect that this process could be done in a concentrated, one-year effort, given what we know about what we are doing with the Comprehensive Plan? I would love to see something happen quickly. Is that realistic? Mr. Schreiber: I think it can be done. If we say a year, it may take 15 months. If we say 18 months, it will probably take 20 something, and if we say two years, we will be at it for two-and-a-half. So one of the things that staff has stressed in our reporting back to council on this, and when we attached the Council staff report to your staff report, is that it is better to try and set a tight timeline and push hard to get it done. It is better from the standpoint of public involvement. The longer you stretch out the public involvement process, the greater the potential for losing people, losing people because they move, or their life changes and they just do not have the time, or they lose interest, etc. So you have a less effective process. If you can do the actual development of the plan and related material in the first four or five months, and then prepare the environmental document and all of the legal material that accompanies it, and then get into the public process, it may go a little longer than 12 months, but I would prefer to shoot for t2 months and go 14, rather than starting out much longer than that. Also, I think that the concentrated process will be of value to the property owner, not just the neighbors. Let’s take a different site in that SOFA area. I would expect the medical foundation, and I would encourage the Peninsula CreameD", as another major property, to very actively participate. They need to have some expertise available to help them through this process -- design expertise, economic expertise, etc. -- and it is to their advantage, also, to have a reasonably concise and concentrated process rather than something stretching out over a longer period of time. Chairman Beecham: I would like to say that in terms of what staff has laid out here for the public involvement, you have listed on pages 6, 7 and 8, of the Council staff report, Guiding Principles, economic incentives, development feasibility, including emphasis on being supported by the market, product specifications, including development of new zoning tools to provide incentives to get the job done. I am happy to see those in here, and that shows a lot of effort and thought as to how this is going to have to work in order to be successful. Commissioner Cassel: There were some questions from the public iast week concerning not tearing these buildings down until the area plan was completed. Have you dealt with those in your recommendations? Ms. Cauble: I have roughed out some potential language, if the commission is interested in adding it. You realize that the Development Agreement is not a regulator?" document. It is a consentual document. I believe that at your last hearing, Mr. Jury came to the microphone and indicated willingness to agree to some sort of conditions. So let me throw out something that I have not run past Ken, but we can see if it meets your needs and whether the applicant agrees and 12-12-95 - 32 - whether Ken has no problem with it. If you are interested in such a condition, you can add it to the language in the agreement that deals with maintenance and security of the downtown properties, saying something along these lines. "Prior to the issuance of permits for redevelopment of the downtown site, none of the existing buildings sha!l be demolished unless the Chief Building Official or Fire Chief.. in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community Environment, determines that an imminent safety hazard exists and that demolition is the only feasible means to secure the public safety." Mr. Jury: Did you include "economic feasibility"? Ms. Cauble: The language was "the only feasible means." We have a standard like this in our historic preservation ordinance. That is not directly applicable, but it seemed like an appropriate standard to use for this document. As I am proposing it, it just says "feasible." It would be up to the Chief Building Official and the Fire Chie£ if there were a safety hazard, to evaluate whether there would be any way to eliminate the hazard without removing the building. Commissioner Eakins: I understand that the A.M.E. Zion Church is in rather fragile condition. I would like to see something that protects it from further deterioration spelled out. The buildings that are in active use are maintained reasonably, but that church building is used for some type of dead storage. I am concerned that it may accelerate toward a point of no return. Chairman Beecham: Also, I would like to ask staff to remind us under the existing Specific Plan, how is that structure handled? Mr. Schreiber: It is permitted to be demolished and removed. The mitigation for that is the installation of a public display that summarizes the history of the church and its role in Palo Alto and related historic aspects. The building does not have to be retained. Mr. Jur~,’: Did you have a question? Commissioner Cassel: Our counsel had suggested wording so that the buildings would not be demolished until the area plan proceeded. On the grounds that it proceeds reasonably well, I wonde{ed if you were agreeable with her wording. Mr. Jury: I requested that the words "economic and feasible" be inserted. Anything is possible, given enough time and money. If. in fact, a building is a safety hazard, I do not want to be held to a condition where the medical foundation might have to rebuild a building that is totally useless, just because it is deemed to be feasible to reconstruct it, or encase it in plastic. So it needs to be economically feasible, as well. Commissioner Eakins: For the church, I am not as familiar as others are with what had been intended in the Specific Plan. How was that ground going to be used? Mr. Jur,,’: It still is contemplated with the existing Specific Plan that that building would be demolished and that new clinic facilities would be put in at that location. !2-12-95 - 33 - Commissioner Eakins: So the underlying reasons for getting rid of it would be changed by moving to Urban Lane? Mr. Juiw: That is correct. Commissioner Eakins: So it would not be illogical to safeguard it from falling down. Mr. Jurv: Given the economics, which is the big question. To be candid with you, we do have reports that show that building to be in very bad structural condition. I don’t "know if it is possible to save it. Commissioner Eakins: --I have been pleased to see a drape over the hole in the roof. Mr. Jurv: Yes, we put a tarp over it to try" and keep the rain out. Commissioner Eakins: I would like to see the tarp kept in place. Mr. Ju~;: We originally sent someone up to try and put on a new roof., just some rolled roofing on it, and the roofing company said they did not want to go up there until a structural engineer told them it was safe to do so. The structural engineer said it was not safe to go up there. That is the situation we are facing. Commissioner Eakins: I just fee! that we owe it to the history of this community to make sure that due care and diligence is applied to the church. Commissioner Schmidt: I asked last week about the way we are very specifically calling out that the medical foundation cannot use the new campus and the old buildings at the same time. That is what we want, but the question was, if per chance, a new- plan was completed for another use for the existing downtown site, and the medical foundation occupies the new site, and there is an economic situation that does not appeal to developers so that nothing happens and those buildings sit vacant for a long time, could the medical foundation come back and ask for an amendment to be able to lease out the buildings so that they would not remain vacant? It is my understanding that that would be a possibility. Is that correct? Ms. Cauble: I think there would probably be a problem in that, as I do not believe that type of reuse would conform to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning applicable to the property. So essentially, this replanning process is necessary, whether it is forced by the city or whether it is through the process Ken has laid out which is collaborative with the foundation, the community and the city to get a Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning that will al!ow reuse of the property. Should they find themselves in that position, I suppose the remedy would be to encourage us to complete the planning process so that there is an effective designation that can be utilized either by them or by some owner. In fact, the time line, as Ken envisions it, will work out so that that will not become an issue, although we are being optimistic. It should work out so that every-thing falls into place in a timely fashion. Commissioner Schmidt: I would certainly like to see the replanning effort done prior to the move so that something new" could happen right away. I am asking about that situation that hopefiJlly does not happen, but if the foundation moves and the economy is not such that people want to do any kind of redevelopment of anything, it would just sit there vacant for a long time. Mr. Schreiber: At this point in time, the Development Agreement Amendment would not allow reuse of the building. It is certainly an issue that would be a legitimate discussion point during the reuse planning process. If we get to that point, and we are looking at a ! 5 percent prime rate and 23 percent home mortgage loans and nobody is doing any development at all, that may be something that is relevant to look at. If the sense is that the redevelopment options are economically viable and the foundation certainly has a strong incentive to move relatively . quickly on this as they want to get their money out of the site, since they need it eventually, then that is probably something that would never come up in the discussions. It certainly is something that could come up, if events Warranted it. Chairman Beecham: We have here a request for action that we recommend approval of the agreement in substantially the same form, with one amendment as we talked about regarding the prevention of demolition of houses. MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I so move. SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner Carrasco, that ~ve recommend approval of the development agreement amendment in substantially the same form as attached, with a modification to add a condition to inhibit demolition of structures unless they are deemed to be an imminent safety hazard by the appropriate staff and that demolition is the only economical and feasible approach. Al! those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink abstaining. Now we can return to (b) on Page 3 of the Outline for Discussion. This issue is building height. We do not have an action to take on this, per se, but it is an issue that we should make sure we understand, and present any comments we have to the city council in the minutes. In summary, on the height, there is a minimally tortured mechanism by which the city can accept that this does meet the fifty foot height limit. It is essentially 50 feet from the elevation at E1 Camino, even though the existing grade and more of the site is not to that elevation. Commissioner Schmidt: It is my understanding that this came about because of comments from the ARB and the city, about a previous proposal to have a parking garage entirely or mostly above ground that apparently was massive looking. The parking was substantially put underground in this development rather than having a massive parking garage. As Bern has noted, this is a slightly different way of interpreting the height limit. I feel that because of the site conditions, they need the appropriate foundation for this facility and can only excavate to a certain depth to maintain that foundation condition. They are willing to improve the project by getting rid of a large parking structure, and I feel this is a reasonable way to approach it. Commissioner Carrasco: I have come to the same conclusion as Kathy, but not in the same way. I don’t think that if you bring in a parking garage above grade and then say, it can go up six feet higher if we go below grade, that is appropriate. However, there seem to be significant problems with going into the sand and gravel layer. I talked to another geotech engineer who confirms the testimony that was put forth by Treadwetl and Rollo. There are significant costs and life safety concerns that we, as a community, need to address or at least be cognizant of. This is a medical clinic, and in the event of a disaster, this facility will be used, so we should take every precaution that it remain as intact as possible. With that kind of reasoning, I feel it is important to keep it above the sand and gravel layer. In talking to hospital designers, I have looked at the floor-to-floor heights, and they are also reasonable. I cannot find a way to decrease the height of this building, and I cannot find a way to increase the depth, Therefore, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that this height is appropriate. The next step that I looked at was, where does the community mostly observe this building? I think it is as you travel north, and it is Building C that it will be most apparent. That height can be mitigated by some tall trees along that alleyway. I would like to propose that we look at some tall trees in that location, however, I am accepting of the height as proposed and of the excavation as proposed. Commissioner Cassel: I do not get as tied down into heights as the rest of the city seems to do. I am concerned about overall coverage. I am afraid that for this site, we may have tied ourselves by limiting it to 50 feet and not 60 feet and not allowing them to have a narrower building and a little more open space. So I do not have any problems with the 50-foot height. We may actually have made it harder for ourselves. Commissioner Eakins: I want to pick up where Phyllis left off. I, too, do not find exceeding the height an egregious problem if there is a benefit. If the roof line were not so uniformly straight and were just relieved ever so slightly by those towers, the bulk would not be oppressive. I anticipate that these buildings will be oppressively bulky, and I think that the vantage point that Tony said would be the most extreme is probably correct. The trees, to be most effective, would have to be planted on the neighbor’s property to the south. That may see like a facetious comment, but the perspective is such that I don’t think you can get big enough trees on that little strip of ground to make that much difference. I wish the high profile were relieved. I wish there were bays on these buildings so that there was more interior light and more relief in light and shadow on the fa,cade. I went to graduate school in some buildings that were called Shoe Factory Gothic on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. I remember how oppressive they were. They were big, bulky buildings. I don’t want you to do that! I want you to have beautiful buildings so that everyone in the community wilt be thrilled with them. So I, too, am concerned about being rigid about this 50-foot height limit and making the design restrictions such that we end up with buildings where we will say, "But we had no choice." Chairman Beecham: In Palo Alto, there is probably no standard or limit that is more visible, in every sense, than the 50-foot height limit. It is visible as you drive around, and also very visible as a policy to the public. I think many people want to see that as something they can be comfortable with and will never be changed so that they do not have to rally ’round the flag and support it every time a new program comes up. So in that case, I think the 50 feet is a very important consideration. I do, however, agree that, given the square footage, given the site coverage and the limitations for going down any farther, we have some constraints. I think the overall appearance of the project could be improved, perhaps by stepping back a few corners and providing some other articulation on it, maybe at the expense of adding some fourth floor on a more internal location that would clearly violate the 50-foot height limit, but I am not sure I would be ready to make any kind of recommendation on it. In particular, on the southwest corner, the one the most visible from El Camino as you head north, that is a terrible view. You have the whole southern wal! hitting you as a monolithic wall. You have the full height on the west side basically unadorned in terms of any relief. To have some kind of setbacks or other articulation there would be very valuable. One way of doing it is to simply say, either add or subtract something at those locations and take a hit on square footage. Another approach would be to take that square footage and be allowed to add it to a fourth floor somewhere where it is essentially invisible from any streetscape around there. So I would like to see that idea addressed. Maybe council could struggle and see how holy the 50-foot height limit is in this case. In this particular example, going higher may lend a more aesthetically pleasing result and provide some relief in that area. Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to support the comments that Sandy and Bern have made. I would hope to see some breaking up of the fairly fortress-like elevations that we see. We talk about the buildings and the site trying to welcome people. It does not present a very welcoming look to me. It does not have much transparency at all. The openings are all fairly small, and again, the elevations we see are very fortress-like. I just hope that in the further discussions with the architectural review board, there will be some softening and changes made on what we see with the buildings now. Chairman Beecham: I believe the architect is trying to point out some changes to us. Would you like to speak to us on this? Sandra Beck. Project Architect: I would like to point out some changes. The enlarged elevation portion that I have put up was just intended to show that there is quite a bit of articulation going on on the fa,cade of the buildings right now. This is the northwest corner of Building C, so the area you are talking about is exactly opposite there along the service drive. The main difference on the south side of Building C is that it will not have a !oggia along there. So it wilt be exposed, also for the entire 50 feet at that point in time. It won’t be any greater than 50 feet from grade level to the top of the building, but it will be the entire 50 feet right at that location. What we are using is still a stone base, and there is quite a bit of articulation going on. That is why I brought up the colored elevation. Commissioner Cassel: I was struck the other day as I walked by the new building going up at the Veteran’s Administration, how- I felt like I was walking into the basement, the way the outside fac, ade was. I was struck by this building that has the same kind of height in that bottom area, and the windows are small. It is the strangest feeling, because you are not standing way back here, seeing the entire height. You are walking by that bottom portion, and you do not feel the whole height. You just see these very small windows, and that feels very fortress-like and very strange. It is like I am walking by the basement. That is what hit me. Commissioner Carrasco: Since we are talking about the architecture, I feel that the architectural review board has done a good job so far, and I rather like the buildings. I do not see them as being fortress-like. I think they are a type of building that is very characteristic of this area. There are lots of walls with articulated windows and a rusticated base. It is scaled well, for the most part. I am just concerned about that one elevation on Building C as you drive north. I think it can be screened by trees. The scale and window size and detailing and corners will work well here. Chairman Beecham: In terms of trees and screening, etc., I wonder if there is enough room at that corner to put in some large trees, like eucalyptus or a redwood grove. I know that is where you intend to have the child playground, andthat would be shaded by the trees. That might help soften up that corner, but they would have to be ~ trees. Mr. Schreiber: We will put up a transparency which may help concentrate this. Ms. Beck: This is the line of our parking structure, so we cannot get deep rooted plantings above the parking structure. Toni can give you information on what we can do. Antonia Bava. Landscape Architect. San Francisco: What we are proposing to do along E1 Camino Real at that corner is to plant tall shade trees in this area. I will be refining the species selection, as well. I am not really clear in my own mind at this time, but I will probably be planting very closely spaced tall shrubs that have the potentia! for getting tall. They will be tall, upright shrubs. There is a category of plant materials that we call tall shrubs or small trees that have the potential to grow, over time, to be quite tall. So I will be refining that plant material selection. I am working with an arborist on the capacity of the root ball, given a tall, upright tree. I will plant as tall as horticulturally will work in this zone, given the amount of soil depth that we will have. We will be using large canopy trees along this edge. Commissioner Carrasco: I want to ask, how- tall is a tall shrub? Ms. Bava: The way I personally categorize small trees is 15 to 20 feet. Medium trees I categorize about 20 to 30 feet, and anything over 30 feet I would say is a tall tree. That is my ov~ personal definition. Commissioner Carrasco: And a tall shrub? Ms. Bava: A tall shrub would be anything from 6 to 15 feet. A shrub is something that branches all the way to the ground, whereas a tree has a trunk that is pruned up. Commissioner Carrasco: Is that shrub growing over concrete? Ms. Bava: On the structure? (Yes) The structural slab is depressed. There is the street grade, and then there is some space. Right now, the way the parking structure has been designed is that there is some amount of depth, and then there is the structural stab. That amount of depth varies on the site, and that is where we are planting. My understanding is that the amount of depth on the site varies between three and five feet. It depends on what happens with the grading on the structural slab and adjacent grades. Commissioner Carrasco: I would like to explore this a little further, because I do not imagine a 15-foot tree is going to screen this 50-foot building. I am wondering ifI can exp!ore an idea that takes the entire site plan and moves it up five feet, including the parking structure. There seems to be some additiona! space up there north of Building A. Is there any way to take the entire site plan up five feet so that you would get a natural pocket and get tall trees, as you define them? Jim Hall. Etlerbe Becket Architecture: We have, in fact, moved the entire site plan to the north to accommodate clearance on the service drive on the south side of the site, as requested by the Fire Marshal. We have now moved Building A as far north as we can without violating the building setback established along Wells Avenue. Commissioner Carrasco: If that is the case and you cannot add landscaping, I like Bern’s suggestion of scaling the building down in some way, stepping it down in some way so that the south elevation on Building C has a better scale than what is being presented. Mr. Schreiber: The transition from Wells to Building A is 15 feet. It was 20 feet, and there was the Design Enhancement Exception, because five feet of the property is required to become a part of Wells Avenue. So you have 15 feet of property left here, plus a relatively noticeable grade change. If you moved everything up another five feet, I am quite sure you are into a retaining wall situation here. Ms. Beck: We are already planning on putting in a low retaining wall for the grade coming down from Building A to the sidewalk. If we moved the building north, the main issue that I see then is the little service drive just to the east side of Building A,. which currently has a fairly steep slope up to get to a flat area so that we can serve into the dock. That slope would be steeper, and I am not certain that it would be technically feasible. We are exploring issues right now with the fire department as to whether or not they need access along the south service road. They have told us that they do, and that is what is requiring the width of that road to be at 20 feet. The wider the road is required to be along the south side, the less planting we can do. If we can work with the fire department to reduce the required width that they need, and I believe they are asking for access at that location in order to service the properties to the south of the PAMF property, such as the rear side of the Greer House and houses along in there, if we can narrow the roadway there, we would have more of a strip to be able to put in larger trees instead of planting over a structure. The way it all works technically right now is that our garage structure projects five feet south of Building C. It will not be visible, but underground, it comes out five feet to the south of Building C, and that is how we basically got our structural grids to match. It is in that five-foot zone that it is difficult for us to do intensive planting. 12-12-95 -39 - Ms. Moore: Staff is recommending to the ARB the Wells Avenue side that be modified from a retaining walt to a two-to-one slope to soften that edge. So that is a recommendation that is being forward to the architectural review board the day after tomorrow. Ms. Beck: In addition, this shows the parking that is below. One thing that is important that we perhaps did not explore before is that we do have a whole floor level of depth in here, and there is some area, but primarily, what we would like to do is to see the South service drive width be less than what it is now and be able to have room along the south property line for more planting. I agree that the farther away the planting is from the building, the more it w-ill serve to scale down the perspective as you approach the building from the south. Mr. Jur~: It would also help the Greer House owners. They would like to have the planting that would screen the building to be up by the service road, rather than on their property, as it would automatically give them more height. If.. in fact, the fire department would agree to a 15-foot width for fire access on that service road instead of a 20-foot width, we would have five feet for planting. Ms. Bava has told me that she can do things in a five-foot width. Mr. Schreiber: Let me toss in another idea for both Sandra and Toni, and that is, planting 0n the side of the building. Is there is something that can be done to break up the surface with some greenery, some type of vine? Ms. Bava: You could espalier something, for example. There are some things one can do, although they would not get as tall as you want, because of maintenance issues. Yoa could only go so high. Ms. Beck: Sure, there are things we could do. One of the other priorities, of which you are not aware, is that there has already been a certain amount of money given to the radiation therapy department in this facility as a donor recognition issue. They have asked for a courtyard and light wells to occur in the basement level of Building C. So what we have done is to take a three- to five-foot light well, extending it out from the building. Putting any kind of terracing or vines growing up that wall above that will really only serve to block the light more in that location. It occurs from about here to the edge, and then there is a subsurface courtyard area already carved out for that department on the west side of Building C. We w-ould love to have some stuff with plantings in there, but it seems like there are so many different priorities, such as the fire department requirements, donor recognition, etc. Commissioner Eakins: I am afraid we are trying to design by committee, and there are only a couple of us ~vho are really professional designers sitting up here and I am not one of them. I would just like to find a way of registering our concerns about the bulk, the mass, the overpowering quality of this unrelieved fa,cade from that very important view, sending that along to the ARB as a paramount site and design issue. Chairman Beecham: That is appropriate. We trust that the ARB will hear these comments. Next is Item (c), Grade transitions to adjacent and vicinity properties, particularly along Wells Avenue, the south side service and the JPB CalTrain right-of-way. Have our previous comments already addressed that, to some degree? Commissioner Schmidt: One area we may not have covered was the bicycle path side of the project. I believe there was to be some more information forthcoming on that, and we were still hoping to get some better transition information. Ms. Moore: Staff has encouraged PAMF representatives to work on ways to not need the retaining wall that is shown at the property line with the JPB CalTrain right-of-way. I am not aware if they have had discussions with JPB about filling in the JPB property. You can see that with the way the lay of the land is, there may be some merit to that, but that is off site involving JPB, a type of property owner that does not have an efficient decisionmaking process for answering such questions as, can we add some fill to your property. But the applicant should continue to be encouraged to pursue things like that. That side is certainly not as sensitive as is the transitions on Wells to the properties on Encina, given the nature of the use. Mr. Stoffel: Regarding the bicycle path, it is my understanding that with the original design, with the parking garage above grade, the problem with the bike path was that it was going to be in kind of a hole with a big wall on one side and perhaps an embankment on the other side from the railroad. Now, we have the opposite situation where the path is somewhat elevated. I think that is a better situation, as there is no wall or cavern, and it appears from the drawing to be quite open. Commissioner Carrasco: Is there a way.to dump some of the earth you are going to be taking out from the site and transition that retaining wall on the JPB side of the property, thus not making the retaining wall look so high? Ms. Beck: There are quite extensive issues in doing anything adjacent to JPB land. I have been quite amazed at the regulations myself with regard to just doing work near there, looking at it, breathing, walking by, etc. They have some drainage issues that are pretty technical that probably will prohibit putting any dirt on their land. That is something the foundation has been interested in exploring, but it does not seem to be going anywhere. Commissioner Cassel: So what you are saying is that the bicycle path is the elevated portion where that tree is? So it is high, which may be good. If there is a little ledge there, you do not tend to get down into the train area. Would there be a little fence along there? - Mr. Stoffel: Yes, that part is good. We just have to make sure that at each end where you transition to the part of the path at the north and south ends where you go back down again, that there is a proper grade that is not too steep. I am sure that can be worked out in some fashion. Ms. Beck: This might show it a little clearer. The bike path is a little higher, then it goes down and back up to tracks again. Chairman Beecham: I do not see a problem in having the bike path elevated at that point, but I do share a concern about having reasonable slopes at either end so that we do not disincentize people from riding bikes along there. Commissioner Schmidt: It would appear that the medical foundation will build the bike path behind this project and up to the Urban Lane extension to meet with paths around University Circle. Is that correct? Mr. Stoffel: Yes, that is correct. They will be building that, and they will also be maintaining at least the portion of the path that is on their property. Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question about a bike path behind the Town and Country Village. There is none there now. Does the city plan on doing something to extend that and make a complete connection? Mr. Aggarwal: That is a separate portion of a City project. Right now, we have a project to construct a bike path along Churchill, and then veer north behind the Palo Alto High School fields, as well as their storage buildings, and then past Town and Country, Village. At one point, we were going to come all the way to the southerly end of the JPB parking lot, but in view of this PAMF project and how- fast it is moving, we are having second thoughts as to how far to bring this bike path. We may bring it far enough just north of Encina, and leave the rest of the bike path unconstructed. We need that guidance from the city council. We are going to go before them in a month or two. Should that happen, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation will build the path on their property and connect it toward the south, as wel! as build the path more southerly. Commissioner Schmidt: So we will have a continuous path there. Mr. Aggarwal: That is correct. Chairman Beecham: Shall we move on to the next item? It is in regard to Item (d), building setbacks from Wells Avenue and the north-south connector. I have a continuing concern regarding parking on Wells Avenue, particularly for the existing pet hospital and for any other uses that may come up there. I am concerned that by vacating some of those streets, we have !ost parking that is used by existing businesses, and we have not adequately provided for that, even though we have talked about some number and how- to kind of push and pull and what might happen. We have not really taken care of that, however. One thing I wonder is, in practice, what would prevent any member of the public, a pet owner or an employee of the pet hospital, from parking in the PAMF parking lot just behind that facility? Ms. Moore: If they were parking in patient locations, it would probably be difficult for PAMF to be able to identif?~ that unless it was the same vehicle day after day who was observed coming to and from the pet hospital. It might even be a situation that should be discussed between the pet hospital owner and PAMF, because there would be a loss of on-street parking for the Palo Alto Pet Hospital. It is currently under parked, based on square footage. It does not appear to be under parked, based on its existing usage. The improvements to Wells Avenue will eliminate parking on one side of the street. Staff has every bit as much concern that the Wells Avenue improvements be done in such a way that we not interfere with the ability of the warehouses on the north side to be able to continue to load and unload at the front of their roll-up doors. They see that as a bit of no-man’s land in front of the buildings right nov,’ between the edge of the right-of-way and the building face. That is where their loading and unloading takes place. Chairman Beecham: I do not have a recommendation to make. I just have a continued concern that we have a problem there that is not resolved yet. Mr. Stoffel: In one sense, we do not have a problem in that even though you take away one side of parking on Wells, there is enough parking there for overflow from the pet hospital. I franldy do not "know how much parking the warehouse generates. There is going to be less parking, but it is not as though we are taking all of the parking away. The veterinar?~ people will have a place to park. It just may not be exactly where they park now. Chairman Beecham: Can you tell me about the situation directly adjacent to the pet hospital wall on Wells Avenue? At one point, there were trees drawn in there along the north wal! of the pet hospital on Wells which would then prohibit parking there. I wonder how- that fits in with the current definition of the plan. Mr. Stoffel: I believe that will be the sidewalk. It will still preempt the parking, but it will be sidewalk, not trees. Chairman Beecham: Is it a curb at that point? Mr. Stoffel: The whole street is going to be reconstructed to match the grades, etc. There wilt be a vertical curb and then a five-foot sidewalk right next to the curb, sandwiched between the Vet Hospital propert3, line and the curb. At some point in the future, there will be a planting strip behind that if that property redevelops and we get another five feet. Ms. Moore: This concept landscape plan prepared by the applicant is not accurate next to the Palo Alto Pet Hospital. It would not be a tree area. It would be a sidewalk area. There is not room for both. Chairman Beecham: Since you are talking about the pet hospital, some of the maps show a property line running through the pet hospital facility. Is that correct? Mr. Schreiber: David Jury may have some information on that. It showed up in some of their survey information. Mr. Jurv: There does appear to be a slight encroachment of the pet hospital onto the PAMF lands, but I do not see that as an issue tonight. Chairman Beecham: I would agree with that. I just wanted to find out if it was accurate, as drawn. Mr. Julw: We believe it is accurate. 12-12-95 - 43 - Commissioner Cassel: On the north side of Wells, you were originally going to have that be a curb, and then did you change your minds and say there was not going to be a curb there? Mr. Stoffel: My understanding, from talking with a Public Works engineer, is that that is going to be a five-foot "space" as he called it. It is a space for utility poles, a fire hydrant, etc. It may be dirt with some plants in it, or it may be concrete where people have their pedestrian doors. It will not be a sidewalk, and it will not be a real landscaped strip. It will be a vertical curb with a platform of some kind, which, if it were paved, would be a sidewalk, but it is not planned to be paved. Commissioner Cassel: So you could mark it for parking spaces? My experience has been that if you do not mark parking spaces, you end up with fewer cars parking in that area, because people seem to take up more space. Mr. Stoffel: We are not planning on marking it for parking spaces. Sometimes, if you leave them unmarked, more people squeeze in. At any rate, we were not planning on marking any parking spaces there. Mr. Aggarwal: If I may share the overall picture about Wells Avenue, the current right-of-way on Wells Avenue is 40 feet. With the proposed improvements, from face of curb to face of curb, the width of the street will be 30 feet and paved. There will be a strip of land which will be five feet wide on the north side, and will be undeveloped -- no sidewalk, no planting strip. It will be just a piece of land. On the south side, there will be a five-foot planting strip and a five-foot sidewalk. The five-foot sidewalk wil! be on what is now PAMF’s property. They are dedicating five feet of property from their land for a sidewalk, for a total of 45 feet where the PAMF property is located. On the street itself,, there will be parking allowed on one side, and those will be unmarked spaces. There is some merit to not marking spaces, because sometimes, more people can squeeze within an area, as opposed to marking spaces. If we mark them, they will have to be 20 feet each. Depending upon how the parking goes in that area, if we see later on that there is a problem where people are talking more than 20 feet to park their vehicles, we do have the option of marking the parking spaces. Mr. Stoffel: It is a loading area next to those warehouses, so you do need spaces that can handle larger vehicles. Commissioner Carrasco: Regarding that retaining wall next to Wells on the south side, I could not tell from the drawings how tall that retaining wall was. It seemed to be about four to five feet. Ms. Moore: We are recommending that the retaining shown on the north side of Building A be modified to a landscaped two-to-one slope, so that the image from Wells is one of landscaping rather than yet another vertica! solid surface. Commissioner Carrasco: And does the appIicant agree so that we do not need to comment on that? 12-12-95 - 44 - Ms. Moore: It is a recommendation that staff is making to the ARB. The applicant has had that staff report, and we have gotten no feedback from them on it. Mr. Schreiber: If you feel it is important, Tony, you can put it into the record, and we will pass it along to the architectural review board. Commissioner Carrasco: I feel that it is important not to have a retaining wall by the sidewalk. Ms. Beck: I am trying to figure out if a two-to-one slope works. The elevation of our first floor is at 62 feet; Wells Avenue would be around 54-1/2 feet, and this sidewalk would probably be at about 55 feet. So we would have about seven feet worth of difference in grade to make along in there. Mr. Schreiber: It would be seven feet of grade change in a 15-foot area. Ms. Bava: I woald like to make one point. It is about the problem of ha,~ing a steep slope going into a public area. I would recommend that you have a very low wall to maintain the runoff of soil that you get. You would be building up soil at the base of a public walkway. It could be 12 inches high, and we could always plant over it so that you would still have the illusion of greenery. Mr. Schreiber: Staff has no problem with a six- or eight-inch edging along the sidewalk to keep soil back. That is perfectly fine. It is the fact of having a two- or three-foot or so retaining wall in that area that was the concern. Commissioner Schmidt: Given that we were talking about the slope of this grade, does it make any sense to put the sidewalk directly on the street in this section of the site and not have the five feet of trees, putting the five feet on the building side? You already have the sidewalk directly on the street next to the pet hospital that could then continue on in the same location down the street. I am sure there are other reasons for doing it in the traditional way of having the separation, but I just wondered if it might make truck use of that street better, with large trucks and tree branches going out into the street, etc. Ms. Moore: We expect the sidewalk in that section of Wells Avenue to have more usage than between the Building A parking lot and E1 Camino. People could be parking in that front parking lot with destinations to the rear of the site of future Building D. Likewise, people walking are coming from the Urban Lane extension and may very welt enter Building A that way, since there is just a service area on the east side. So staff felt that the planting strip was needed there to make that a more hospitable, typical city street section for pedestrians. So we would recommend maintaining the separate landscape strip there. Chairman Beecham: The next item is (e) regarding types and locations of vehicular and bicycle parking spaces. Commissioner Schmidt: I have some concerns about some of the parking in front on the E1 Camino side. We have a small area designated for Urgent Care Center parking. It does not seem like a very large number of spaces there. Do we know if that is adequate for the Urgent Care area? How do you prevent those people who are unfamiliar with the site from parking there, even though it will say it is for Urgent Care? The same with the other small number of parking spaces in front of Building A. I believe the pharmacy in on the first floor of Building A. Is it meant to be a place where people can stop for a few minutes and go in and pick up a prescription? There are a couple of small areas that seem like they might add to some of the confusion out there. Ms. Beck: You are correct. This is Urgent Care parking primarily serving Urgent Care, which is entered through this doorway in Building C. Urgent Care wi!! have longer hours than the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. primary, hours. The medical foundation has asked us to provide directly adjacent parking, and they have also asked the same question we have, which is, how do we monitor this parking? They are currently looking at how .~o monitor all of their parking both underground and on the surface. You have brought up this lot as an example, and I think this lot here is another good example of how to prohibit staff from parking there and allow it to be for patients. How do they allow the areas below ground closest to the elevators to be retained for patients and not for staf£ especially when you get to particular patients like radiation oncology patients that might need to be there for an extended period of time and are relatively weak? So they are working out those issues now-. As architects, we are not involved with it at this point in time, and frankly, they do not have a solution to the Urgent Care parking right now-. Beyond the idea that the parking is intended for people here, they do not intend to have someone with a cut hand have to come in, get a permit, go back out and make sure they put it in their car window. They probably will do something like having people who check in to Urgent Care sign in with their vehicle license plate, and then have a security guard check that lot. That is one of the ways they could police that area. This area at the Research Institute has not been discussed as to whether it will be patient or staff parking, and there is no pharmacy in the basement of this building. It is purely a private building for research. It has been inferred by some members of the Research Institute that this might be their own little private lot, but that has not been agreed to by the administration at the foundation as yet. So we do not "know how they are planning on using that specific lot rightx~ow. Commissioner Cassel: I would like to raise the issue of temporary parking. We have handicap parking for people who are permanently disabled, but we do not really have temporary parking for people who are temporarily disabled, are on crutches, or the person who is weak from radiation therapy, or the one who is just sick. This is something to be dealt with. Another issue I thought about was that fairly soon, as technology progresses, there will be electric cars on the scene. This is a fairly large parking tot, and I thought you might want to think about running some electric lines in your basement, to be pulled out later, and in that way, in a few years, you could easily access those for electric cars. 12-12-95 - 46 - Ms. Beck: A lot of medical institutions are instituting their own concept of what ’.’disabled" is, whether temporary or in order to have treatment, etc. Since they are usually private institutions with private parking, they can monitor who uses those spaces in their own manner. They are not really worried about whether it conforms to strict city laws. I am not saying that PAMF would necessarily do this, but it is private parking, and a certain percentage of it is dedicated for disabled parking. So whether a person deems himself disabled that day or not might be acceptable to whoever is doing it at that time. Commissioner Cassel: A person driving in would not know- that. So it would need to say something about it. Commissioner Schmidt: I stil! want to emphasize my concern about the confusing parts of circulation. I am not sure what can be done at this point to make improvements, but coming in, trying to drop someone off.. going back across that lane where some first-time person might be coming in and circling around, coming back around the oval and going across in front of Building A, I still think it is confusing. If there are any ways to improve the emry circulation and the small parking lot relationships there, I would highly encourage that. I would also encourage some education programs or informational programs before opening, as well as after opening, and send out in the client invoices some parking plans and circulation plans, also have them as handouts with all of the physicians inside for newcomers to the site, so that people can pick up handy little maps that show where they are supposed to park. I feel that an extensive and repetitive effort will help to make this complex circulation work better. Chairman Beecham: Next is item (g) as we have covered (f) already. This is in regard to transit access. Commissioner Eakins: There needs to be transit access. We need to encourage Stanford and CalTrans to work out that impasse about a southbound stop. Mr. Stoffel: I believe it is a condition of the use permit. Chairman Beecham: Not for southbound. Commissioner Cassel: There was a decision that they were not going to do it, and I am not concerned about it. The transit situation is so much better on this site than it was at the other site in terms of being able to access transit from this site. It is one-third of a mile. For the temporarily disabled person, it probably will not make a big difference. It is a lot closer to access if you are trying to get to East Palo Alto or to Menlo Park or Mountain View, than the other site was, which had extremely limited transit access. When the bike path gets put through, we have been worrying about an east-west connection, but we will begin to have a decent north-south connection that ,,,,’ill connect easily to California Avenue by biking up some back streets and crossing over at Churchill and picking up the bike path and coming north. So the various kinds of traffic modes, other than using a single-family car, will be maximized to this site in comparison to the present site, which really depends on the single-family car. Mr. Schreiber: We included a motion for the design comments item. which does not have to be made, but what staff would intend to do is to pass along the highlights of this last discussion to the architectural review board on Thursday morning when this is taken up. So there is no need to make a motion. The council will also have your discussion. I would ask Anne to go back through her notes ~d identify the points where there was reasonable consensus, rather than generalized discussion. If she could summarize that, it may help to wTap up this section. Ms. Moore: There was consensus concern about building mass, as perceived in the elevations. Several of you used the term "fortress-like." There was not unanimity on that, but there was concern, particularly regarding the south elevation of Building C. I heard all of you being concerned about that, as welt. Some of you expressed it as a lack of architectural articulation, and made some suggestions, such as building step backs, paying more attention to windows or changing windows. I believe you all agreed that there was a need to pay more attention to landscaping adjacent to the building or, at the very least, along the south side of the access road. Staff will be meeting with the fire department to see if it is at all possible to reduce the 20-foot width there to gain an additional five feet on the south side of the service road. The commission was concerned about Wells Avenue parking. I heard direction t~at we analyze ways to minimize the loss of parking spaces on that street while maintaining access to the warehouses, as they have no parking other than the on-street loading area. There was unanimity on changing the retaining wall on Wells Avenue to a two-to-one slope with a kind of curb wall as described by the project landscape architect. Out of all of the discussion, those are the things that came through clearly as the recommendations that should be passed on. Commissioner Eakins: I want to reinforce Phyllis’ suggestion about planning ahead for electric vehicles and recharging them. If Kathy will permit me, I would like to reinforce the letter from the Public Art Commission about including at this point, and not a minute later, the advice and help of professional artists and the Public Art Commission in improving and enhancing pavement, blank walls, arbors, all these items that are already specified in the plans. Chairman Beecham: This brings us to Item 7, Commission comments related to the second left turn lane on E1 Camino Real. What authority does the City have regarding Caltrans conditions? Mr. Schreiber: Caltrans has to agree to entrances and signals, and any other types of changes to E1 Camino. They have the authority to condition their granting of approval for access for a signalized entrance, as they see fit in terms of public health, safety, welfare, etc. So they have the ultimate authority in terms of E1 Camino Real and all movements off of E1 Camino. Commissioner Carrasco: I reluctantly agree that they have the jurisdiction to require these two lanes, but I am also concerned that a roadway of eight lanes does need some kind of landscaping in the center median. I do not -know how- we are going to find that. I think the landscape architect was very clever in finding that five feet was .adequate for very tall trees when it related to an alleyway. I am hoping she can be as clever in finding what can be put into four feet, a street tree kind of thing that would scale this eight-lane roadway which will look quite massive and does not have a Palo Alto feel. I am hoping there is some way to do that, and if there is some support, I would like to add a condition requiring it. 12-12-95 - 48 - Commissioner Cassel: Tony, how about referring it to the Public Art Commission and doing something different. If it cannot be greenscape, maybe it can be something else. It needs something, and it is not big enough for greenery. They came up with an interesting fence on Alma. Commissioner Eakins: Fond as I am of giving them all the work in the world, now that I am no longer on the Public Art Commission, is it possible to restripe E1 Camino? I see that PAMF is responsible for the restriping. Can the lanes be narrower to gain something in the center? Would CalTrans consider that? Those lanes are really wide. Mr. Aggarwal: With the second left-hand turn, we are going to utilize every bit of the road area from face of curb to face of curb. That is how we can accommodate a second left-hand turn without widening E1-Camino. There is also a bus stop on one side, so we must maintain that lane at 19 feet wide. There is another lane on the west side that we want to leave at 15 feet to make it more friendly to bike riders. That leaves only 11-foot-wide lanes, which is the CalTrans minimum, leaving a four-foot-wide median. Chairman Beecham: Without getting into a detailed analysis of whether or not landscaping can go in there, can we leave it with staff to do the best possible to find a way to do it? (Agreed) I have a comment on the two lanes. There has been a lot of discussion on the impact of having a second lane on Embarcadero regarding traffic. My summary judgment of the impact, as I have gone through what is in the draft EIR and our discussions, is that I do not believe that having a second lane is going to have a significant impact on traffic on Embarcadero, once you get east of the Waverley area. There may be some small changes in traffic patterns as people adjust, but I don’t feel it will be much. I don’t think a second lane at that location, when you have the added traffic from the medical foundation, is going to improve things so that people now say, here is a better way to go, and turn left on Embarcadero. I think that people, for the most part, go on Embarcadero for a certain destination and that destination will not change. I know there are a lot of people concerned about the impact this will have on Embarcadero traffic, but I do not believe adding a second turn lane will make any significant change, one way or the other, on the ultimate traffic going along Embarcadero. Commissioner Cassel: I reluctantly agree with Bern. I would like to not have a second turn lane there, but I feel it would strangle the Town and Country Village if we do not. It will strangle the exit out of the high school, as well, which no one has mentioned in this process. I don’t know if they will change the way the lanes go underneath the train overpass, but essentially, it all has to focus down into one lane. The councilis looking at a study to try and work on the other side of Embarcadero to make that a little more of a user friendly area. Commissioner Schmidt: I support the previous comments. I would seeing no left-hand turn there, but I feel we are going to have to put it in, so I am reluctantly in support of this, too. I question what will happen in that zone on Embarcadero Road between E1 Camino and getting through under the bridge and getting back up to a two-lane area. We will have to see what happens, and possibly do some tweaking of the lights, once the foundation is up and running. So I reluctantly agree with all of the other reluctant people here. Chairman Beecham: If those are all of the reluctant comments that we have on that item, what remains is to return to the conditions for the use permit. With Tony’s instigation, I believe we have a condition to the effect of requiring that the oval and the front entrance be maintained open to light vehicular traffic. Mr. Schreiber: You were talking about the entry, the oval and the driveway to Wells Avenue. The condition would be along the lines that those travel lanes would need to be kept open for automobiles, vans and shuttle buses, with the recognition that the foundation does have the prerogative of restricting track use of those areas. In fact, staff concurs with that restriction. It is open for public use, and the key word is "public." We will work out the wording if the concept is acceptable. Ms. Cauble: If you wish to make this a condition of the use permit, someone should move for reconsideration. When you all vote to reconsider, someone should make a motion to amend your recommended conditions on the use permit. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move to reconsider. SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that we accept the condition as described by Ken. SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion that staff will write up a use permit condition with the intended effect of keeping the oval, the front entry and the driveway to Wells Avenue open to public traffic, with the exclusion of trucks. All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink not participating. Mr. Schreiber: Mr. Chair, I would like to compliment you and your four colleagues tonight. This has been an excellent, meeting. The involvement of all five of you, the depth and quality of the comments was a great job on one of the toughest, most difficult and complicated projects that you have had in a long time. And it is great training for the Sand Hill corridor! Chairman Beecham: Thank you. Mr. Jury, do you wish to speak? Mr. Jurv: Yes, if I may, I would like to second Ken’s comments. I am very impressed with the work that you did tonight. We also really want to thank you. A lot of your time has gone into this, including this special meeting tonight, requiring a lot of changing of your schedules. We are very appreciative of your work, and thank you very much. Chairman Beecham: Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: I have a comment that was made to me by several members of the public which causes me some concern. They have said that this project creates too much traffic, so just let it move out of town. I get concerned by this. They serve a significant portion of Palo Alto residents. Moving them out of town means we do not have that service in town, easily accessible so that some of us can walk, bike or get to this facility easily, and have our children use this facility without our being at home. They can walk or bike to the facility and get their own medical care. Chairman Beecham: I now close this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 12-12-95 -51 - Attachment T City of Palo Alto ..................., ......................, MINUTES Thursday, December 14, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING 8:00 AM Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California ROLL CALL Acting Chair Cheryl Piha called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m.; members Robert Peterson and James McFall were also in attendance. Chair Julie Maser and David Ross were not present due to their conflicts of interest on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Project. James McFall, who also has a conflict of interest on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation item, had previously been selected in order to form a quorum for consideration of that item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Acting Chair Piha asked if any members of the public wish to speak on a topic within ARB jurisdiction that is not listed as an agenda item. There were no members of the public wishing to speak. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Acting Chair Piha noted that there were no agenda changes, additions or deletions, this being a special meeting to consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s ARB application. I.CONSENT CALENDAR II. There were no consent calendar items at the meeting. REGULAR AGENDA 1.795 El Camino Real Palo Alto Medical Foundation 94-ARB-30 Acting Chair Cheryl Piha read the description of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation item before the ARB at this special meeting. B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 1 Anne Moore, Contract City Project Manager, summarized the Planning Commission’s comments to the ARB, in a memorandum dated December 13, 1995. The following actions were taken by the Planning Commission, all on unanimous 5-0 votes (Ojakian and Shink not participating). Found that the Draft EIR, with responses to be prepared to all comments received during the public review period, has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments changing the Urban Lane Campus to Major Institutions/Special Facilities and modifying Housing Program 1A. o Recommended approval of the text change to the Public Facilities (PF) district to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medica! and related medical research. Recommended approval of rezoning the Urban Lane Campus to the modified PF District. Recommended approval of a conditional use permit with extensive findings and conditions of approval. Recommended approval of a tentative subdivision map consolidating the existing 13 parcels into 1 parcel, with vacation of existing Homer Avenue and a portion of existing Urban Lane in exchange for dedication of public roadway easements for the north-south connector and a widened Wells Avenue and for provision of the Urban Lane Extension to University Circle. Recommended approval of the preferred Alternative for the Urban Lane Extension as contained in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. Recommended approval of a variance to allow 31.9 percent coverage where 30 percent is permitted if and when a deferred parking structure is constructed. Recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement for the PAMF Downtown Specific Plan area. By consensus discussion, the Commission also made the following recommendations and comments to the Architectural Review Board regarding design issues concerning the PAMF proposal for its Urban Lane Campus: Commissioners were all concerned about the massiveness of the proposed buildings. Particular concern was expressed about the south elevation of B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 2 Building C. Commissioners recommended that ways to add articulation to the building and/or landscaping along the south elevation and!or southside service road be explored by PAMF designers and the Architectural Review Board. No Co do Commissioners recommended that street improvements to Wells Avenue be designed to minimize the loss of on-street parking. Commissioners recommended that the retaining wall proposed for the north side of Building A be changed to an approximate 2:1 landscaped slope. Commissioners recommended that PAMF provide electrical outlets in the parking structure for use by electric vehicles. Commissioners encouraged PAMF representatives to involve professional artists in the current design of the Campus and to coordinate with the Public Arts Commission. Moore also referenced information received from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to be included in the ARB packet. The information consisted of reports from Antonia Bava, Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Project Landscape Architect and PAMF horticulturalist Barrie Coate. Moore distributed copies of the reports and indicated that the Project Landscape Architect would summarize the information. Moore stated that the staff report was quite complete. She indicated that during earlier ARB and Planning Commission meetings great public support had been expressed for the Homer pedestrian-bicycle undercrossing. Moore reported that David Jury had indicated PAMF’s willingness to commit $150,000 for construction of the Homer undercrossing. That would give the City an approximate five-year period of time in which to secure funding for the project and be able to utilize the funds provided by PAMF. Moore also indicated that the condition regarding noise mitigation for the re- designed service docks, particularly the south side location at Building C, were included in the conditions. Member James McFall asked if staff had recommendations concerning the number and spacing of street trees for condition # 38. Moore indicated that staff did not have specific recommendations at the present time. Member McFa!l also asked if the Planning Commission had seen the new PAMF information and materials presented to the ARB. Staff responded that some of the renderings had been presented to the Planning Commission, but not any of the models or materials samples provided at today’s ARB meeting. In response to Member B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 3 McFall’s question about the ARB action, Moore indicated that staff was recommending final ARB approval with numerous conditions. She explained that the matter would not be going back to the Planning Commission, but is tentatively scheduled for City Council review on January 22, 1996. There was a short pause in the proceedings while the applicant’s design team reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. Sandra Beck, Project Manager for the Project Architects, Ellerbe Becket, stated that there had been several revisions to the plan since the last ARB review and the provision of many additional visual aids she would be using at today’s meeting. She discussed the impact of the value engineering process on the elevations and stated that they had been working to add relief to the elevations to increase shadows and shading. She also summarized the sun and shade study that had been prepared for the project. She emphasized that the East Plaza would be sunny except in the morning, when there would also be deep shadows onto E1 Camino Real. Using the colored landscape plan, Sandra Beck indicated that no changes had been made to the front entrance or the basic site circulation, except for changes related to functions within the buildings, some of which triggered changes to the building masses. She summarized the changes to the buildings by stating that Building C was smaller by one bay removed from the front of the building along E1 Camino; Building B had had its floor plates changed; and Building A no longer contained the Conference Center. She also described that there was no longer a railing along the roofs, with the substitution of a deep cornice instead. She showed where the loggia was still proposed around the fronts of the buildings, but that the connection between Buildings A and B had been changed, becoming more open than in the previous submittal. She also indicated where that the Building A service area was smaller than in the previous design and no longer below grade. Regarding building elevations, Sandra Beck indicated that they were still proposing the use of stone on the base and referenced a material sample. She explained that the plaster would be in two colors, more tan and less yellow than the previous submittal. She showed how the plaster would be darker around the windows and in the vertical elements at the cornice. She stated that there would be standard reveals of one to one and a half inches with 15 inches to 1 foot 6 inches for other projections. She showed the ~ various perspective drawings such as looking to the site from the north of the Urban Lane extension and from the southern end of the north-south connector. She spent some time describing the various material samples brought to the meeting. Included among the samples was a window section, with real mullions and divided lights. She showed where the windows would be inset one foot. She noted that the inner courtyard could have more adornment when a donor recognition system had been established. B:ARB:MINI214 Page 4 Regarding the inner atrium, she stated she was not sure if stone would be used. She explained this was not a budget consideration, but rather had to do with how "fancy" the space needs to be. Project Landscape Architect Antonia Bava stated that the conceptual landscape plan remains essentially the same as presented last time to the ARB. She described that the entrance oval area surface would be flush with no curves as would the east side plaza areas. She pointed out the east plaza connection through the atrium area. She explained the re-designed Urban Lane plaza, an area that has been enlarged due to changes to the Building A loading dock. Using the colored enlarged landscape plan, Antonia Bava described the pedestrian circulation throughout the project site. She pointed to the pergolas and seasonal planting materials and flowering trees that would be used in the east side plaza areas. She explained the use of raised planters and paving at the east plaza, with the pergolas providing seating, bicycle parking and screening for the parking lot. She described the main entrance where the trees would have more of a weeping form and would also be utilized for adding seasonal color. She explained that citrus and crepe myrtle trees would probably be used in the east plaza. She also noted that vines would be provided for the pergolas. She explained that evergreen trees would be used as a back drop, with redwood probably used in those important areas such as along the eastern property line. She noted that lower, flowering cherries would also be used in those areas. She concluded the discussion on trees by stating that she would be consulting with the City’s arborist.and with Barrie Coate, the project arborist. Regarding pavements, Antonia Bava stated that the goal was for enriched paving at the entrance plaza, recognizing the maintenance difficulties with oil from vehicles. She described the paving as seated, colored, poured-in-place concrete. She said that two colors would be used to key vehicular and pedestrian activity areas. She indicated that there would be use of what she called "high curbs or low walls", less than 20 inches" high, typically between 10 and 16 inches high in the plaza area. She noted these features could also be used as low benches. She explained these above slab planter areas were needed to provide extra soil for landscaping. She stated that she had met with the structural engineer regarding soil volumes available for landscape areas. She explained that along the north- south connector road, a special trough would be constructed to provide a minimum 3 feet depth of soil for the proposed street trees. Project architect Sandra Beck further explained that the structural engineer had indicated that 4V2 feet of soil would be able to be provided in that area for the street trees. Bava explained that there would be raised planters only in the front entrance area, typically 3 feet in height. Regarding the east plaza area, Antonia Bava explained that this would be an open circulation zone, but enriched with the use of terrazzo pavers. Using material samples, she explained that they would use the rustic or rough finish surface so B:ARB:MIN 1214 Page 5 the pavers would not be slick for pedestrians. She said they plan to apply the terrazzo in patterns with various colors and geometric shapes. Regarding the horticultural report referenced at the beginning of the meeting, Bava explained that 43 trees were being removed from the site and that approximately 320 trees were to be planted. She indicated that the value of the trees that were to be removed were approximately $43,000 with the new trees’ value ranging between $96,000 to $134,000. The Board then addressed its questions to the applicants’ representatives. Member Robert Peterson asked about trees located on and off the structure. He asked if the larger trees were off the structure. Bava indicated that yes, that was the case. She explained she would be relying on tall, narrow trees for the back drop areas, with pedestrian scaled trees near pathways. She stated that the largest trees would be along E1 Camino Real and along the eastern property line, both off structure locations. Member Peterson asked if there would be landscaping on the Urban Lane extension to the north. David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Real Estate Manager, explained that there would be landscaping with final design to be determined at the time of final engineering design. Antonia Bava explained the conflict between trying to achieve some significant tree ~owth in the short term, ten years or so, and trees that would need up to 50 years to achieve their full size. Member Peterson asked about the paving on Urban Lane. Antonia Bava explained that monolithic concrete would be used at the plazas. Member Peterson asked how repairs would be made to such a surface. Project designers responded that had not been determined. Project Architect Sandra Beck explained that they were working on how to slope and drain the podium structure. She stated they want to slope the structure to maximize natural runoff and minimize the need to penetrate the structure with various drainage facilities. She stated they have not yet completed that part of the design. Member Peterson indicated that he likes the concrete surface for the roadway. Bava explained that it comes in blocks or can be poured in place. Member Peterson asked about the designs of the bollards and lights. Antonia Bava said they have not been final designed yet. She said they planned to use a simple design, that might be lighted, although overhead lighting would be more effective in most of the important circulation areas. She stated that the bollards would be designed to control the traffic. Member Peterson asked whether there would be curbs provided on Urban Lane. After some discussion, Bava and Beck indicated that was to be determined. Member Peterson asked where there would be outdoor seating. Antonia Bava pointed out seating at the Urban Lane Plaza, the East Plaza, the main entrance B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 6 area and stated that some movable furniture might be used in various portions of the side. Member McFall asked about the use of olive trees in the front area. Antonia Bava explained they would be a fruitless variety. Member McFall asked her to explain the planting along the south service road. It was unclear to him whether the tall shrubs and short trees proposed alongside the building were on or off the . structure. Project Architect Beck indicated the planting area would be off the structure, but that it was adjacent to a three to five-foot wide light well down to an oncology courtyard on the basement level.. Planning and Community Environment Director Kenneth R. Schreiber stated that staff and the Planning Commission are concerned about the south elevation of Building C. He stated that he had met with the Fire Chief to discuss the potential for reducing the 20 feet service drive to 15 feet of pavement. Schreiber stated that the Fire Chief would accept such a reduction in paving as long as there would be no parking within the 15 feet of pavement area and that additional standpipes (hydrants) would be added to compensate for one engine being unable to pass another to iay fire hose. Schreiber concluded that that would yield an approximate 5-foot landscape strip along the south property line west of the Urban Lane extension to Encina Avenue. He recommended that the strip be planted with trees selected for height and density of foliage, given the importance of screening the project particularly the south elevation of Building C, from the adjacent Encina Avenue properties and from E1 Camino Real. Project Architect Beck explained the width of the Urban Lane extension south of the service road to Encina Avenue. She said that the pepper tree at the Greer House, 51 Encina Avenue, is on the eastern property line. She explained that approximately 10’ would be left clear out from the tree to ensure that it would not be adversely affected by roadway and retaining wall construction. Anne Moore explained that staff recommends elimination of the east side parkii~g lane in favor of provision of sidewalk and landscaping. Project Architect Beck indicated that there was not enough room to accomplish all of that. David Jury stated that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has no problem with this issue and will study it more to achieve a roadway cross section more consistent with the staff recommendation to include landscaping and sidewalk in lieu of on-street parking on the east side. Acting Chair Cheryl Piha had questions about how benches and seating would work and other outdoor activities planned for the project. She encouraged the installation of mobile coffee and food carts, art exhibits and concerts but questioned whether support were being planned as part of the project to accommodate such special activities and events. B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 7 Antonia Bava explained that the East Plaza was planned as the main area for such events. She said they were studying whether to include fixed benches in the area in addition to the seating that would be provided by raised planters and other landscape features. She said that the space was designed to work well for special events. Acting Chair Piha stressed that PAMF needs to plan now for the support utilities and other features to ensure successful utilization of the space for such activities. Acting Chair Piha questioned how the Pediatrics outdoor area was designed. Antonia Bava indicated this area is not yet designed in detail. She stated that PAMF wants the area to be similar to their existing pediatric area which has play equipment, seating for children and adults, trees, and other landscaping. Acting Chair Piha noted that this pediatric play area is larger than in the previous design and questioned what paving would be used. Antonia Bava responded that the paving has not been designed yet. Member James McFall had questions about the Building A loading dock. Antonia Bava responded that it would be screened by larger trees,most probably redwoods. Member McFall then questioned the treatment along Wells Avenue, particularly the retaining wall discussed in the staff report and in the Planning Commission memorandum. Project Architect Sandra Beck responded that Wells Avenue was at an approximate elevation of 54.5 feet with Building A finished floor elevation at 62 feet. She said that with a low 12 inches curb wall, there could be a 2 to 1 slope achieved in the area on the north side of Building A. Antonia Bava stated that another reason why olives have been selected for the front entrance area was due to their multi-tmnked growth pattern, which would be effective at the pedestrian and auto level of activity in that area. She also stated that olives were good performers on structures, which would be the case at the entrance oval. The Architectural Review Board then went through their architectural questions about the project, with Member James McFall asking about the Building A loading dock design. Project Architect Sandra Beck explained that the loading was at elevation 58 feet, with the building finished floor elevation at 62 feet and Wells Avenue at that location at 54 feet. She explained that the screen wall would be four to five feet in height, with a planting area to provide additional screening. She also indicated that PAMF had agreed to hours restriction for having trucks use the dock and storage areas as had been discussed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 12. In response to Member McFall’s question about the Building C loading docks, Project Architect Sandra Beck explained that the Building C dock was at elevation 62 feet with the adjacent street at 58 feet. She said that this was the area where most all trash and recycling activities for the entire complex would take B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 8 place. Member McFall asked how trash and recycling materials would be stored and how they would be handled. Beck responded that storage would be at various locations in the building then consolidated at the garage level and transferred to the loading dock. Member McFall asked how drainage and parking would work on Wells Avenue. He stated it appeared there was room for a 5 foot landscape strip and a 5 foot sidewalk according to the PAMF plans and inquired about staffs preference for parking along the north side of the street. David Jury responded that PAMF had communicated with the owner of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital who has limited parking on his site. Consequently, the Pet Hospital’s employees park on the street, currently on the south side. Anne Moore summarized the staff review of the situation, explaining that there was room only for a sidewalk alongside the pet hospital, but that there was room for both a landscape strip and sidewalk alongside the PAMF frontage. She said the staff design would yield over 10 parking spaces on the north side of Wells Avenue. Regarding the treatment along the warehouses on the north side of the street, Moore noted that roadway grading would have to take into account how drainage would work in the area. Project Architect Sandra Beck explained that retaining walls were not needed around the pet hospital, and that care would be needed to protect the oak tree in that portion of the PAMF site when grading was done. Member McFall questioned how the roof screens were designed. Project Architect Sandra Beck responded that they would be plastered in the same two tones as the building with some articulation. She pointed out the setbacks of the roof screens on the various buildings, referencing sheet 19F, the PAMF Project Roof Plan. She stated that the screens would return and go around the equipment with the possible exception of the middle sections on Building C, where openings would not be visible from off-property locations. Member McFall questioned how the fenestration for the project was designed and asked about the depths of the offsets. Project Architect Beck responded that PAMF is studying the fenestration in detail at the present time. Using the small scale model, she indicated that brackets would project 15 inches, other projections would be two to three inches, with the pilasters projecting approximately 3 inches and the window frames, 2 inches. She stated that the reveals would be 1½ inches. She showed where the projection at the base of the third floor would be 4 inches. She showed where the stone at the base of the building was expected to extend up to 30 inches in height. She stated that the stone window sills were being evaluated, as a better use of this expensive material might be lower in the project at pedestrian level. She showed how the cornice had been strengthened from that in the original design. She concluded by saying they were still studying whether the base of the building is too heavy relative to the second story. She pointed to the use of stone at the base of the loggia columns. B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 9 Member Robert Peterson questioned the wall colors at the second and third floor levels. Project Architect Beck responded they would be the same warm tans used elsewhere in the project. Member James McFall asked how the trim at the window opening was designed. Project Architect Beck explained that the sill was inside the jamb trim and showed the model of the window. There was extensive discussion about window detailing. She explained that economy restricts the use of the stone in the project, and it would probably be better served to utilize stone at the pedestrian level than as window sills. Regarding the possibility of attaching wood to the building, Project Architect Beck explained that the Type II building code requirements do not allow the use of attached wood. She said they would prefer using wood in the cornices, but that would not be possible. She said the use of wood on the loggia covers remains a code issue that they are pursuing further with the Building Division. Member James McFall questioned the cornice, noting that the model is more simplified than the more detailed rendering on the elevations. Project Architect Beck said they are trying for a bullnose wrap-around cornice and indicated that the elevations were able to show shading more effectively than the model. Member McFall recommended that Board members needed to go outside to review the colors of the various material samples. David Jury indicated that PAMF wants consensus on the colors today, although the samples they had presented may not be the specific colors to be utilized. Acting Chair Piha clarified that final color and materials would be needed prior to any final review of conditions of approval by the Architectural Review Board. Member McFall questioned the choice of roof tile, whether it would be barrel or "s" shaped. Project Architect Beck responded that she preferred the "s" shape, but that a final decision had not been made. Member McFall then questioned how the PAMF architects had responded to prior Board and staff concerns about Building C’s south elevation treatment. Project Architect Sandra Beck, referring to Sheet 9A, stated that they need to do a rendered elevation, as there will not be much shade or shadow on this south elevation except at the cornice. She explained that interior functional needs dictate that there be a window in every office on this elevation, although the sizing of the windows was open for discussion. She noted that the detailing provided to the base of the building would help articulate the south elevation. Staff commented that the base of the building would not generally be visible from off-site, and the off-site views are the main concern about the south elevation of Building C. B:ARB:MIN 1214 Page 10 Member Robert Peterson questioned if PAMF would be building the bicycle path along the railroad right of way. Project Architect Beck responded that PAMF would be constructing those improvements. Member Peterson then commented that he too was concerned about the south side elevation of Building C, noting that it has none of the articulation of the north elevation. There was discussion about the south elevation, with Project Architect Beck indicating they would consider moving the wall planes in and out and pulling a tower element through to the south elevation. She said by studying where there were shared offices on the interior, she may be able to achieve such modifications. Member Peterson encouraged her to achieve both 18 inch projections and 18 inch recesses to accomplish sufficient articulation needed on this south elevation. Beck agreed that more severe proportions of projections and recesses were needed for this long building elevation. Member Peterson encouraged her to try for including some wood elements, if the code would allow that. There was morediscussion of the visibility of the .south side elevation, with staff explaining that mostly the second and third floor levels are visible from E1 Camino due to the adjacent buildings and trees on the north side of Encina Avenue. Project Architect Beck explained that there would not be a "rear door" on this building elevation. Anne Moore clarified that the south side service road would be a private roadway only, with no public access or through circulation allowed. Member Robert Peterson asked about the Project’s art budget. David Jury responded that they were meeting with the staff of the Public Arts Commission that morning. He said no dollar amount or percentage had been set, but that there would be art throughout the project. Project Architect Beck explained the entire project is viewed as an aesthetic oppommity, with numerous areas available for inclusion of art such as interior courts and the various paved areas. She explained that they were at the beginning of the design and development stage, and that they were studying how to incorporate art already owned by PAMF and other art likely to be donated as part of the new project. She concluded by stating that they were open and not closed to all potential art locations in the project. Acting Chair Cheryl Piha asked questions about the sheet showing the plaza and landscape design for the Building D area, in the event Building D is not built at the same time as the rest of the campus. Project Landscape Architect Antonia Bava described PAMF’s desire to achieve a park-like setting in this location and that the area was intended to be a very green space. Project Architect Beck explained that with the Building A loading dock change, the area had been opened up and there could be improved integration of the opening between Buildings A and B through to the proposed landscaping at the Building D site. Member Robert Peterson asked when Building D would be constructed. David Jury explained the timing is unknown and depends on donor contributions and other contractual concerns. He explained that the current Application includes no B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 11 specific design for Building D, only the landscape improvements currently being discussed. Acting Chair Piha questioned how the urgent care use would function on the lower leve! of Building C. Project Architect Beck responded that the PAMF program requires urgent care and that it needs to be in a convenient location for patients. Cheryl Piha asked about previous public concerns about the lack of urgent care east of the railroad tracks. David Jury responded that there may be need for a small satellite facility in the downtown area, but that urgent care typically works in conjunction with other functions and specialties. He explained the difference between emergency and urgent care, stating that the PAMF facility is not a trauma center. He said people should always use the 911 system during a tree life emergency. Acting Chair Piha asked how the urgent care parking would work. Project Architect Beck explained it would be located in the oval and they were exploring methods to control the parking. For example, she explained that license numbers could be provided to the receptionist in urgent care with security staff then checking to ensure there was only authorized parking in the designated area. Acting Chair Piha asked if there was still a clock tower in the project. Project Architect Beck responded that the clock tower was located between Buildings B and C. She stated that there would also be a special feature, perhaps a sun dial, on the tower between Buildings A and B. Member McFal! asked why there were fewer window openings on the towers than in the previous design. Project Architect Beck responded that they were striving to make the towers a more massive feature in the overall design. Member McFall observed that the tower in the northwest comer of Building C appeared wide for the proposed window spacing. At that point, Project Architect Beck questioned staff regarding condition #55 and its restrictions concerning Building D. Anne Moore responded that the condition was worded the way it is because on the current plans Building D is sited in such a way that there is not an adequate amount of parking conveniently located adjacent to or near the building. She pointed out on the plan the relationship of the building to the long, linear surface parking lot to the south, and the lack of a Building D connection to the sub surface two levels of parking. She also stated that the final parking numbers and square footage would need to be resolved, with Building D only as large as there was parking provided. Project Architect Beck then questioned condition #56 which recommended including curved windows and balcony railings in certain locations of the project. City Contract Planner Lisa Newman responded that staff was concerned about the loss of building articulation and this condition was an attempt to regain some of B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 12 the articulation in the prior submittal. Project Architect Beck then responded to the individual recommendations, indicating she had no problem with the recommendation for the west facade of Building D. Regarding the north facade of Building C she did not agree with the recommendation initially, and wanted to study it further. She also stated she did not agree with the recommendation concerning arched windows on the third levels and would want to study that further also. At that point, the Architectural Review Board members went outside to review the material samples submitted by the applicant. Acting Chair Piha explained that there would be no discussion of the project merits or any decision making that would take place while the Board members were outside. Upon returning from the outdoor inspection, Acting Chair Piha asked if there were any remaining questions from Board members. There being none, she asked if there were any public comments on the project. There was no one present wishing to speak, so Acting Chair Piha closed the Public Hearing. The Board then presented its comments on the merits of the project. Member James McFall stated that he supports approval of the Design Enhancement Exception and the deferred parking, particularly since Building D would not be approved until some later time. Regarding the building architecture, Member McFall stated he was pleased with what has been seen today and complimented the project’s architects for their great strides in the detailing of the building. He stated that the materials selected were headed in the right direction, and indicated his general support for the colors. He clarified that this was not final approval of the colors, and felt that the lighter plaster as proposed would be too light. He encouraged the use of a darker tone. He stated that a bit darker tone could be used for the lower level plaster. He thought the stone color was okay as submitted but that the rustic finish was too strong, and recommended one of the smoother finishes instead. He also endorsed the use of the colored concrete for paving, although he thought that the sample color was too bright a tone for use in the project. He liked adding aggregate to the concrete, but recommended that the project designers re-examine combining the cool granite color with the warm matrix of the concrete. He stated he likes the rough terrazzo proposed for the east plaza and recommended that samples be worked up. Regarding the building architecture, Member McFall indicated he is pleased with the direction the design has been going. He stressed that the designers can and should go further prior to final approval. He said there were numerous items that would be coming back through the ARB as listed in condition #56. He stated that the south elevation of Building C should be re-studied, paying attention to the fenestration and articulation on the facade. He explained that the 300+ foot length of the Building C southside elevation requires very close design attention. He encouraged using other measures such as 18 inch indents and projections to B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 13 achieve greater articulation, stating that minor projections on the south elevation would not be sufficient because of the lack of shade and shadow. He stated that regarding the fenestration, the sills at the window opening should be re-studied so as to project out to the jambs. He also stated that the pilaster bases at the third floor level needed more study, indicating that a more three-dimensional design was desirable. Regarding building materials, Member McFall stated that there was variation in materials needed for sufficient design variety on the large buildings. He stated that terra cotta can have color variations and recommended use of the barrel tile. He pointed to the example of the building across the street from City Hall on Hamilton. Because the PAMF building towers will be very visible, he recommended use of the natural material. Regarding Building D, Member McFall stated he is concerned about the building and mass siting in a tight corner of the site. He stated he found the landscape alternative for that area very pleasant, and concluded that any furore Building D would need to address its location and questioned whether the proposed size could be accommodated in the area. He suggested that the size probably cannot be accommodated and achieve adequate access and parking. He concluded by stating he would vote for approval of the project with conditions consistent with ARB members’ comments. Member Robert Peterson stated he also endorsed the Design Enhancement Exception and the parking deferral. Regarding landscaping, he stated he was encouraged to see an increased landscaping oppommity on the south side of Building C with the possibility of a 15 foot wide service road. He encouraged the use of large, vigorous trees in that landscape area. Regarding Urban Lane between Encina Avenue and the south side service road, Member Peterson stated that landscaping was more important than a sidewalk on the east side. He recommended the same treatment on Wells Avenue, stating that landscaping and sidewalk both were needed next to the pet hospital. He recommended that there be more seating provided in the various outdoor spaces. He was concerned about the plaza design with the pergola and bike parking. He thought the area could be harsh and too bright, although it had the potential to be a good gathering and activity space. He stated that he found the Urban Lane plaza an outstanding addition to the site plan. He also recommended that the PAMF commitment to contribute $150,000 towards construction of the Homer Undercrossing be incorporated into a condition of approval. He stated he hopes the undercrossing project happens. Member Peterson went on to state he wants to include a specific requirement for art in the project. He believes the budget should be between one half and one percent of the overall project cost, and explained that his definition of art was an integrated one, so as not to be onerous. B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 14 Regarding the architecture, Member Peterson stated he did not support the addition of arched windows, observing they would not be a help. Instead, he recommended that the project designers need more surface elements, articulation ranging from 18 inches to 3 feet on the south side of Building C. He stated he found that the window, materials and colors worked well as proposed. Regarding the colors, Member Peterson stated he also found them all too light, but that the relationships between the colors worked well. He stated the materials needed some additional texture, and the building could use more color. Acting Chair Cheryl Piha said she was generally supportive of the project and pleased with what has been presented. She complimented the project designers on the excellent materials and exhibits they had provided. She stated she also supports approval of the Design Enhancement Exception and the deferred parking. She noted that she appreciated the designers’ reconsideration of the changes proposed by the value engineering exercise. Regarding landscaping, Acting Chair Piha said the project was moving in the right direction, although additional details are needed. She encouraged the project designers to remember children in all the various retreat areas being designed, but found other aspects of the design quite acceptable. She stressed the need for anticipating electrical connections and other infrastructure support in the various outdoor spaces to allow a wide range of activities. She stated the Board would need final samples of all the surface materials proposed in the outdoor areas and encouraged integration of art into those outdoor spaces. She noted that some aspects of the project design, such as the terrazzo surfaces, could qualify as art elements. Regarding project massing, Acting Chair Piha complimented the designers on the opening between Buildings A and B, noting it was a very positive change in the project. She said that the elevations are moving in a good direction, although final detailing is needed prior to Board approval of all final conditions. She stated that Building C’s south elevation needs significant additional improvement. Acting Chair Piha agreed with the other Board members that the project palette needed more color and to be darkened. She found the proposed wooden trellises very important and hoped a code solution could be found to include these elements in the project. She encouraged including some wood features elsewhere in the project design. She siated that the window color was not yet perfected. She added that condition #38 would eventually need more detail regarding street trees. She wanted the conditions changed to add the 15 foot requirement for the southside service road, thereby allowing a landscape strip along the southside of the property. She endorsed the changes to condition #51-D previously discussed, and stated that condition #56 also needed changes. She said that 56-A should be changed to require increased articulation and depth of building walls, not B:ARB:MIN1214 Page 15 exclusive to Building C. She said that the items recommended in 56-B needed to be re-studied. Regarding art, she recommended the addition of a condition that the project make a "significant contribution" to include art in the overall design. She stated that the applicants were to submit a proposal in conjunction with their final approvals to the ARB. She complimented the applicant regarding the $150,000 commitment for funding the Homer Undercrossing, and agreed it should be reflected in the conditions. Again, she recommended that including outlets for electric vehicles in the garage and other electric uses in outdoor areas needed to be designed into the project now to ensure it would happen. She.concluded by stating that the Architectural Review Board would be seeing much more of the applicant in the coming months as the final details are worked out and presented for final ARB approvals by PAMF in compliance with conditions of approval. Member Peterson moved and Acting Chair Piha seconded the motion to approve items 1 and 2 of the staff report with item 3 changed to reflect changes to the conditions indicated by staff and Design Review Board members during the meeting. Staff stated that the revised conditions of approval would be available for ARB review for its January 4, 1996 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. B:ARB:MINI214 Page 16 Attachment U City of Palo Alto Depamnent ofPlanning a,d Co~nmuni~f Envirom~t January 11, 1996 TramportationDi~ion Mr. Patrick Burt, President University Park Neighborhoods Group 1249 Harriet Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Burr: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the traffic concerns related to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project raised by the University Park Neighborhoods Group at a December 13, 1995 meeting with City staff. Typed above each of our responses, we have included the question or concern raised at the meeting. 1.If there is no Wellness Center and no patient increase, is a second left turn needed from E1 Camino Real to Embarcadero Road? A second southbound left-turn lane would still be needed even if there were no patient increase at the new site and no Wellness Center. Under these assumptions, the proposed project would have the same trip generation as the existing project, or 596 outbound PM peak hour trips (DEIR Table IV.B. 1 ! on p. IV.B-47). Thirty percent of the total outbound trips are expected to use the southbound E1 Camino Real left-turn lane; thus, 179 trips would make this movement with no patient increase and no Wellness Center. With the project as proposed (includes the Wellness Center and a patient increase), the total outbound PM peak hour trips is 859 (same table), with 258 trips (30 percent) making the southbound left-turn movement. Due to the above assumptions, the decrease in this movement would be 258 [-] 179, or 79 trips. The DEIR has determined that the 1998 projected PM peak hour volume for the southbound left-turn movement, including the full new PAMF project, would be 527 vehicles (LOS calculation in DEIR Appendix C). Thus, without the Wellness Center and with no patient increase, this volume would decrease by 79 vehicles, to 448 vehicles. This number (448) still substantially exceeds the Caltrans ttueshold of 300 vehicles, so a second left-turn lane would still be needed. Z=O H,-m~ilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo.ad to, CA 94303 415. 32v~. 2520 415.33). 2299 Fax Mr. Patrick Burt January 11, 1996 Page 2 Will liming of the E1 Camino Real lights be different during different parts of the day? The timing currently changes from cycle to cycle based on the traffic flow. With the PAMF project, the signal will operate as it does today during parts of the day, and in coordination with the PAMF entry signal during times with heavy traffic flow. Under coordination, the cycle length will be fixed based on the time of day, but the actual green times for each movement will be different from cycle to cycle based on the traffic flow. Does adding the second left-turn lane trigger the need for any changes to Embarcadero Road Road near/before/under the underpass? We do not believe that the second left-turn lane triggers the need for any changes to Embarcadero Road near the underpass. This section of Embarcadero Road already handles a traffic volume from the eastbound approach of the intersection that is similar to the projected volume for the two southbound left-turn lanes. Were the traffic distribution patterns from PAMF re-evaluated for the Urban Lane Campus? A different traffic assignrnent pattern was assumed for the new site than for the old site (refer to the figures on DEIR pp. IV.B-50 and 51). The two patterns differ ortly in proximity to the sites. Farther away from the site, approaching the city boundaries, the street assignments are virtually the same because the origins and destinations of employees and patients are the same for both sites. 5.What percentage of PAMF patients are from Palo Alto? Fifteen percent of PAMF patients reside in Palo Alto, plus two percent reside on the Stanford campus. Would the Urban Lane Campus change travel time for different routes to 101, with more traffic likely to use Embarcadero Road? The consultant measured distances for various routes to/from the site as part of the Master Response for the Embarcadero Road/El Camino Real intersection. Based on these distances, and the congestion and turning impediments along the routes between the site and University and Embarcadero Road, we and the consultant believe that Embarcadero Road remains the logical route between the new site and southeasterly destinations along Middlefield Road and Route 101; Mr. Patrick Burt January 11, 1996 Page 3 and that University Avenue and Will~ow Road remain the logical routes between the site and northeasterly/northwesterly destinations along Middle field Road and Route 101. We do not see any notable shift to or from Embarcadero Road or University Avenue. - 7.What is the net subtraction of traffic from Waverley Street? Waverley Street was not specifically analyzed in the DEIR. However, the two figures on pages IV.B-50 and 51 of the DEIR, which show percentage assignment of trips on the street network, allow some calculations to be made. The existing project generates 842 PM peak hour trips (DEIR Table IV.B. 11 on p. IV.B-47), of which twenty percent use Waverley Street and adjacent north- south streets (168 trips) and which would be removed when PAMF relocates. The new site would generate 1208 PM peak hour trips, of which five percent would use Waverley Street and adjacent north-south streets (60 trips). Thus, the new project would result in about 110 fewer trips on these streets. It should be noted that this calculation is based only on the relocation of the medical facilities. Reuse of the existing PAMF site for housing would result in new housing-related traffic on Waverley Street and adjacent streets. Would an additional right-ram lane form Embarcadero Road to E1 Camino Real reduce Embarcadero Road green time and allow enough green time to be shifted to E1 Camino Real to have a single left-turn lane? The consultant performed additional analysis to test two changes to the Embarcadero Road!El Camino Real intersection, other than adding a second southbound left-turn lane. One change was to restripe the westbound approach to change the configuration from the existing left/through, and through!right lanes to left, througMeft, and through/right lanes (as proposed in the City’s 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study) The other change analyzed was to add a separate right-tmr~ only lane to the existing westbound approach (for which additional right-of-way would be needed). The result of the analysis is that neither of these changes performed separately, nor both together, would result in sufficient changes in green time or length of the southbound left-turn queue that would allow making these changes as a substitute for the second southbound left-turn lane. 9.Will morning peak period traffic on Embarcadero Road increase and back up through the underpass? The AM peak hour ta’affic will not back up ttuough the undelpass. The total westbound maxi~nmn queue len~h will be 600 feet in each of the two approach Mr. Patrick Burt January 11, 1996 Page 4 lanes, which is approximately the location of the new signalized crosswalk across Embarcadero Road. 10.With the Sand Hill connection to E1 Camino Real, will traffic going through Menlo Park to 101 shift over to Embarcadero Road? We do not believe so. Sand Hill Road already feeds directly to Arboretum Road, which feeds directly to Galvez Street and, thus, to Embarcadero Road. Some of these people may choose a new route to Embarcadero Road (Sand Hill Road to E1 Camino Real), but were already destined to Embarcadero Road in the first place. The impact of the Sand Hill connection to E1 Camino Real, and proposed Stanford development projects in the Sand Hill corridor, are already included in the cumulative (2010) PAMF scenario, which predicts increased traffic on Embarcadero Road, both to/from Galvez Street and to/from E1 Camino Real. The 2010 scenario includes new traffic from new Stanford development projects, as well as redistribution of traffic from Menlo Park streets to extended Sand Hill Road. Until the actual Stanford Sand Hill Road Projects EIR is released, it is not possible to determine how much of the 2010 traffic increase on Embarcadero Road is due to new Stanford projects and to existing traffic being redistributed. 11. Could the left-turn lane on E1 Camino Real have a curb to control traffic? 12. Caltrans is opposed to installing raised barriers in a roadway except to. separate two directions of travel (a central median), or to separate on-ramp traffic from the curb through lane (as existing for the University Avenue/Palm Drive on- ramp, and proposed to be extended to the new PAMF intersection). How much does the DEIR exaggerate likely traffic levels (assuming "more realistic" traffic levels)? It is proper to use the "reasonable worst case" scenario for environmental analysis, because there is a reasonable chance that the "worst case" will materialize. For the PAMF project, the reasonable worst case assumes that the number of patients, and hence trips, will increase according to the new square footage, including a Wellness Center. Another scenario would be to assume no Welh~ess Center and no patient increase,which would be analogous to using the trip generation of the existing PAMF site to predict impacts (842 PM peak hour Mr. Patrick Burt January 11, 1996 Page 5 trips for the existing site~versus 1208 PM peak hour trips for the "reasonable worst case" of the proposed project [DEIR Table IV.B. 11 on page IV. B-47]). The impact of this assumption on the southbound left mm was discussed in item 1 above. 13.What is the difference in E1 Camino Real and E1 Camino Real to Embarcadero Road traffic with (versus without) a pedestrian/bicycle underpass? According to the DEIK six percent of PAMF employees bike and walk to the existing site on the east side of the tracks. The raikoad tracks are an impediment to bikers and walkers approaching the existing site from the west. At the new site on the west side of the tracks, without a new underpass at the site, the railroad would potentially be a greater impediment than now, because more population lives on the east side of the tracks than on the west. However, the City’s new bike path connecting Churchill and University Avenues (part of which will be funded by PAMF), will tend to offset this increased impediment by helping bikers and walkers to cross the tracks at existing grade crossings and reach the new PAMF site via the path. We conclude, therefore that having/not having a new under crossing at the site would not materially change the amount of southbound E1 Camino Real to eastbound Embarcadero Road traffic during the PM peak hour. The greatest impact of such an under crossing would most likely be during the midday, in terms of walking traffic between the new site and downtown businesses (or vice versa between downtown offices to Town and Country Village businesses). 14.Could the second left-tm-n lane be constructed only after conditions warrant, rather than as a part of the PAMF project construction? On January 4, 1996, City staff met with Caltrans staff to review the traffic analysis and discuss concerns raised by the University Park Neighborhoods Group. Caltrans staff continue to conclude that the best way to address the second left-turn lane is to construct it at the same time as the PAMF entry is constructed. However, Caltrans agreed to accept, if the City requests, a mitigation monitoring approach; subject to inCOlporating certain requirements (refer to the enclosed letter to Caltrans, dated January 9, 1996). 15. Is there some way to provide bus stops at the E1 Camino ReaVPAMF entry? A meeting is being arranged with all pax-ties involved in the issue of bus stops on E1 Camino Real. The Santa Clara County Transit District nor~nally provides bus Mr. Patrick Burt January 11, 1996 Page 6 stops in pairs. While PAMF will provide the necessary room for a northbound bus stop, there appears to be no room on the west side for a southbound bus stop, without encroaching on Stanford land. Staff is hopeful that the result will be at least a northbound stop in front of the site, and, perhaps, a southbound bus stop also, if an alternative that is acceptable to Santa Clara County and Caltrans, could be developed without any impact on Stanford land. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment Ashok Aggarwal City Traffic Engineer Enclosure: January 9, 1996 letter to Caltrans CO:city Council Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury) University Park Neighborhoods Group City of Palo Alto Department ofPlmmh~g and C~nmunity Environment January 9, 1996 Transportation Di\~ion Mr. David Chew, Senior Engineer Traffic Branch Caltrans, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Re:Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF)--Additional Southbound Left-Turn Lane on E1 Camino Real at Embarcadero Road Dear Mr. Chew: This letter is in follow up to the meeting held January 4, between Caltrans Traffic and Signal Operations staff and City of Palo Alto staff, regarding Caltrans’ requirement to provide an additional southbound left-turn lane on E1 Camino Real at Embarcadero Road (Reference Caltrans letter dated November 30, 1995). As we shared with you, we agree with your analysis and the need for the additional left-turn lane. However. this improvement is controversial in nature and we would like to provide the Palo Alto City Council with an alternate to this Caltrans requirement. In view of the above, we discussed three options, including (1) the Caltrans requirement, (2) constructing the additional southbound left lane as part of the project, but blocking it to prevent its use until it is neede& and (3) monitoring the intersection and constructing the improvement only if the improvement is triggered based on some pre-established criteria. Option 2 was discarded. Options 1 and 3 are considered viable options. Accordingly, the following terms and conditions were agreed upon for Option 3: Monitoring (undertaken by PAMF and consistent with City, direction) shall include counting southbound left-turning volume and observing the spill over from the left-turn lane into and beyond the median gap on E1 Camino at Town and Country Village. All monitoring results will be shared with the appropriate Caltrans staff. ZR9 Ha milton Av~ P.O. [k~x Palo Alto, CA a43~r.’, 4 l 5.32t~. Z-~2t’ 415.32~. ~-"9a Fax David Chew January 9, 1996 Page 2 2. Monitoring shall be done for a five year period, at three month intervals, following --PAMF occupancy of the buildings. For the first monitoring, the data will collected for three days. Thereafter, the data will be collected for one day only. All data will be collected for three hours, between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Data collection will include counting southbound left-mining traffic, the number of cycles/hour, and the cycle lengths; as well as observing and recording the number of spilled over left-turning vehicles into and beyond the median gap. The improvement will be triggered when the left-mining volume exceeds a total of 300 vehicles in any one hour and the left-turning traffic spills into and beyond the median gap five times within one hour; or spills over for 20 percent of the signa! cycles, which ever is less. 5.Funds shall be deposited in a City escrow account for final design and construction. Construction plans shall be developed as a part of the PAMF project plans, and wilt be reviewed by Caltrans staff to identify any concerns or comments. (It is understood that Caltrans will not formally approve these plans initially. The plans ’,,,,ill be reviewed and approved at the time that the improvement is triggered). In summary, we agr~ ee with Caltrans that the additional southbound left-turn lane is necessary and should be built as part of the project, and we would recommend so to the City Council. However, as it was discussed and ageed, we are going to provide the Council with an option to require PAMF to monitor the intersection and construct the additional southbound left-aim lane when it is triggered, based upon the criteria mentioned above. If you have any questions, please call me at (415) 329-2575. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ASHOK AGGARWAL, P.E. City Traffic Engineer Ken Schreiber Anne Moore Karl Heisler Paul Chiu, Caltrans Phillip Badal, Caltrans