HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 442:09ICOUNCIL MEETING
\'L.-" -'LOO tt. ri] Placed Before M~eting
[ ] Received at Meeung
, .. ,' ,oj','!,' C-' i';\ L U '\ LTn G 1\
CITY OF PALO AI.:,'fO:lirS OFFICE'
Memorandum
09 DEC -7 2: 07
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
17
December 7, 2009
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 442:09
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Adoption of
(1) a Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 El
Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, and (2)
an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property
Known as 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project
Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store, Other
Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units,
With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface
Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of
Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo
Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment
Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue.
This memo is to provide additional information and a condition of approval regarding the signing
of the lease agreement which was inadvertently left out of the Planned Comnlunity Ordinance.
1. The following condition should be added to s.4(b) of the PC ordinance:
"A signed lease for the grocery store shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building
permits on the site."
2. Attached to this memo are four documents for consideration by the City Council:
A: December 2, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
B: Agreement to Lease (prepared by Applicant)
C: Responses to Comnlents on CEQA Docunlent
D: November 2, 2009 Email from Susan Rosenberg
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Special Meeting of Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM
3 Verbatim Minutes
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7
8 2180 El Camino Real (JJ&F Market): Confinuation of the Planning and Transportation
9 Commission's recommended approval and conditions for the revised Planned Community
10 zoning and project plans as conditionally recommended by the Architectural Review Board.
11
12 Cotnnlissioner Keller: Yes, I move to pull the item and put it on the regular calendar.
13
14 Chair Garber: The Chair acknowledges Commissioner Keller pulling the item. We will then go
15 immediately to the public. I see three cards. If there are other members that would like to speak
16 on this item they should bring a card to the Secretary and they will be heard.
17
18 The first person to speak is Joy Ogawa followed by Doria Summa. You will have three minutes
19 to speak.
20
21 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Thank you. I have lived at the comer of Yale Street and Cambridge
22 Avenue for over 20 years. I have seen the intersection of Cambridge and EI Camino Real
23 become more congested and more dangerous over time with increasing cut-through traffic from
24 the Research Park and from College Avenue. Because there is no traffic signal on College
25 A venue drivers who want to tum left onto EI Camino from College will cut over to Cambridge to
26 be able to use the traffic light. This is especially true during the afternoon and evening hours
27 when traffic on EI Camino is bumper-to-bumper and a left tum from College onto EI Camino is
28 virtually impossible.
29
30 Cambridge Avenue is also the preferred crossing point for many pedestrians to cross EI Camino
31 to reach the California Avenue business district or to get to the train station. It is also the
32 preferred crossing point for bicyclists to cross EI Camino when using the California Avenue
33 bicycle underpass to cross the train tracks and Alma because everyone knows that bicycling on
34 California Avenue in the business district is scary and dangerous with the potential of diagonally
35 parked cars backing out into defenseless bicyclists. These bicyclists include Jordan Middle
36 School students from College Terrace and Stanford.
37
38 The Carrlbridge Avenue-EI Camino intersection is only one small block away from this project.
39 It is the closest signalized intersection downstream to traffic exiting the project onto EI Camino
40 yet the Cambridge-EI Camino intersection was not included in the traffic impact analysis for this
41 project. We do not know how traffic or safety at this intersection will be impacted because it
42 was not included in the study. Ironically, even though study of the traffic impacts at the
43 Cambridge-EI Camino intersection was not included in the traffic impact analysis the analysis
44 itself points to potentially significant impacts from this project at this very intersection on pages
45 37-38 of the analysis prepared by Hexagon. The study says, "The stop controlled northbound
46 left tum at the EI Camino Real-College Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS F
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 1 of43
1 during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2015 both without and with the proposed project.
2 The poor levels of service projected for this movement is a result of heavy traffic volumes on EI
3 Camino Real. It should be noted that vehicles attempting to make a northbound left turn have
4 the option of making a northbound right turn and completing a U-turn at the signalized
5 intersection ofEI Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue."
6
7 The analysis thus admits that the project will send addition traffic to make U-turns at the
8 signalized Cambridge-EI Camino intersection but the analysis then fails to analyze the traffic
9 impacts at this intersection. Therefore the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate and
10 incomplete. Analysis of the impacts with respect to traffic and pedestrian and bicycle safety at
11 Cambridge Avenue and EI Camino must be done. The Mitigated Negative Declaration must be
12 revised to incorporate all feasible mitigations necessary to reduce any potentially significant
13 impacts to less than significant levels and must be re-circulated for public review before the
14 proj ect can be approved. Thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Before you one of the Commissioners has a question of you.
17 Commissioner Keller.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So my question is are you suggesting a particular nlitigation or are you
20 just simply suggesting the process go through another cycle?
21
22 Ms. Ogawa: I think they have to include that intersection in the traffic impact analysis and they
23 have not done it. They have not included that intersection which is a really important
24 intersection. It is right next to the project. They may come up with a reason like oh, it is not an
25 intersection that is included in the projected analysis of the City so we didn't include it because
26 the City didn't include it in the City's analysis.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: So if a traffic light was put at College and EI Camino would that
29 alternatively satisfy your interests?
30
31 Ms. Ogawa: My interest is that the environmental analysis, the whole purpose of environmental
32 analysis is to inform the public, inform everybody about what the impact are, and this is an
33 intersection that is vitally important, that is hugely impacted, that is right next to the project, it
34 wasn't even analyzed. So we don't even know what the impacts are because it wasn't even
35 analyzed. It needs to be analyzed. Thank you.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
38
39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa followed by Fred Balin.
40
41 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thank you for letting me speak to you tonight. I would like to
42 commend the Planning Commission for your previous thoughtful discourse on this project.
43 There have been many problems with the process and the applicant's information through the
44 time this project has been in the public arena. Unfortunately it has been from my point of view
45 as a resident and a homeowner kind of an unsatisfactory process. it is troubling to me that there
46 won't be sufficient time for the City Council and residents to have an opportunity to read the
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 2 of43
1 transcript of this meeting before the project comes to the City Council for the final time next
2 Monday.
3
4 Assurance that the only public benefit offered by the applicant of this project, the retention of an
5 honest to goodness grocery store, is not being protected by Staff and in fact the protection is
6 being diminished. The ARB agreed that the application itself was incomplete as the drawings
7 were vague and/or did not show all views of the buildings. Then they facilely dismissed their
8 concerns.
9
10 The Mitigated Negative Declaration dismisses concerns at nearby intersection redirecting traffic
11 to the Cambridge-EI Camino Real intersection while at the same time offering no analysis of the
12 traffic at that intersection. I can see that intersection from my house and I know from nearly 20
13 years of experience how nluch confusion and congestion already exists there. Additionally,
14 Jordan Middle School students are told to use Cambridge as a safer alternative to California
15 Avenue.
16
1 7 Instead of enhancing existing neighborhood commercial retail ground floor office space on
18 College Avenue it will greatly harm it.
19
20 I urge you to make recommendations to curtail the negative impacts of this project ensuring
21 actual public benefit. Not allowing Variances to be dismissed as minor design enhancements on
22 a project already massively out of step with the current zoning and completely at odds with what
23 residents and the College Terrace Residence Association said that they didn't want, which was a
24 regional office center that is not related in any way to the neighborhood. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Fred Balin, our last speaker. Let me again ask if anyone else would
27 like to speak and to please fill out a card and we are happy to hear you.
28
29 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Good evening. There are a number of relevant matters for your
30 discussion tonight. I will raise three. First, the tactic by the applicant and regrettably approved
31 by Staff to specify proposed land use exceptions as design enhancements and in doing so
32 completely bypassing the Conlmission, except for asking you to approve findings you had no
33 part in reviewing and that should have been presented here in the first place. An eight foot
34 second story encroachment of a required ten-foot setback on Oxford Avenue is not minor. Nor is
35 it to be considered a design enhancement. It is a veiled mechanism to increase office floor area
36 by over 500 square feet, more than 25 percent of the total the Commission recommended be
37 reduced. That brings us to related matters.
38
39 Staffhas asked for your approval without discussion and via the Consent Calendar for deletions
40 from and modifications to the recommendations you made in October. Your decision even
41 though split to reduce office space by five percent is very important for a number of reasons, not
42 the least of which is that it would create a viable mechanism for retail to be increased on College
43 Avenue or elsewhere, maybe even upstairs above the market.
44
45 Remember, Council's decision on the motion to reduce office space by up to ten percent initially
46 failed on a four-four vote with one Council Merrlber absent. Proposed office space is at 210
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 3 of43
1 percent over current zoning standards, retail is at just four percent over what exists now. The
2 additional five percent traded for retail or lose it mechanism makes perfect sense.
3
4 Finally, Staff has gutted your recommendation for noise abatement and that is unacceptable. The
5 outdated Noise Ordinance is of no protection here. It allows a high baseline ambient plus
6 escalator when commercial development is near low density residential. In College Terrace we
7 know the consequences from painful experience. Think of the oversize and imbalanced mix of
8 this project. Now envision the rooftop equipment, HVACs and air condensers needed for each
9 tenant, three rooftop elevators with their motors, numerous solar panels that contribute to
10 mechanical noise direction, and the equipment for refrigeration for and ventilation supply and
11 return to the grocery. To avoid a high likelihood of a very adverse impact the surrounding
12 neighborhood as well as the BMR tenants an appropriate decibel limit must be written into the
13 PC and implemented in conjunction with the recently revised performance standards. Thank
14 you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robert Moss followed by Robin Kennedy.
17
18 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. One of the
19 things that seem to have been overlooked in this entire process is the basic principle of zoning
20 and land use. Zoning goes with the land, not the landowner, or the user. In this case, the City is
21 being asked to make changes to the zoning and land use in order to benefit a specific user, the
22 grocery store. That is not good planning and not a good way to develop a community oriented
23 project. As we know, once the building is built if anything happens and the occupant leaves the
24 public benefit leaves with it.
25
26
27
28 One of the things I find very amusing is the developer says that if he is required to reduce the
29 office space by 1,950 square feet the project is not viable. What kind of an incompetent
30 businessman do we have who tells us the project is not viable ifhe loses less than $9,000.00 per
31 month in office rent, which is what the current rate for office space is in Palo Alto. I can't make
32 it if I can't get another $9,000.00 a month? Do you believe that? I certainly don't.
33
34 What we should be looking at isn't what makes him wealthy or viable but what makes the City
35 and the neighborhood acceptable and what makes the project something that we can be proud of
36 not something that we shudder at every time we go by.
37
38 I think that reducing the office space by only 2,000 square feet is modest. I personally would
39 like to see it go down by about 5,000 but I am willing to compromise and go with only 3,000. I
40 think accepting the argument that a development can do something because it isn't economically
41 feasible to do it right is exactly the wrong way to do business in Palo Alto. It is exactly the
42 wrong way to look at whether a project is viable for the community. It is exactly the wrong way
43 to create precedent for other people coming in the future and giving you the same argument. So
44 I would strongly urge that you do what you think is right, ignore the con1ll1ents that canle in from
45 Staff saying you should change your nlind because the Staff thinks it is better or the developer
46 thinks it is better, and do what is reasonable and right for the community. Suggest that the size
47 of the development be reduced, the number of design exceptions and Variances be minimized if
City o/Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 4 0/43
1 not eliminated totally, and that they come in with a project that is compatible with the
2 community not compatible with the maximum profit for the developer.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robin Kennedy.
5
6 Ms. Robin Kelmedy, Applicant's Attonley: I am land use counsel for the developer and the
7 owner of the project. As a member of this community I would like to request that the
8 Commissioners do their best to ask the public to eliminate ad hominem comments. I don't think
9 that is particularly constructive. I know you all agree with me and that you don't appreciate
10 them either.
11
12 Ijust wanted to make one statement with respect to Mr. Balin's point about the Noise Ordinance.
13 That is that we do have an ordinance and the way to amend ordinances is well known to all of
14 you and there is a legal process to do that. To make a sui generis change for one particular
15 property owner is in my view deprivation of due process. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Thank you. I think we have one last speaker, Herb Borock. Mr. Borock will be
18 our last speaker unless I receive any additional cards. Mr. Borock.
19
20 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners. First I would like to
21 take note of the letter you received from William Ross and expert on land use law indicating to
22 you the necessity for re-circulating the Mitigated Negative Declaration and his statements in
23 regard to the Design Enhancement Exception.
24
25 I would also like to comment on the renlarks of the previous speaker which indicates I guess in a
26 way there has now been a hierarchy of testimony for about the past ten years, which has been
27 getting worse, namely a developer pays an attorney to tell the Commission how to order the
28 public to speak and what they should say. Those of you in the development community maybe
29 think that is the way things should be run but as anyone has noticed that over the past ten years
30 as it has been easier for developers to get more intensive developments such as the project before
31 you the quality of life in the city has gotten worse and the economic health of the city has gotten
32 worse as well. It perhaps would be better if we went back to the way it used to be where all
33 speakers were treated equally and no one thought that they had the place to say what other
, 34 people should testify to.
35
36 Finally, I believe you have a problem with your process. This is a public hearing item and it is
37 not the Commission to decide whether or not there should be a public hearing. You didn't need
38 Commissioner Keller to take this off the Consent Calendar. This kind of item should have never
39 been on the Consent Calendar. There are changes that have been made since the last time it was
40 here and under the California Environmental Quality Act we all have the right to speak about the
41 item and the new information you received from Staff. It is inappropriate to require the request
42 of even one Commissioner to give the public the right because we have that by law. Thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. I have no more cards. Would Commissioner Keller like to speak to
45 his request?
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 5 of43
1 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First, I believe that regarding the members of the public being
2 allowed to speak even on the Consent Calendar before we voted on the motion to accept the
3 Consent Calendar we I assume would have taken public comment at that time. So I just wanted
4 to put that out.
5
6 Before I go into the questions that I address let me just sort of get questions addressed to the
7 public comments. Is that reasonable?
8
9 Chair Garber: Sure.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I thought procedurally you would have requested that the person that
14 pulled it from the Consent Calendar speak to why they wished it to be pulled from the Consent
15 Calendar before we went into questions.
16
17 Chair Garber: I am assuming that Commissioner Keller will do that.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Sure, I will address that first.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I believe that is the order in which you had stated that this would be
22 addressed.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I subnlitted six questions to the Staff for which I have gotten
25 written responses and I would like to address those a little bit more. Secondly, I think I will take
26 the opportunity first to address the comments from the public since they didn't have an
27 opportunity to submit their questions in advance to the Staff and the applicant or whatever.
28
29 So the first question is with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. What is the time
30 period for responding to comment to that and could you explain that process and whether within
31 that there are issues about re-circulating particularly with respect to Carrlbridge and EI Camino?
32
33 Mr. Williams: Yes, the official time period for responding was November 9. The Mitigated
34 Negative Declaration would need to be re-circulated only if there were new significant impacts
35 or new mitigation measures proposed that were not in there on November 9, basically in the
36 version that was reviewed. I don't have the specific traffic study in front of me but the Mitigated
37 Negative Declaration indicates that in general the cross streets have low traffic volumes around
38 °this area, that EI Camino has high traffic volumes, and the conclusion is that under our criteria
39 for traffic analysis there would not be a significant impact on any of the intersections on EI
40 Camino. So the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself doesn't break down intersection by
41 intersection but they would have looked at that. They may not have called it out specifically as
42 one of the intersections for an LOS, Level of Service, analysis if they felt like for instance
43 California Avenue had more traffic going across it. That might have had some thresholds that
44 would require that analysis whereas Cambridge wouldn't. I don't know the specifics of that and
45 we were not prepared to respond specifically to that, but that is obviously a new issue that was
46 brought up. The conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration based our City Traffic
City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 6 of 43
1 Engineer's review is that there would not be significant impacts anywhere along EI Camino from
2 this proj ect.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So I recomnlend just for the purpose of responding to the public as far as
5 the CMR is concerned to indicate what the increase of delay would be at Cambridge and EI
6 Camino from the traffic study and show whether or not it was within the significance criteria.
7
8 Mr. Williams: We will look at that before it goes to Council.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: Again, I thought that the procedure was going to be that the person who
15 had requested that it be pulled from Consent speak to the item first as to why they wished it to be
16 pulled. Again, Commissioner Keller asked a question. Are we going to follow that procedure?
17 Because I am very interested in understanding why this has been pulled from Consent before we
18 get into the line of questioning.
19
20 Chair Garber: Yes. He gave two reasons. One was that he wanted to ask questions and two that
21 he wanted to follow up on the public's questions as well.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: That's it?
24
25 Chair Garber: That's it. This was a conversation that we had with the City Attorney's Office
26 earlier this afternoon as to the reasons why, and there can be any number of reasons. It can't be
27 just that somebody wants to potentially change, they can also ask a question, they can pull it for
28 the question and clarifications.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Yes, so those were the reasons, Commissioner Keller. Then the way that we are
33 organizing this is we will do questions from all the Commissioners and then when we have
34 completed that we will then go to discussion and sort of follow the same format that any normal
35 item would. Commissioner Keller, sorry.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: No problenl. While some people may have heartburn with some of the
38 Design Enhancement Exceptions is it correct that by Municipal Code Design Enhancement
39 Exceptions are not within the purview of the Planning Commission?
40
41 Mr. Williams: That is correct that they are not and you are not required to review findings for
42 them. However, I think we pointed out in response to one of the questions you are as part of the
43 Planned Community process reviewing the site plan for this project. If there is a component of
44 that where you feel like a setback that has been provided or proposed is not adequate then you
45 need to enumerate why that is, explain that, but you can recommend modification of that through
46 the PC review process. It doesn't have to rely on the Design Enhancement Exception criteria but
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 70f43
1 the strict answer to your question is no the Comn1ission does not have purview over the Design
2 Enhancement Exception findings.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Because it is a PC we could look at for example that overhang issue
5 mentioned by a member of the public.
6
7 Mr. Williams: You could, yes.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Then there was a comment made by another member of the
10 public with respect to the applicant's attorney with respect to noise regulations and the issue of
11 spot zoning. To what extent can additional restrictions be placed on a PC that has additional
12 development on it where noise might potentially be a bigger issue because of the increased
13 development to make concern about the compatibility of that noise with the neighbors in contrast
14 to the standard zoning ordinance? Is that fair game because of the increased development of the
15 PC?
16
17 Mr. Williams: Generally not. First of all let me say that we fully agree with Mr. Balin's
18 contention that 18.23 Performance Standards should probably be the predominant criteria that we
19 use in reviewing particularly equipment. We do have that provision in there and it would apply
20 but we should specifically include that, and I think we provided you language that we would
21 include that as part of the conditions of approval. It has been added to the conditions of
22 approval. So we fully agree with that and that was put in there for PCs, for commercial,
23 industrial, any particularly any type of nonresidential, although it applies to multifamily as well,
24 that we require that they provide specifications in advance on what equipment generation would
25 be, what the decibel level would be at property lines, and compatibility of that with whatever the
26 neighboring use is, and that we actually have monitoring of that or testing of that before final
27 inspection on the project to be sure that it does comply with requirements. So we don't relay
28 solely on the Noise Ordinance, which does have some difficulties in terms of its enforcement.
29
30 What we don't think we can do and Melissa can be more direct about this from a legal
31 standpoint. It gets to be an arbitrary type of criteria to establish a decibel level for one project or
32 one site. We have the criteria in there and I know the Commission's condition was more general
33 about working with neighbors to find something and that is not really an enforceable condition
34 for us. That is why we can1e back to you with con1pliance but want to add to that the 18.23.060
35 or whatever the specific section is that has the criteria for the noise measurements.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in going over the
38 public's questions. I think it is important for the public to feel that they have been heard and
39 listened to.
40
41 I am going to go now to the particular questions that I raised which are the ones I specifically
42 want to address when I pulled item. So the first question and answer, I am not sure how the
43 response really answers my question. I am not talking about the economic analysis with respect
44 to the City'S revenue. I am talking about the economic analysis of the project. From my
45 perspective the issue is that the developer has made an assertion which is conclusory in nature,
46 namely that the project is un-economic and without an economic analysis showing the project as
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 8 of43
1 a whole is un-economic with the five percent conversion of square footage, or asking exactly
2 how nluch office square footage they need in some sense the burden of proof is from my
3 perspective on the developer to say why they need instead of the other way around. In some
4 sense it is our job to provide land use issues. So I don't see the economic analysis so has there
5 been an economic analysis that you have done that we haven't seen or that the applicant has
6 shown you and that we haven't?
7
8 Mr. Williams: No there has not. That sanle question came up when the Council talked about
9 cutting it by 5,000 square feet, is there any kind of analysis? And there is not. Staffs suggestion
lOis not based on whether it is feasible. What we have put in this report is that the applicant has
11 indicated that it is not feasible for them. Our review of it is based on massing and impacts and
12 that kind of thing. Our feeling is the Council sort of decided that 5,000 square foot issue,
13 certainly there is an opening for the Commission to come back and suggest something less or
14 even at 5,000.
15
16 Then secondly our sense is that the 1,950 square feet does not make a material impact on
17 reducing the mass and scale of the project, on changing traffic impacts, or other impacts. So we
18 don't see from a land use perspective that there is any appreciable difference to doing that. But
19 certainly that is the Commission's prerogative to suggest any type of reduction but you would
20 like to but it should be based on land use criteria not on economic.
21
22 Ms. French: Excuse me. For the record we were passed two notes. One from Robin Kennedy
23 saying we told the City Council we would walk if the 5,000 square feet were deleted. A second
24 note from Fred Balin saying am I allowed to pass you a note as well?
25
26 Mr. Williams: We should note that anything we do receive like that or comments we will pass
27 on to you.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Point of order if I might. Could I just ask that ....
32
33 Chair Garber: That we not have notes passed.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Please. If there is a member of the public or an applicant party or any
36 one if they want to be recognized to -make a comment that they do so in public and they will be
37 acknowledged by the Chair.
38
39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: Actually as a point of order is the public hearing still open or is it
42 closed?
43
44 Chair Garber: It is still open. I have not closed it. I will close it and ask if the Commissioners
45 would like members of the public to speak that they can call on them. Okay? Commissioner
46 Keller you were going to continue I believe.
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page90f43
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so with respect to moving onto my question number two we do have
3 a development statement, which does include development schedules in terms of point number
4 three. Point number two, I believe that 18.38.080(d) refers to the rental or sales price of housing,
5 which I am not sure has been provided. I realize it is BMR housing but that is an example of the
6 kind of thing that was not provided in terms of this at least I don't see it. Section 18.38.080(e)
7 allows the Director to request information such as the one in item one, an economic analysis.
8 Particularly I realize that the Commission and the Council do not have the right to ask for
9 additional information but the Director has the right to ask for additional information according
10 to code. Particularly since the Council was wondering about the amount of square footage and
11 the appropriate amount of square footage and as Commissioner Lippert mentioned that motion
12 failed on a four to four vote it would seem to me that an economic analysis justifying this square
13 footage would be worthwhile. So I think that that is the kind of thing that the Director is within
14 the PC Ordinance has the discretion to request.
15
16 Mr. Williams: I am sorry, I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to point out that we
17 have been down this road a bit before. It is virtually impossible to do an economic analysis that
18 is going to do what you want. It is so dependent on what the rental rates are that fluctuate from
19 time to time, and any number of other factors. It is just especially at this scale very difficult to
20 do. I appreciate that and again if you think from a land use standpoint there is some reason to
21 not go there then you are free to make that recommendation.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Well, going to the next question four, basically the comments are that this
24 is mixed use because of four BMR units. As a comment that was made in response that if this
25 was CN without a mixed use component then the maximum of office and retail would 25,138.5
26 square feet and retail would be 12, 569. The amount of retail actually provided in enclosed
27 space, which is the square footage that counts, is 13,580 square feet. So in some sense the
28 amount of retail provided at a PC project compared to a CN project is an additional 1,011 square
29 feet. So the reason why I think the perspective from a land use analysis is that when the motion
30 was made at the previous meeting to have five percent reduction in office space my
31 understanding of that motion is either that could be done by a combination of converting office
32 space to retail or reducing the office space and reduce the massing, and either of those techniques
33 would be allowed. In other words, we were not requiring reducing the total FAR but it could be
34 done by replacing that amount of office space with retail space. Part of the issue to me is that
35 essentially what we are doing for the public benefit, the primary public benefit is the grocery
36 store, and what we are doing is providing 1,011 square feet more of grocery store than is actually
37 required, and presumably requiring it at a rent that is viable for the grocery store. That is
38 justifying a great more additional FAR and therefore part of the issue is since we didn't want to
39 require the additional retail to give the applicant the option of providing additional retail and
40 saving their money to not redesign the building or reducing the office space. So that was
41 certainly my understanding in seconding the motion. Was that the understanding of the maker of
42 that amendment? I believe that was Commissioner Lippert.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: That was the basic understanding, the idea that they could either reduce
45 the square footage of the building or they could simply allocate it as retail or some other use that
46 is compatible with the zoning.
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 100f43
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Right. So to me that does fall within a land use issue. With those
3 comments I will tum the baton over to whoever is next.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioners, are there other questions or other clarifications? Commissioner
6 Holman.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have some procedural difficulties with the project. I will just be
9 frank my preference would be that this be continued because we got the resolution this evening.
10 There is no opportunity to confirm that the Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable. We
11 received Exhibit B, the Conditions of Approval, at places, which means the public has had no
12 opportunity to review them. I presume the applicant has had access to those. It would make
13 sense that they would have. We do not have Exhibit A, which is not the biggest deal-breaker in
14 the world. It is the Site Map I think so that is not the biggest deaL We do not have Attachment
15 B, which I am not even sure what that is, it is referenced on page 7 of the Ordinance, Section
16 65(1). It says the design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City's
17 Comprehensive Plan as set for in Exhibit A of Attachment B of the Draft Resolution.
18 \
19 Commissioner Lippert: Is this the Draft Resolution?
20
21 ConIDlissioner Holman: Okay. Now Exhibit B is the Conditions of ApprovaL
22
23 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Attachment B is the Draft Resolution. Exhibit B is the
24 Conditions of Approval attached to Attachment A, which is the PC Ordinance all of which was
25 provided at the previous Planning Commission meeting.
26
27 ConlIDissioner Holman: Okay. Attachn1ent B is not identified as Attachment B that is part of
28 the confusion here. It doesn't have any identification on it at alL
29
30 Mr. Reich: It wasn't intended to be provided to you. It was something that was asked for today
31 and was run off quickly to get it to you.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Okay, all right. Well, those are reasons I think that would be preferable
34 for this iten1 to be continued. Aside from that I have several other issues, concerns, or maybe
35 clarifications of the ordinance. Starting nowhere in particular, there was an email from Staff
36 yesterday I think it was saying that the applicant had offered -we had discussion at this body
37 about the street trees in the median. There was an email from Staff yesterday saying that the
38 applicant had offered $5,000 for a street tree fund to support Canopy in planting of trees in EI
39 Camino Real median. There is absolutely no reference to that that I have found in looking
40 tonight in the Conditions of Approval. It is certainly not in the Ordinance. There is no
41 indication of what $5,000 would contribute to that and there is no commitment on the part in any
42 of the records that we have. Would Staff care to comment on that?
43
44 Mr. Williams: Sure. It is in the Ordinance as a public benefit. What I think we anticipated is if
45 that is something you wanted us to add that we would add that as part of these recommendations.
46 Russ thought it got in the Ordinance. It may not be there.
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 11 of43
1
2 Commissioner Holman: One thing that might be helpful is we receive a new Ordinance at our
3 places. I have no idea what the differences are between that Ordinance and what was provided to
4 us in our packets. If Staff could go through what those changes are I think everybody would be
5 enlightened.
6
7 Mr. Williams: Russ, can you go through what changes were made since the last time they saw
8 the Ordinance?
9
10 Mr. Reich: One of the larger changes was the addition of .....
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Can you identify locations, please, in the ordinance? I would appreciate
13 that.
14
15 Mr. Reich: The pages are not numbered.
16
17 Chair Garber: Location numbers?
18
19 Mr. Reich: It is under item (f) Public Benefits. There is (f) (3) the change is that the
20 contribution of $5,000 has been added for tree planting in the median.
21
22 One of the other changes was related to the timing of occupancy for the grocery store.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Page please.
25
26 Mr. Reich: I am looking for that.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Top of page 4, item (1).
29
30 Mr. Reich: Yes, that is it. That language was added. It is discussed in the Staff Report in terms
31 of the change. It was pulled from a Condition of Approval and brought into the Ordinance.
32
33 Item (2) was also added. Basically the below market rate housing shall be occupied no later than
34 120 days after first occupancy of the office building. This is to ensure that the BMR units get
35 built and occupied prior to full occupancy of the office spaces. No more than 50 percent of the
36 office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: If I may?
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I assume that in the fifth page, Development Schedule, actually should be
43 given its own paragraph, presumably (g).
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 120f43
1 Commissioner Holman: Are those the only changes to the Ordinance?
2
3 Mr. Reich: The only ones I can think of off-hand.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: Okay.
6
7 Mr. Reich: Excuse me, the findings for architectural review approval and Design Enhancement
8 Exceptions were also added. Those had not been prepared at the time that it went to Planning
9 Commission last time.
10
11 Chair Garber: That is Section 6?
12
13 Mr. Reich: Yes, Section 6. And Section 5.
14
15 Chair Garber: So just to summarize. In Section 4, item (b) (1) and (2), Section 5, and Section 6.
16
17 Mr. Reich: Yes.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. And (f) (3) Public Benefits.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: So my question having to do with (f) (3) under Public Benefits what
22 will $5,000 do?
23
24 Mr. Reich: Five thousand dollars would roughly cover the cost of planning five trees. In
25 looking at the wider part of the median where trees potentially could be planted it looked like
26 there is room possibly for five trees 20 feet on center to be planted there. So that should cover
27 the cost of materials to plant those trees.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: I had another question that I had submitted which was about the ARB's
30 Consent Calendar. The number of items but really the extent of the items, in other words the
31 magnitude of the items that are going back to the ARB. We are being asked to approve a project
32 without knowing a whole lot of things some of that having to do with plantings. Private open
33 space is also one of the items that is going back to them I see in the ARB review. There is no
34 indication in the Staff Report or in the Ordinance anything about private open space that I found.
35 If it exists, how it is being addressed, what is going to happen. that is one of the issues that is
36 going back to ARB but what might happen there we have no idea, and it was one of the issues
37 that was raised by the Commission at our prior meeting.
38
39 Mr. Reich: Provided at places there is an image that shows the private open spaces that are
40 provided for each of the units. It is basically 81 square feet is the open space. It has been on the
41 plans from the beginning but it wasn't really known or identified or called out as private open
42 space. There are porches in front of each of the units and those are the private open spaces
43 totaling 81 square feet for each of the residences.
44
45 Chair Garber: I am sorry I am not seeing that.
46
City o/Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 13 0/43
1 Commissioner Keller: Is it in this document in the back?
2
3 Chair Garber: Is that the November 2, Carrasco & Associates document? Okay.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: It looks like it is this. Go to the back and turn back one page.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: What does the front of that look like, please?
8
9 Con1ll1issioner Keller: The front of it looks like this. It says Carrasco & Associates, ARB
10 Submittal, PC Zone, ARB Submittal 10-23, however it contains other documents not just that. It
11 includes a letter from Robin Kennedy. It includes the development schedule and it includes this
12 diagram. I am not sure I can figure out what the context of this diagram is.
13
14 Mr. Reich: If you look at the floor plan behind you you can see that this diagram is basically
15 showing you these porches here in front of each of the units.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: You are correct that that had not been called to our attention previously
18 so you are correct on that. The question also went to again the number of things that the ARB is
19 going to be reviewing again, the magnitude of them, and what we are being asked to approve.
20 We are not privy to what their outconle is going to be. What would affect or be of interest to this
21 Comnlission probably nlostly would be the plantings and we don't know what those are going to
22 be.
23
24 Mr. Reich: Are you referring to the particular tree species?
25
26 Commissioner Holman: Size, anything.
27
28 Mr. Reich: I am not sure why the Planning Commission ...
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Because it started the site development and the Commission always
31 reviews, I can't think of a time when the Commission doesn't weigh in on those kinds of aspects
32 of a project.
33
34 Mr. Williams: The Commission, again I understand that we are here tonight and generally things
35 are open but that the Commission had an opportunity to weigh in on those items previously.
36 They passed along to ARB. Mr. Lew is here and can speak to this but I don't think it is
37 particularly unusual and he can tell you the nature of those and why they thought they were
38 minor enough that they didn't affect the overall site layout or some of the substantive issues in
39 there. It is certainly not unusual at all unusual that ARB sees the detailed planting plans. I
40 would have expected that if the Commission had wanted to see those that you would have asked
41 specifically for those plans. This process was set in motion to have the Commission in this case,
42 unlike in others, review the project before the ARB does. I have a bit of concern if the
43 Commission starts to now take on the ARB's role after they have reviewed it here. Do you want
44 to add anything?
45
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 14 of43
1 Mr. Alex Lew, Chairman, Architectural Review Board: I did want to sort of follow up with you
2 about the plantings. There are a couple of issues with regard to the landscape.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: Just be specific so we don't take a lot of time. I was only really
5 addressing the tree size because that is typically something we do care about. Not the whole
6 plantings that is all ARB. The units and the private open space we have had no knowledge about
7 that previously so that is why it was a question having to do with ARB review.
8
9 Mr. Lew: Typically we look at all of the plantings and we did list our main concerns in the
10 conditions for the Consent Calendar. I don't recall the tree sizes offhand. I don't have the
11 drawings with me.
12
13 Mr. Reich: The size wasn't an issue. The species was an issue and that is under discussion
14 between the applicant and Public Works. The Conditions of Approval do contain the proposed
15 size as recomnlended by Public Works. They don't want to see larger trees planted. They
16 actually feel that smaller trees planted grow more quickly and are more successful than planting
17 a large tree. So it is a 15-gallon size tree that Public Works has recommended be planted.
18
19 Chair Garber: May I ask a follow up? Did the ARB have any other specific comnlents other
20 than speaking about the reconsideration of the selection of the Ash tree species and the
21 conlments about bamboo? Where there other discussion items regarding landscape specifically
22 in terms of the location of those trees or their density or anything else?
23
24 Mr. Lew: No. I think the only other item is actually the green roof that the applicant really
25 didn't provide any planting details for what was happening on the green roof. So we asked for
26 some details about that. I think they only provided like a construction detail but nothing about
27 the character or the design.
28
29 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry I do. One of the questions I asked was about flexibility in
32 terms of modification of the PC. On page 5 of the previous Ordinance, I don't know what page
33 it is on in the replacement Ordinance here, it talks about modifications to the plan. I don't have
34 issue with one part of it I do have issue with another part. This is in the Ordinance that was in
35 our packet, page 5 (e). For the public's benefit, once the project has been constructed consistent
36 with the approved Development Plan, any modification of the exterior design of the
37 Development Plan or any new construction, and here is where I have trouble, or use not
38 specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in
39 Section 4 (a)-(c) above shall require an amendment to the Planned Community zone, unless the
40 modification is a minor change as described in Municipal Code, etc., in which case the
41 modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. My concern
42 there is a change of use because we have been very specific about the uses allowed on this site.
43 So to me I wish that read consistent with what the Staff response was that says the only
44 flexibility is an amendment to the Ordinance that would need City Council approval to change
45 the permitted use. But that is not how the Ordinance reads.
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 15 of43
1 Mr. Williams: I agree and I think we should strike the word 'use' there and then probably add a
2 sentence that says that any use not specifically pennitted by this Ordinance requires an
3 amendment to the PC.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. You will make note of that so we can refer back to it
6 perhaps in a few moments.
7
8 This may sound like a nitpick but I think it is important. On page 2 at the very bottom of the
9 page, ( a) the last sentence. Just so there is no confusion. The commercial space would include
10 8,800 square feet of grocery store, 5,580 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 38,980
11 square feet of office space. Just adding the word 'other,' 5,580 of other ground floor retail,
12 which is consistent with the language elsewhere in the Ordinance I think would clarify that they
13 are not the same spaces. I do think it is critical.
14
15 Mr. Williams: Where is that again?
16
17 Commissioner Holman: It is at the bottom of page 2, the last sentence under (a).
18
19 Chair Garber: Section 3 (a).
20
21 Commissioner Holman: It just makes them discreet which is consistent with other references in
22 the ordinance.
23
24 Mr. Williams: The commercial space would include 8,800 square feet of grocery store, 5,580
25 square feet of other ground floor retail space.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Which is consistent.
28
29 Mr. Williams: Okay.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: There was much conversation about the plans last time and the
32 possibility of expanding a grocery store in the future. There is no reference anywhere in the
33 Ordinance such that the landscape area now what its potential future use might be and what the
34 flexibility of that space might be. It was something the applicant brought forward as a great
35 opportunity but it is not referred to at all. Can explain why that might not be important to
36 include?
37
38 Mr. Reich: Possible future expansion of the grocery store is not part of the current proposal so
39 the current Ordinance would not mention any that. Any possible future expansion would be
40 another PC application.
41
42 Mr. Williams: Unless the Commission specifically directed that the allowable uses could include
43 an increase in the grocery store space.
44
45 Mr. Reich: That hasn't been analyzed.
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 160f43
1 Mr. Williams: I see that is true that is why. That would need an additional environmental
2 review to look at that as a different use than office space, which has some different
3 characteristics. So at this point we couldn't do that. There would have to be an amendment and
4 a further environmental review.
5
6 Chair Garber: without benefit of our minutes that is nly recollection as well. We spent some
7 tinle going through that.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I do recall that. My question really goes to can we not make reference
10 to what the purpose of this is? Not allowing it in the Ordinance but what the purpose is, it is
11 space provided to allow for potential future expansion of the grocery store. That doesn't permit
12 anything.
13
14 Ms. Tronguet: I would be concerned that it still touches on the issue of environmental review
15 where a different use than what was in the project description in the Mitigated Negative
16 Declaration is contemplated. So even mentioning that that could be a possible use I would be
17 concerned that that would jeopardize the environmental review.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Okay. One other issue is the .....
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Can I ask a follow up?
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. I believe we had directed or requested that the ARB
26 explore the issue of whether the design was compatible with an expanded grocery store. Maybe
27 this is a good opportunity for the ARB Representative to respond to that.
28
29 Mr. Lew: Yes, and that was put into our Staff Reports to comment on that. I would say, trying
30 to characterize everybody's feelings, I don't think that there was any strong opinion about the
31 expansion. It was a speculative thing and there was no proposal included in the packet so it was
32 hard for us to comment on it other than there is a space there that could be transformed into or
33 expanded into.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: If I may?
36
37 Mr. Lew: Yes.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: I think our intent was not to look at any particular design but to sort of
40 give us a gut check as to whether based on your knowledge and experience it would be feasible
41 to expand the grocery store in the direction of that planting area and reconfigure it in such a way
42 that that was a feasible thing or whether there was something being done in the design or the
43 building's construction or configuration that would preclude that. We wanted to make sure that
44 it was not precluded.
45
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 17 of43
1 Mr. Lew: I can't speak for all of the merrlbers of the Board but I don't the Board would say - I
2 don't think we came to consensus to say that there is nothing in there that would preclude
3 expansion of the grocery store but there wasn't anything there that struck the Board that it would
4 be a significant problem. It would involve redesign of the loading dock and the stairs to the
5 rooftop garden so that is significant. It would change some of the pathways around the BMR
6 units.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: May I paraphrase what you are saying as you didn't do a specific analysis
9 but that you didn't see any show stoppers?
10
11 Mr. Lew: That is correct.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple of more things here I think. I was trying to check
18 something from previous to the new Ordinance. Perhaps I will do that in a moment. What had
19 pointed me to, I found my reference, to the trees area was again an Ordinance we are looking to
20 approve. It is page 3 of the Ordinance that is in our packet. Page 3 (g) and (h). It talks about
21 removal of street trees along College, Oxford, and Staunton Court, and planting new street trees
22 in the sidewalk area. Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real
23 in tree wells. Again, this is an Ordinance we are looking to approve but we don't have -are we
24 replenishing in like number or greater than. That is what had prompted the question initially. I
25 am sorry I didn't find my reference earlier.
26
27 Mr. Reich: Currently there are 11 street trees surrounding the project and the project proposal
28 includes the planting of 41. So the plan is significantly greater than what is existing.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: The plans are dated October 22 that is what is referred to in the
31 Ordinance. If there are sheets that are changed how does that work? I will leave that to you to
32 work out but sheets in the plans might change and they are not going to be actually the October
33 22 plan so how is that tracked?
34
35 Another question I had was the open-air market that has been proposed all along. There is no
36 reference to that. It is not a building but it is space on the site. So can the Commission indicate
37 that that area is to be used exclusively for open-air market for use by the grocery store? There is
38 no reference at all to it in Ordinance that I found.
39
40 Mr. Williams: It is in the Development Plan. As far as the use of it for that purpose if the
41 Commission wanted to include that that could be added here under Uses or as a Condition of
42 Approval.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Okay, great. I think maybe just one more thing, which is the outdoor
45 seating. By the way, before I forget I wanted to thank the ARB very much for looking at the
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 18 of43
1 retail office space along College so to make sure that it was practical for both office and retail. I
2 want to thank you very much for that.
3
4 The outdoor seating and planters on College and Staunton Court I didn't find it as a Condition of
5 Approval. Is that just something that would be required to stay because it is what is on the
6 plans? What is the maintenance of both the garden square and outdoor seating planters? What is
7 the maintenance of those?
8
9 Mr. Reich: As a PC they are required to be maintained as proposed. There is a Condition of
10 Approval that specifies that landscaping shall be maintained as per, I don't know if we can dig it
11 out and read it to you, but there is a general condition that we put in most of our projects where
12 landscaping is involved requiring that the landscape be maintained. So if planting dies or
13 irrigation fails it is required to be replaced. It is Condition 133, all landscape and trees shall be
14 maintained, water, fertilized, and pruned according to the best management practices. Pruning as
15 ANSIA 300 2001 a current version, any vegetation that dies shall be replaced, or failed
16 automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Last question and this has come up numerous times before in
19 terms of review of especially PCs but not only PCs. Who pays for the inspections and are there
20 any penalties associated with nonconformance or noncompliance?
21
22 Ms. Tronquet: The City's Code Enforcement Division typically handles these inspections.
23 There are many, many ways that we use to gain compliance but in terms of penalties we have an
24 administrative penalty schedule, and there are penalties set forth in that for violations of the
25 Zoning Ordinance. I can't recall what they are right now. Generally they range from $50 up to
26 $1,000. Ijust don't remember what the zoning penalties are right now, but citation and other
27 methods to gain compliance, which is the most important issue to us. The penalties are per day
28 and Code Enforcement enforces that.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: That really addresses all of my questions and concerns. I did want to
31 pile in on the noise issue however we can best address that. If there is some way that Staff can
32 see that we can better mitigate that.
33
34 Chair Garber: I have been trying to keep track of your various comments. If I may, let me go
35 through them and see if I have gotten all of them. I think I missed one or two at the very
36 beginning. Section 4, modification to item (b), which is the changing of the word to 'any use not
37 permitted. '
38
39 Commissioner Holman: It requires a little bit more clarification than that per Curtis' language I
40 think.
41
42 Chair Garber: Okay. If you have it there that is fine otherwise we can conle back to it.
43
44 Mr. Reich: Any change in use shall require an amendment to the PC Ordinance.
45
46 Mr. Williams: And striking the word 'use.'
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 190f43
1
2 Mr. Reich: So striking the word 'use' in the third line of Section ( e) and then adding the
3 sentence at the end saying any change in use shall require an amendment to the PC Ordinance.
4
5 Chair Garber: Then on Section item (a) presumably that is where we would specify the open
6 market area?
7
8 Mr. Williams: This is Section 4, item (a) is that what you are talking about?
9
10 Chair Garber: Yes.
11
12 Mr. Willian1s: Actually, we are talking about outdoor areas are permitted as part of the eating
13 and drinking or as part of the retail services. So I think it really is on (b) under Special
14 Limitations on Land Uses. What we would want to say is that that outdoor market area must be
15 retained for that use.
16
17 Chair Garber: So it could be added as item number 9 on that.
18
19 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is probably the best place.
20
21 Chair Garber: Karen, you also had a modification there to Section 3 (a) and I am not
22 remembering what that was.
23
24 Mr. Williams: That was adding the word 'other.'
25
26 Chair Garber: Other, right.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: If I might make a minor suggestion here. Rather than describe that as
29 open market actually say open market use.
30
31 Chair Garber: Okay. Thank you.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: We would need to say exclusive because that is what it is identified to
34 be, right?
35
36 Mr. Williams: Right. That the area designated for outdoor market use shall be retained for that
37 use or something like that, exclusively for that use.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: Yes, okay.
40
41 Chair Garber: Then we had Section 3 and going to revise the verbiage that directs to specific
42 documents we need to allow for the modification of that over time and Staff can come up with
43 the correct language for that.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: Which one was that?
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 20 of43
1 Chair Garber: That was item 3, your comments regarding the comprised of mixed use
2 developments depicted on Development Plans date October 22 and your comment was what
3 happens when it is modified? We need to be able to capture that and some mechanics of that
4 need to be incorporated.
5
6 You talked about a bunch of other things and I am really just focusing on the ones we need to
7 take specific action on. There was the topic of noise, which we can come back to. What else
8 have I missed? I am not including the conversation about the expansion of the grocery store.
9 You also had comments that I am thinking that those were satisfied relative to the conversations
10 that we-had around items (g) and (h) in Section 3, the outdoor seating and planters.
11
12 I think there were two comments at the very beginning that I didn't capture. One about the
13 Comprehensive Plan possibly.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: I anl understanding that this hasn't changed, the Resolution, which is
16 Attachment B.
17
18 Mr. Williams: Correct, yes.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Attachment B, which is not identified as such, that that has not changed
21 since last we saw it.
22
23 Mr. Williams: Right. What has changed are those items that Russ mentioned in the Ordinance
24 and the Conditions of Approval that were outlined in the Staff Report modified by what you have
25 been given tonight relative to the noise condition. Not in the Resolution. I said in the Conditions
26 of Approval.
27
28 Chair Garber: Satisfied there? Some confusion?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Some confusion, yes. So hang on here. So the Conditions of Approval
31 are Exhibit B and the Resolution is Attachment B.
32
33 Ms. Tronquet: Commissioner Holman I noticed this earlier and it is supposed to refer to the
34 Resolution. So I will make sure that change is made before it goes to Council.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: So I am not crazy.
37
38 Ms. Tronquet: No you are not.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Okay.
41
42 Chair Garber: Would the City Attorney give me a sentence there that answers Commissioner
43 Holman's concern?
44
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 21 of43
1 Conmlissioner Keller: May I interject for a moment? There are actually two Exhibit Bs. There
2 is an Exhibit B to the Resolution and an Exhibit B to the Ordinance. Exhibit B to the Resolution
3 is a map basically of the parcel it looks like.
4
5 Mr. Reich: Exhibit B to the Resolution is the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table or
6 analysis. Exhibit B to the PC Ordinance is the Conditions of Approval.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Wait, Section 2 of the Ordinance says Exhibit B is a land use nlap in the
9 area so it has to be a map or something like that.
10
11 Ms. Tronquet: I didn't develop specific language yet but my intention is to clarify it so it
12 referred to the Resolution as a whole.
13
14 Chair Garber: Thank you.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: I think my other comments would have to do with the changes and
17 inclusions that have been added to the replacement Ordinance that was in front of us. For
18 instance the page 5 (g) having to do with the $5,000 for plantings on El Camino Real median.
19 There were a couple of other corrections that were nlade.
20
21 Chair Garber: Those are the ones that I went through earlier.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: To be incorporated.
24
25 Chair Garber: Yes, and if necessary I do have notes of them and can reiterate them. Anything
26 else?
27
28 Commissioner Holman: The other thing is just a comment. I know this is not what Staff wants
29 to hear but this Commission has talked often about the use of DEEs versus Variances. I still
30 contend that the setback is a Variance not a DEE. I know it is not a winnable argument this
31 evening but I think to be consistent I am still putting it out there.
32
33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Other Conlffiissioners? Conmlissioner Lippert.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Staff. In terms of Staffs
36 recommendation not going along with our square footage reduction in terms of office can I get
37 some understanding behind that? I know originally you spoke about that whether it is retail or
38 office it doesn't really make much of a difference. Why wouldn't you support what we are
39 recommending here in terms of -let just digress a little bit here and give you some background.
40
41 As Commissioner Keller has mentioned if this was a mixed use zone we would require a 15
42 percent retail component associated with this. Now taking the grocery store out because that has
43 already been identified as a public benefit, and knowing what the Council's deliberations were in
44 terms of saying gee, we want a little more office taken out of this project, we have come up with
45 a way of approaching that by saying we think that an additional 1,900 square feet needs to come
46 out in terms of office use. So I am trying to get an understanding as to why Staff isn't supporting
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 22 of43
1 what we are recommending if we are trying to grapple with a solution for making this work in
2 terms of meeting closing to what our guidelines are.
3
4 Mr. Williams: I think our position is just that we have not seen any compelling reason to do that.
5 It just feels arbitrary, the picking a number out. We don't see that there is an impact that that
6 ameliorates or reduces massing or traffic, well those are impacts. Understand that there may be
7 that rationale behind it. We don't feel that. Certainly if you do that is fine and we will present
8 that to the Council as well. I am not sure. I am just not getting a sense of what the significance
9 is. Are we going to notice that in any way, shape, or form? I think that is sort of our concern
10 that it is not really having any substantive effect on the project.
11
12 Frankly, my sense would be that if there is an issue, and I know you brought it up at one of the
13 early meetings, is why isn't it almost flipped and have a lot more residential and lot more office.
14 That is a basic fundamental difference in the project, the mix of uses, and that I understood.
15 Council sort of settled that in the big picture way on that issue. So now I don't think we object
16 to, it doesn't matter particularly the 1,950 square feet to Staff. It does to the applicants. Again,
17 not seeing that there is a compelling basis for that.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: That is a very good point. I guess what I would want then is for Staff to
20 ask us in this meeting what are the compelling reasons and in some ways for us to persuade Staff
21 or myself to remove that.
22
23 My rationale behind it is different than Commissioner Holman's or Commissioner Keller's but
24 we were able to formulate a consensus as to why we felt it was important. My rationale might
25 hold water with several City Council Members and Commissioner Holman's thoughts might
26 resonate with other City Council Members by which we would be able to find some middle
27 ground or some rationale behind doing that. But what I see is that Staff doesn't hold any
28 compelling rationale or reasoning behind it so they are backing up the applicant without any firm
29 compelling reasons behind their rationale.
30
31 Mr. Williams: Well, I don't feel that it is our role in a meeting like this to debate those merits. I
32 think you make those arguments in your minutes or deliberations and I guess Vice-Chair Tuma
33 will be there to represent that and it very well may be that the Council sees that. At this point we
34 are not going to fall on our sword for 1,950 square feet one way or the other.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, and I don't mean to put you on the spot in terms of doing that. All
37 that I am really interested in finding out is what the rationale behind that Staff recommendation
38 is because when I see it usually I would want Staff to come along with our recommendation that
39 we are making to Council. If there was a distinct planning rationale behind it I would want that
40 to come forward as well.
41
42 My rationale if you are interested in knowing is that I believe that there are a couple of
43 components here. Number one, if in fact there is an opportunity for the grocery store to expand
44 it would not eat into the retail component on the ground floor. This is just what I am thinking.
45 Often times you see a standalone sandwich component or a pharmacy associated with a grocery
46 store. It is connected to the grocery store. You see it all the time. However, it could very well
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 23 of43
1 be that because we have is open market that a sandwich shop component that is run by the
2 grocery store could exist in the retail component without supplanting additional retail space. So
3 that would be one way of doing it. That would be my approach. In fact, that sandwich
4 component could actually stay open later or close earlier and not affect the grocery store.
5
6 The second rationale behind it is that here we have a site that bound by three streets Oxford, EI
7 Camino Real, College, and Staunton Court. By having additional retail on the ground floor it
8 actually allows for the possibility of wrapping that retail component on the ground floor around
9 the site and therefore nlaking it more pedestrian friendly. I don't object to having a small office
10 component on the ground floor but it should be in some ways subservient to what the retail
11 component is.
12
13 Lastly, I think that in terms of when we look at this in terms of a mixed use building it is
14 desirable to try to achieve as best as possible to have that 15 percent retail component associated
15 with mixed use. I know that we really pushed for that on the Alma Plaza project trying to get
16 that 15 percent. In this case it is another PC I would want us to have as close to that 15 percent
17 retail component. Now you could very well say the grocery store along with the retail virtually
18 achieves that 15 percent, but we are looking at that grocery store as a public benefit. So I would
19 pull that out of that 15 percent retail and then want that in addition. So that is my main reasoning
20 behind it. I don't know if any of my other Commissioners have additional thoughts that they
21 would want to share along those lines.
22
23 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I do.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
26
27 Commissioner Martinez: I jump at the rare opportunity to agree with Commissioner Lippert. In
28 this case it is a little bit odd because I didn't vote in support of reducing the size of the office
29 space. I felt we were kind of meddling in sort of land use where it was somewhat arbitrary.
30 However, when I considered it more I thought well, you know we are not saying that the project
31 has to be smaller. We are asking for more retail space and the project could use more retail
32 space. It is pretty significantly out of balance. So I think we kind of gave the developer the
33 opportunity to look at being creative with it. To look for a way to recoup this sort of exchange,
34 to increase the development potential, and really give the neighborhood and the city back
35 something a little bit more than it was proposing in the beginning. So I don't think it was a
36 draconian kind of move to kill the project. I thought it was reasonable planning.
37
38 In reading the recommendation to Council I sort of felt that Staff had sort of diminished that
39 position from the PTC. I felt like it was important to state that we were really suggesting that the
40 project office component could be smaller to the benefit of the project. I think by coming out
41 and say Staff and the ARB reconlmends approval it made us kind of out to be like we are the bad
42 guys trying to stop the development. But in another way of looking at we were actually really
43 proposing I think a much more vital project. So I would really ask you to sort of state that in a
44 way that fairly represents what the Commission consensus was.
45
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 24 of43
1 One last point I want to agree with Commissioner Holman, who I always agree with, that the
2 setbacks really aren't a Design Enhancement. I am trying to think of why wouldn't it be?
3 Moving a building closer to the street, why is that a Design Enhancement? Perhaps if it were a
4 public benefit of some kind that brought it closer to the community I suppose we could stretch it
5 to nlake it that. But it really is a Variance and I hope in our study session we begin to look at
6 that. Thank you.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: If I might, retail closer to the street would be a public benefit.
9
10 Commissioner Martinez: Sometimes.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: I think Commissioner Keller had a follow up as to his rationale.
13
14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: Sure, I pretty much agree with the comments of Commissioner Lippert. I
17 just want to point out that there is this nice courtyard space over on the comer of College and
18 Staunton and a sandwich shop eating away from some of the office space that served
19 sandwiches. People could sit outside in that wonderful courtyard area with tables and eat their
20 sandwiches. I can tell you that I have seen many an office complex that had such a facility that
21 people took advantage of. I think that is the kind of use that Commissioner Lippert referred to
22 and I think that would be an excellent location for it to the extent that that use was not part of
23 JJ&F. It could be run by JJ&F or however that was done but that is the kind of thing I have seen
24 being done. So there are opportunities for an eatery to be located on that and that may be more
25 compatible with JJ&F. I am not sure the extent to which JJ&F is selling sandwiches and other
26 eatery things but there often are things like that that could be used. So I think that is another
27 example of such a use that would take advantage of that courtyard.
28
29 Chair Garber: Why don't you finish up if you have something more?
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't we have the Comnlissioners finish up as to their rationale for
32 the reduction of square footage?
33
34 Chair Garber: Sure. Where there other comments on this specific topic? Then I just have one
35 other quick query of Staff regarding it. What are the impacts for the Commission to add this to
36 the recommendation, add this sort of a condition because it would be a new condition?
37
38 Mr. Williams: It is already there.
39
40 Vice-Chair Tuma: In our last meeting this five percent reduction was added by a vote of four to
41 three. So it wouldn't be adding any additional.
42
43 Chair Garber: Maybe I am misunderstanding. What I was understanding Commissioner Lippert
44 to suggest here is that we require that there be 15 percent of retail in addition.
45
46 Commissioner Lippert: No.
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 25 of43
1
2 Chair Garber: I apologize.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: It wasn't 15 percent. All that it really was was just reaffinning our last
5 vote in which we had asked for the 1,900 square feet in reduction of office space in which we
6 had a split vote, actually we had a four-three vote on it. Staff had drafted their recommendation
7 in variance to the PTC's recommendation and the reason why that I got from Director Williams
8 is basically that our rationale was not strong enough. So I anl bolstering that recomnlendation
9 with additional rationale and hoping that the other Commissioners that voted in support would
10 add their words to that.
11
12 Chair Garber: Okay, got it. I was tracking down a different path. Commissioner Tuma.
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two things. One is that there is on page 3 of the Staff Report under
15 Discussion, under Office Reduction Condition there is a two-sentence paragraph that says, Staff
16 and ARB are not recommending the five percent reduction of office space. I was present at the
17 ARB meeting and I am glad that a representative from the ARB is here this evening. I find the
18 first sentence of that paragraph to be misleading. My very distinct impression and recollection
19 was that the ARB members when pushed several times by Staff to comment on the five percent
20 reduction pushed back and said that they did not feel that it was within their purview and they
21 were not prepared to comment or make a recommendation with respect to the five percent. I am
22 happy to be corrected or that be modified but that is my very distinct recollection.
23
24 Mr. Lew: That is my recollection as well. I think that it was not part of our three to one vote on
25 the project. I think that the Staff was actually trying to get us to include it as part of the motion
26 and I don't think we clearly distinguished that. So I suspect it would have been like two
27 menlbers who would have been willing to or who wanted to abstain completely from the issue. I
28 think there were two who were willing to go either way with whatever the PTC recommended.
29
30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. With respect to the recommended modifications that Staff is
31 making, modifications to our recommendation, by and large I am comfortable with those
32 changes with respect to access to the vegetated roof, and noise related issues particularly with the
33 use of the provisions that were talked about earlier. However, I am not at all comfortable with
34 the recomnlendation that no more than 25 percent of the office space in the project be occupied
35 before the grocery store is open for business. Our original recommendation is that the grocery
36 store tenant not occupy or begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: The other way around.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: The other way around.
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sorry?
43
44 Commissioner Keller: No office occupancy prior to ....
45
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 260f43
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: In any event the grocery store is we could talk about other small public
2 benefits of a few thousand dollars for street trees, and I do acknowledge the BMR units, but the
3 grocery store is what it is all about. I think: that needs to up and running and occupied. The
4 discussions we had with the applicant last time I simply don't see why through proper
5 construction management and timing and scheduling that those can't happen in the order that
6 they should. I don't think: we want to get into a situation where we have an enforcement issue, is
7 25 percent occupied, is more than that occupied, is it now 130 days or 100 days? I don't think:
8 that we want to go down that path. The driving reason that they are getting the office space that
9 they are asking for if the grocery store. We should stick hard and fast to having the grocery store
10 up and running before the occupancy of the office space. Beyond that I am comfortable with the
11 other changes that Staffhad recommended.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: I didn't get to finish the rest of my questions. It's okay.
16
17 Chair Garber: It's okay? Commissioner Holman and then we will go back.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Is Commissioner Lippert not complete?
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Then we were going to ask Mr. Smailey if we wanted to comment.
22
23 Chair Garber: Yes, I had not forgotten.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: So I am interested in hearing what Mr. Smailey has to say.
26
27 Chair Garber: Would the applicant please approach?
28
29 Mr. Patrick Smailey, Applicant: Speaking to the issue of retail on the ground floor there has
30 been a lot of discussion about the viability of the comer back at Staunton and College. I ask that
31 you all please keep in mind that one of the primary reasons JJ&F wants to leave that comer is
32 that it is not a viable retail location. We have however always maintained a configuration for the
33 ground floor that should a retail user want to wrap the comer and go down College the building
34 will support that. As to whether or not we will rent to a retail user on the ground floor into what
35 we now consider office space we have said publicly that we will do that if we can get a retail
36 user that will pay the fees, rents, commensurate with an office type user.
37
38 Lastly, and I am using round numbers, we have approximately 40,000 square feet of office and
39 approximately 6,000 square feet of additional retail, which is a 15 percent allocation.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you for your thoughts.
42
43 Chair Garber: Thank: you. Commissioner Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: What do you mean by 6,000 square feet of additional retail?
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 27 of43
1 Mr. Smailey: In addition to the grocery store.
2
3 Commissioner Keller: I don't want to debate you but if 15 percent is required for a CN zone is
4 only 1,011 square feet less than the amount of retail that you are actually providing so I am
5 confused by your 6,000 number.
6
7 Mr. Smailey: I am giving you the office allocation per the plans versus the additional retail not
8 including the grocery store the percentage of retail could be about 15 percent of the proposed
9 office.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: Actually, I did a quick calculation and what I came up with is that they
12 would need to provide 8,900 square feet of retail and that is taking all the square footages
13 combined. So it would be taking the housing.
14
15 Chair Garber: Including the grocery store.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. What I am doing is taking what CN zone would be and I
18 applied the 15 percent to the gross square footage of the building and 15 percent of that would
19 need to be a retail component. Anyway, that is the number I come up with. I understand what
20 you are doing. You are netting it out.
21
22 Chair Garber: Anything else?
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I had a question and I don't want to blindside you, for Tony
25 Carrasco. Tony Carrasco has been instrumental and very involved with street trees for EI
26 Camino Real. What I want him to just chat a little bit about is the viability of the street trees in
27 the median and what his point of view is on that because we are requesting that they put up
28 money for it. I think that it should be fair that they talk a little bit about it.
29
30 Chair Garber: Mr. Carrasco.
31
32 Mr. Tony Carrasco. Applicant: My opinion is the more the better. Having said that we have
33 struggled for many years with Caltrans and the ability to put median trees in less than I believe
34 six-foot wide curb-to-curb dimension. In this project there are about 100 or 120 feet or so of
35 median that is wider than six feet, six feet or wider. That takes about five trees so that is the
36 reason why the five trees to the size of median that Caltrans will allow median trees in. I wish
37 they would allow trees in medians that are smaller than six feet but they don't.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: But what is being proposed will work?
40
41 Mr. Carrasco: Will work nleaning Caltrans will accept it? Yes.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Great.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman.
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 28 of43
1 Commissioner Holman: Just one. Can Staff remind me, I think we addressed this before but can
2 the Ordinance require that first right of refusal I know we can't write an Ordinance for a
3 specific tenant that is very clear, but can we require that first right of refusal be granted to a
4 specific tenant?
5
6 The whole purpose of this and the whole neighborhood support for this from those that support it
7 has been because of the popularity and very justified popularity for JJ&F Market. Yet, in written
8 documents there is not word one about JJ&F. So could we add that language?
9
10 Mr. Williams: I will let the City Attorney answer sort of whether legally we could add that.
11 There is a requirement the Council had that when this comes back to them that there be
12 essentially a lease agreement and my understanding is that has been provided, and will go to
13 Council acknowledging that they will lease. You have seen it, right?
14
15 Commissioner Holman: So then why could the Ordinance not reference that document or
16 Condition of Approval reference that document and what that might say? That is my question.
17
18 Ms. Tronquet: We have legal concerns about linliting it to a specific tenant.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: We are not limiting it we just giving first right of refusal.
21
22 Ms. Tronquet: Well, but a right of first refusal gets very close. I can tell you that I saw the
23 agreement to lease yesterday. It does essentially have that condition in it for JJ&F Market. So it
24 will be provided to the Council when this goes to Council but there is already an existing
25 agreement that essentially does that already without putting something into the Ordinance that
26 could be called into question.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: That is one of the frustrations of reviewing this project is there has been
29 such a keep-away of documents from this body. It has been very frustrating. We have not seen
30 that document. I am sure the public has not either.
31
32 Ms. Tronquet: It was a draft when I saw it.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Anyway.
35
36 Chair Garber: Would the applicant like to speak to the topic?
37
38 Ms. Kennedy: We have been in conversations with the Garcia's, John Garcia, for more than a
39 year and a half. We supplied a somewhat redacted version of the Letter of Intent that was signed
40 over a year ago that was binding on us, that is the applicant. So the applicant was required to
41 provide essentially what Commissioner Holman is talking about, a right of first refusal to the
42 applicant. That was not sufficient for Council Member Klein and so his condition that he
43 imposed was that there be a document that would bind us the applicant as well as John Garcia.
44 We have worked since the Council Meeting on approving that document. We were required to
45 submit it to the City Attorney's Office. I would be glad to provide a copy of it to all of you. It is
46 being circulated for signature. Two of our Trustees are, one of them is in Montana, one of them
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page290f43
1 is in Idaho so the document is right now on a FedEx airplane. So we don't have it signed yet but
2 it has been approved. The City Attorney's Office has vetted it and it does acconlplish what you
3 are asking for. I will leave it to Melissa to confirm that it does satisfy the concern that you are
4 expressIng.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
7
8 Chair Garber: Commissioners, there is only one other item that I think we should probably have
9 some discussion around and that is the topic of noise. Can Staffhelp us with how we can
10 address that? I know we touched on it briefly but I am not sure we gave it a full airing.
11
12 Mr. Williams: Condition number 6 in your Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B or whichever
13 attachment it is has added that it comply with the applicable provisions of the Noise Ordinance
14 and the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.060 requiring acoustical analysis at time of
15 building permit issuance, demonstration, certification that it complies with the Noise Ordinance
16 prior to final inspection. So we have added that language referencing that performance standard
17 section and we think that is adequate and basically as far as we can go without being as I said
18 arbitrary about setting our own standards on a site-by-site basis.
19
20 Chair Garber: Do Comnlissioners have any suggestions to modify?
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Balin I think you were the one to address the noise issue. Do you
23 want to indicate whether this satisfies your concern?
24
25 Mr. Balin: Thank you. I have not seen the section there but I believe the Director is referring to
26 what have been the performance standards for the past two years. So what he is referring to is
27 what is in the code now. It refers to conditions that for new building construction that applicants
28 have to have an acoustical analysis beforehand and then before occupancy there has to be a
29 comparison with the acoustical analysis to see that you are within five decibels of it. That and
30 other conditions came in a number of years ago. That is in the code. That should have been
31 mentioned earlier.
32
33 The Noise Ordinance is the weak under-bearing of that element. The Noise Ordinance is part of
34 the Comprehensive Plan. In the Comprehensive Plan it says it should have been updated. It was
35 not. So it stays as it is except for changes with regard to the leaf blower ordinance. The Noise
36 Ordinance has a baseline ambient level of 40 decibels that you start at when a low-density
37 residential area is adjacent to a commercial area. It is hard to understand the ordinance, then you
38 get either a six or eight decibel escalator.
39
40 Now if you go into College Terrace on a quiet evening the ambient is about 32, 33, 34 depends
41 where you are. So if you got an escalator of six after that if you are residential to residential, if
42 someone was having a party next door, you would be below 40. On a commercial development
43 you start at 40 and you are allowed six or eight higher depending on how you interpret it. So it is
44 a high barrier to go with and then of course that becomes the baseline ambient for the next
45 project. So the whole issue of the Noise Ordinance is that it is not satisfactory for residential
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 30 of43
1 neighborhoods that are very close to commercial developments. That is why we were asking for
2 these provisions.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: It seems to me that trying to solve the noise problem prior to the
7 issuance of a building pennit is pretty late in the game. I would really look to see first placement
8 of equipment, options for that, alternatives.
9
10 Chair Garber: Baffling barriers.
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: Exactly, early on that the applicant has done all that they could do at
13 the beginning to lower the noise levels. At that point have an understanding that where the noise
14 level is supposed to be whether below 40 or 32 or 42, whatever works for both a functional
15 operation of the project and to the peace of the neighborhood. I would really look to start earlier
16 than when construction documents are being turned into the City.
17
18 Chair Garber: We can also condition the project for potentially ...
19
20 Would the applicant architect like to speak to the topic?
21
22 Mr. Carrasco: This was an issue that the neighborhood and our neighborhood advisors brought
23 up early, like four years ago. We paid really close attention to it both in tenns of the mechanical
24 units that we have chosen. We went back and forth between our noise consultant, Charles Salter,
25 who is one of the best noise consultants in the Bay Area. We have raised walls. If you look at
26 the model out there there is a baffle wall that goes up higher than the nonnal parapet precisely to
27 do that, to keep the sound on the El Canlino side, to bounce it back onto the El Camino side. In
28 fact the mechanical consultant wanted to use a specific energy efficient machine that would not
29 quite make the quality of sound that we wanted and that would meet the Noise Ordinance
30 internally in our project. So we changed it to a less energy efficient machine that is smaller and
31 shorter and more of them in order to meet that criteria on our site. It is not only to the neighbors
32 but we don't want a noisy site internally. So we have looked at this issue very carefully and as
33 Commissioner Martinez says we have to do that early on. You can't do it at the time of the
34 building pennit. So we have done that and we will continue to do that.
35
36 Chair Garber: All right. Commissioner Keller, a motion perhaps?
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Yes, just one quick question. Is it the USGBC that does certification of
39 LEED Silver or is it another?
40
41 Chair Garber: It is the USGBC.
42
43 MOTION
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 31 of43
1 So here is the motion and it is going to include several parts. If I miss anything please add it. So
2 the first thing is the Planning and Transportation Commission confirms its earlier
3 recommendation the 1,950 square foot reduction in office space which could be accomplished by
4 reducing the building size or conversion of that office space to retail space or a combination
5 thereof. Second, with respect to Section 4 (e) of the Ordinance the language be modified to
6 clarify that any change in uses of any kind requires an Ordinance amendment other than
7 conversion of office space to retail use. Third, Section 3 (a) of the Ordinance adds the word
8 'other' on the third line preceding ground floor retail space. Fourth, Section 4 (b) (9) be
9 referenced an open-air market use in the Ordinance with the Staff developing the appropriate
10 wording. Fifth, Section 3, reference to the Development Plans dated October 22, 2009
11 appropriate language be used to indicate that their future replacement sheets are compatible with
12 those drawings and does not substantively change them. Section 4 (f) (3) the wording that says
13 tree planning should say tree planting. Section 4 (b) (1) indicate that the grocery store shall be
14 occupied prior to any first occupancy of the office building and not a reference of 90 days and
15 not a reference of25 percent, any occupancy of the office space. I believe that is the complete
16 list.
17
18 SECOND
19
20 Commissioner Lippert: Second.
21
22 Chair Garber: Second made by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their
23 motion?
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that it is important to retain a grocery store at this location.
26 I think that it is useful that the applicant has created a project that does incorporate the grocery
27 store. I believe Commissioner Lippert will speak more to the issue of the comments about the
28 reduction in office space with potential conversion of that office space to retail. I think that the
29 applicant's willingness to have retail on the ground floor on College Avenue however, to charge
30 office space rent for that space is exactly why we have an ordinance precluding conversion of
31 retail space to office space in Downtown and other sections of the city precisely because the
32 increase in rent from retail use to office use that potentially forces out retail. It seems to me that
33 if the applicant were to charge an appropriate retail rent rather than office space rent that retail
34 could potentially viably go there.
35
36 I also note that in the development schedule the complete construction ofprojects and city
37 improvements occurs on December 1, 2014. The leased spaces, construct tenant improvements
38 and obtain certificates of occupancy occurs on December 1, 2015. During that year period of
39 time during which the completion from the shell to complete building for tenant occupancy the
40 construction of the grocery store could occur in parallel with that process so that the grocery
41 store could be ready to be occupied on December 1, 2015 at the same time that tenant
42 improvements are allowed for other than the grocery store. So I do not think that that would be a
43 particular hardship. I will end there.
44
45 Chair Garber: Seconder?
46
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 32 of43
1 Commissioner Lippert: I think I have made my comnlents with regard to the reason why that
2 should be additional retail space. I think I have made those reasons and don't need to restate
3 those again.
4
5 I do have a friendly amendment that I would like to entertain. That in the definition of the office
6 space that if it were to go to an all retail use on the ground floor that it would not have to have a
7 PC amendment.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: I think that the way I worded the change in use as allowing conversion
10 from office to retail.
11
12 Chair Garber: Why don't you read it again so we are all clear?
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I believe what I said was any change in use other than office to retail
15 requires an Ordinance amendnlent.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, great.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So I think I addressed that.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Then I think we have it.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: I would like to offer one friendly amendment that one year after
26 occupancy that the developer be required to conduct an acoustical study that denlonstrates that
27 the noise level is within the limits established in their design studies and their construction
28 documents and submittals to the City.
29
30 Chair Garber: Can I suggest another way?
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: Yes.
33
34 Chair Garber: That perhaps a year after construction that Staff reach out to the adjacent
35 neighbors to determine if there are other noise related issues that need to be addressed.
36
37 Commissioner Martinez: And then what?
38
39 Chair Garber: I don't know. They would presumably work to try and find ways to either bring it
40 back within the permitted decibels or find ways to address specific issues that the neighbors are
41 having with noise.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: May I ask Staff, I believe you brought a copy of the ordinance here. Do
44 you still have it? With respect to I believe it is 18.23.060 if you could tell us what kinds of post
45 comparisons or studies are done in that ordinance. That would indicate whether that is sufficient
46 or whether anything else needs to be done.
City o[ Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 33 0[43
1
2 Mr. Williams: The code reads that at the time of building permit issuance for new construction
3 or for installation of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment the applicant shall
4 submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with
5 the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings equipment
6 specifications, and proposed sound reduction measures such as equipment enclosures or
7 insulation, which demonstrates a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the
8 prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. The next part of it says, upon completion of
9 construction or installation the City shall where the acoustical analysis projected noise levels at
10 or within five decibels less than the Noise Ordinance limits shall require demonstration of the
11 installed equipment and certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the
12 Noise Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Well I think that the intent of Commissioner Martinez's comment is that
15 that be verified one year following occupancy where the building is actually in full use and the
16 equipment is actually making its noise. So I think what I would suggest if I may is that one year
17 following completion and a certificate of occupancy being granted that noise measurements be
18 made verifying that the building is in compliance with Ordinance 18.23.060.
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: The only problem I have with that is that the studies and the measures
21 that the applicant undertakes might actually be below the Ordinance maximums and the
22 neighborhood might be satisfied with that. But when it is actually installed it might be at the
23 Ordinance maximum for which I am suggesting that is not what the neighborhood was looking
24 for. There has been some suggestion that the Ordinance doesn't go quite far enough to satisfy
25 the neighborhood requirement.
26
27 Mr. Williams: I am confused because the Ordinance does require after installation that you test
28 it and make sure that it meets the acoustical analysis that was done and at the prescribed.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: I didn't really hear that when you read it.
31
32 Mr. Willianls: It was both that and the Noise Ordinance.
33
34 Chair Garber: Again, forgive me for interrupting but I think Commissioner Martinez was
35 responding to a member of the public that was stating that that Ordinance was setup for
36 neighbors that were of commercial to commercial and this is a circumstance where we have
37 commercial to residential and therefore you may need higher levels of requirements than would
38 otherwise be found in the Ordinance. Am I getting to your concern at all or am I making that
39 up?
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: That is it.
42
43 Chair Garber: So therefore since the Ordinance doesn't in itself define that, or does it? Okay.
44
45 Mr. Williams: The ordinance talks about the adjacent uses. I agree that the Noise Ordinance
46 could certainly use improvements but what we are talking about here is doing an analysis
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 34 of43
1 separate from the Noise Ordinance starting with that, coming up with what the projected levels
2 would be, and that if it is within five decibels so we are giving ourselves some room, if it is
3 within five decibel levels of the Noise Ordinance so it is clearly getting close to, approaching
4 even that number then you have to go back in after it is installed and do all the testing. I
5 understand there are concerns with the Noise Ordinance. I have a very significant concern about
6 us trying to project-by-project define what those levels should be and somehow differing with
7 that. If the Noise Ordinance is the issue -since we have had this in place a few years now and
8 we have had a number of projects built under it I think it is seriously addressed that issue. The
9 problem previously was that we didn't have a very good mechanism for even looking at
10 mechanical equipment and the noise on it. It would come through and it was sort of ancillary to
11 the building permit and gets installed and then we would hear complaints later on. This really
12 puts that up front. I certainly agree that we should be looking also at where it is placed and there
13 are some guidelines for that in the Ordinance too as far as placement of equipment away from
14 residential properties. So I don't know that you couldn't add something as far as subsequent
15 testing but I don't know what it would ...
16
17 Chair Garber: Accomplish.
18
19 Mr. Williams: Accomplish and I think it would be sort of problematic as far as enforcement.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: One question of interest I guess is from Staffs perspective and perhaps
24 the applicant might like to weigh in is the project going to be below and how much below the
25 Noise Ordinance requirenlents? What have been the studies?
26
27 Mr. Williams: They are saying they don't have a number at this point.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: That is not reassuring.
30
31 Chair Garber: Understood.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Not meaning insult. Ijust would have thought based on the comments
34 from the architect they would already know what the impact would be and there has been a
35 Mitigated Negative Declaration done and so I would have thought that those determinations
36 would have been made. That is the point of my question.
37
38 Chair Garber: All right, let's come back to the action. Shall we pursue this?
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: My only concern was that I kind of understood that the project was
41 going to do better than the Ordinance from what Mr. Carrasco was describing. I was trying to
42 come back to that standard rather than the Ordinance itsel£ So meeting the Ordinance I know
43 you have to do that. That will be compelled. But doing better than that because it is close to a
44 residential area was I think my expectation. So what I am asking is for the applicant to live up to
45 the design guidelines, the design standards, and the performance of the equipment that it says it
46 is going to do in its application for a building permit and in the installation of this equipment. If
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 35 of43
1 it is below, if it is 32 and not 40, then that is the standard that it should meet that is what I am
2 asking for.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I have some difficulty with this and it is only because we have
7 prescribed in our Ordinance what the rules are for all buildings. If we find fault with the
8 Ordinance we should change the Ordinance. We shouldn't make additional conditions upon the
9 applicant. We have already described what we want in terms of the building and that wasn't part
10 and parcel of what we requested here. So I find it difficult to support that. Again, when it comes
11 to the Comprehensive Plan review that we are going to update, that we are going to be doing, if
12 what you are describing is important let's address it there in the Comprehensive Plan and the
13 Noise Ordinance. Let's not place additional burdens on this applicant.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: My question was very much tracking along with Commissioner
18 Martinez's comments. I have a little bit different approach than Conunissioner Lippert on this
19 particular point, which is that and again referencing the comments that I agree with from
20 Commissioner Martinez this applicant is getting several concessions so I feel like we can ask
21 more because they are getting more. If their analysis indicates that they can exceed the
22 requirements of the Noise Ordinance then we do have the justification to require that they live up
23 to that. This is not a code compliant proj ect. This is an exceptions proj ect.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller also has a conunent but PI31uling Director.
26
27 Mr. Williams: Just one hopefully last comment from me. Just looking at the adjacent uses there
28 is very little residential near this project and the residential that there is is the residential
29 component of this project. So I could understand having more of this discussion if this were
30 sitting in the middle of single-family homes on all four sides or something like that or property
31 lines that abutted it. The units that are there are across the street, generally multifamily it looks
32 like, and again it is across the street from the eight BMR units 311d that building. The whole
33 BMR complex is between the grocery store and any of the residential. The office is right up for
34 the most part on El Camino. So it just seems like ....
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then we will go to Keller.
37
38 Commissioner Martinez: I don't think I am asking for concessions. It is kind of like the
39 applicant saying this is going to be LEED Silver but they come in and say well we are close.
40 They are making a promise that it is going to be a sustainable project. We kind of accept that
41 they are going to do that. In this case, I am saying well, they are saying that they are going to be
42 better than the Ordinance. We are asking you to be better, just meet that criteria that's all. So it
43 is not a concession it is doing what you say you are going to do.
44
45 Chair Garber: City Attorney.
46
City a/Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 36 0/43
1 Ms. Tronguet: Well, it really is a due process issue with this noise concern because we have a
2 Noise Ordinance. It sets sort of our baselines for what we have said is acceptable noise in this
3 city. To the extent that you are looking at changing it on a project-by-project basis raises
4 concerns that it is arbitrary. You have done it for reasons other than the reasons that the Noise
5 Ordinance was enacted and the underlying findings that the City Council made when they passed
6 the Ordinance. So it is a concern legally to try to change those standards that for every other
7 project in the city we have considered acceptable up until now.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioners Keller, Lippert, and then Tuma.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: So let me try to tease out the various pieces of the issue. There is the
12 inspection that is in the current Ordinance that is done essentially at building occupancy, but
13 when the building is actually used the amount of noise that happens may be different from when
14 it is occupied with systems running. So that is why I was thinking about having potentially, and
15 this mayor may not be an issue about the Ordinance but having an actual study of how much
16 noise is actually being made a year from that and seeing whether it still conforms is an
17 interesting question. I am just pointing that out as one issue.
18
19 The second issue is the question as to the applicant basically has put together some sort of
20 process of determining what the noise should be. That determines a certain amount of noise. So
21 I hear Commissioner Martinez saying well you said it would be quiet, let's hold you to the
22 standard of the quietness the applicant said it was going to be. However, there is a perverse
23 incentive of that and the issue is if we did it standardly then people would not try to be more
24 quiet than they are required to by the Ordinance. They would actually be noisier so they
25 wouldn't be held to the quiet standard. So what happens is you basically get sort of like the kind
26 of perverse effect and a you get about the tragedy of the commons, and in this case the commons
27 are quietness. So that is what happens there.
28
29 On the third hand, we have the phenomenon that this is a PC and a PC has public benefits. There
30 is some potential to add a public benefit that the project be quiet. If there is a public benefit that
31 the project be quiet, which we could require, then the kind of requirement that Commissioner
32 Martinez was referring to would be in support of the public benefit that the project be quiet.
33
34 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Lippert.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a couple of corrections here. When it comes to
37 LEED Certification it is required that for LEED Silver I believe that when the building is
38 commissioned it is certified that it is LEED Silver. So it is not like saying well, we have come as
39 close as we can to LEED Silver. When they say that they are going to do LEED Silver they have
40 to actually justify and have it basically certified that it is LEED Silver.
41
42 The same thing with the Noise Ordinance. They need to come back and prove or demonstrate
43 that they are within the guidelines of the Ordinance. Now, I don't want to wind up splitting hairs
44 here. I think that Director Williams made a very valid point, which is number one we are on EI
45 Camino Real here. That a very small portion of the site is near the residences. The mechanical
46 equipment is really located what is reasonably as distant from those residential portions as
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 37 of43
1 possible. All I could possibly add to that is that perhaps we ask for in our motion or request that
2 the applicant locate the mechanical equipment as far away from the residential portion and
3 closest to the commercial or EI Camino Real as feasibly possible that it achieves additional
4 sound reductions. It just merely be stated as a request.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question of counsel. Can the Commission unilaterally impose a
9 requirement for a public benefit without the applicant agreeing to it?
10
11 Mr. Williams: I don't think you can. I think the public benefit portion is essentially what the
12 applicant is offering and you are accepting and you are making that tradeoff.
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: My recollection from previous projects is that we can't do that. So I am
15 happy to be corrected on that but that is my recollection.
16
17 Ms. Tronquet: I think you can always assess and it is your job to assess the adequacy of the
18 public benefits being provided but it would be difficult.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Okay, great.
21
22 Ms. Tronquet: I just want to add that the other enforcement mechanism that we have here
23 whether it is one year down the road or 20 years down the road is Code Enforcement. We get
24 Code Enforcement complaints all the time about noise and that is what our Code Enforcement
25 Staff does. So that is another mechanism. Whether it is effective or not I know is debatable but
26 that is a mechanism that we have on an ongoing basis.
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I would like to ask Mr. Carrasco, you have now be characterized as
29 saying that this will be better than code or quieter than code or something like that. Is that
30 accurate? Is that what you are saying?
31
32 Mr. Carrasco: No it is not, Commissioner Tuma. There are several variables on this thing if I
33 can expand a little bit. There is the height of the sound wall that we don't want to exceed 15 feet
34 because of code. There is the energy portion of it. There is cost. So we have to balance out not
35 just one issue it is many issues. So thank you for asking that question.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: So while I am sympathetic with the notion that this is a PC and they are
38 getting some things so we should be asking for some things. I think those discussions have
39 happened and we sort of had that negotiation and we have gotten a certain level of public benefit.
40 I don't think we can now on top of it add another public benefit at this point in the process. I
41 think that the applicant has said that they will do what they can to make it quiet but that they
42 absolutely will comply with the Ordinance. I agree with Commissioner Lippert, if we have a
43 problem with the Ordinance then let's change the Ordinance. But to impose these conditions at
44 this stage of the process adding an additional public benefit or somehow enhancing a code
45 section that we are stuck with you simply can't do that. I would think that there would be huge
46 due process problems with that particularly at this point in the process. So I think we can sit here
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 38 of43
1 it is perfectly clear that we and the neighbors, and I think even the applicants would like this to
2 be as quiet a project as it can but we have certain laws that we are stuck with for better or for
3 worse. Let's change them if they need to be changed but trying to add on this additional
4 requirement at this point in the process seems to me to be undoable.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, how would you like to proceed?
7
8 Commissioner Martinez: I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you.
9
10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if Commissioner Lippert wanted to make the suggestion
13 he had as an amendment to the motion or not.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Sure, I don't think there is any harm in that. As an anlendment I would
16 recommend to the applicant that they locate the mechanical equipment as far away from the
17 adj acent residential sites and as close to EI Camino Real and the adj acent commercial sites as
18 feasible that it achieves the acoustic reductions that we are seeking.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: I will accept that friendly amendment.
21
22 Chair Garber: All right. Then the last thing that I may add and I am not sure it is really an
23 amendment. It may simply be a comment. That was that the City Attorney was going to clean
24 up some of the language regarding the word 'resolution' in all the various places that that occurs.
25 Then finally, also not as an amendment, but as a comment that Staff will revise their Staff Report
26 relative to the characterization of the ARB, etc. relative to the PTC's comments.
27
28 Commissioner Tuma and then Holman.
29
30 Vice-Chair Tuma: I did want to ask that Staffrevise the Ordinance to reflect the Commission's
31 motion with respect to the timing of the occupancy of the grocery stores vis-a-vis occupancy of
32 the office.
33
34 Mr. Williams: Yes, we will do that.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. The other thing that I wanted to just clarify in this motion the first
37 item stated in the motion was that we are reaffirming the 1,950 square foot reduction in office
38 space. I want to make it clear, I intend to vote for this motion but I want to make it clear that I
39 am not in any way changing my position that I took at the previous hearing, which was that I am
40 not supportive of that component of the recommendation.
41
42 Chair Garber: Just for clarification, Commissioner Keller you had included in your initial
43 motion Commissioner Tuma's first comment, did you not or was Commissioner Tuma
44 substantially changing that in some way?
45
46 Commissioner Keller: No, I think that I was ....
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 39 of43
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me just clarify. Commissioner Keller touched on the point. My request
3 of Staff is that not only is it our recon1IDendation which it was before but that the actual draft
4 Ordinance that goes to Council reflect our recommendation not the 25 percent and 90 day and
5 Staff has agreed to do that. So our recommendation would be the starting point not the current
6 draft of the Ordinance.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: I think there are two points. One is the issue of grocery store prior to
9 office space occupancy, and Staffhas agreed to have that in their recommendation to Council in
10 the Ordinance directly to adopt that. I assume you are going to adopt everything else with the
11 potential exception of the confirmation of our 1,950 reduction or conversion from office space to
12 retail. I think Commissioner Tuma was indicating that his personal disagreement with that but
13 that he was going to vote for motion because we are confirming what we had already decided
14 last time.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Correct.
17
18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple of comments. One is that with apologies to the public I
21 would say that when we get a lot of documents late, when we get them at places, our process gets
22 messy and it gets time consuming. That is not directed at any person that is directed at our
23 process. This doesn't work and it leads to messy protracted meetings with probably not the best
24 outcomes. So that said. That may be to some people's advantage but it is not to our advantage.
25
26 If I might, to get clarity for how this goes to Council perhaps the reaffirmation of the reduction
27 might be forwarded, we could vote on that comment being forwarded to Council. I don't know
28 if that is what the Commission wants to do.
29
30 I have two other comments that I would like to have forwarded to Council we can vote on or not
31 as Chair's discretion might be. One comment is that the Planning Commission is relying on the
32 indicated existence of a binding agreement on the part of both the applicant and JJ&F Market.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I would be happy to add that as a friendly amendment.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: Sorry?
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Commissioner Holman said that we are relying on the Staffs statement
39 that there is a binding agreement for the grocery store.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: So if that is acceptable as an amendment then great. The other
44 comment probably not all Commissioners will agree with but perhaps enough that we could
45 continue this or include this. Again, it is a comment that the setback DEE should be a Variance.
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 40 of43
1 This is just to get that issue back in front of the Council. So if the nlaker would accept that as a
2 comment.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I am not sure what the legality of accepting that as a comment.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: That is why I was saying to the Chair too that we might just vote on that
7 as a separate comment to forward to the Council.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
10
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Does that put us in the situation where if it is our opinion that it is a Variance
12 and we have not made the findings for the Variance doesn't that sort of put is in a sort of legal
13 limbo?
14
15 Ms. Tronguet: With respect to opinion you haven't analyzed whether this is a DEE or a
16 Variance and you really have not been asked to do that.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: We were at the last meeting. We were asked to comment, if I recall
19 correctly, whether these were Variances or DEEs and some of the Commissioners said that they
20 are Variances.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: May I make a suggestion? What I feel comfortable with is that the
23 Commission is not convinced that the setback on Oxford satisfies the requirements for a DEE.
24 Rather than us saying that it needs to be a Variance we are skeptical as to whether it is a proper
25 DEE or it fits the criteria for a DEE.
26
27 Chair Garber: But taking no action on that.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: That's right.
30
31 Chair Garber: What does that mean Staff? It is just comments that are a part of ....
32
33 Ms. Tronquet: You can give comments but I would be cautious about giving opinions on things
34 that the Commission as a whole has not analyzed. So perhaps something like several
35 Commissioners have concerns about distinguishing between Variances and DEEs, should alert
36 the Council that the difference between those two things is a concern to the Commission.
37
38 Chair Garber: So I guess the Chair's recommendation would be to save it as a comment but not
39 include it as part of the motion.
40
41 Con1ffiissioner Holman: Fine by me.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: That is fine by me. May I say one more thing? Are you finished? That
44 is Commissioner Tuma pointed out the wording on page 3 of the sentence Staff and ARB are not
45 recommending the five percent reduction in office space. That is sort of like saying I am not ten
46 feet tall. It is written in a negative way. My mother is not recommending a five percent
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 41 of43
1 reduction in office space either but the question is has she weighed in on it, does she agree with it
2 or not? It is written in the n10st strange way. So the ARB has not weighed in on it according to
3 the ARB. If Staff recommends against the five percent reduction then say so. If Staff is not
4 making a comment about the five percent, you obviously are recommending against the five
5 percent reduction by not putting that in your recommendation. So I think a better wording for
6 that is Staff should say if Staff believes the five percent reduction in office space is unwarranted
7 then Staff should say so and give its reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation of the
8 Commission. That is perfectly reasonable to do but putting it this way is sort of odd.
9
10 Chair Garber: You are making this as a comment as opposed to making it part of your motion.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: I am just making a separate request that if Staff persists in recommending
13 against a five percent reduction of office space that it say it that way and actually say why.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: I might weight in on this. I think that this is really going to wind up
16 being one of the more substantive points that the City Council is going to be discussing. They
17 already have weighed in on it and have gone from one extreme to the other. This is going to be I
18 believe the nut of what they are going to be discussing. There are two things that I think are
19 important here. Number one, our rationale, or reasoning behind the five percent reduction is
20 particularly important. What I hear is that Vice-Chair Tuma is going to be representing us on
21 this item and he is not in support of our rationale. So the question is whether number one, should
22 there be a different representative to the City Council on this item so that this point is particularly
23 well fleshed out or should there be another Commissioner making the points at the City Council
24 with Commissioner Tuma making the majority of the points there?
25
26 Now, in addition to that what I want to say is that I concur with Commissioner Keller in tem1S of
27 we have our reasons behind it and I don't have a problem with Staffbeing in variance to that or
28 antithetical. But they should be required to belly up to the bar and give their rationale or their
29 reasoning behind not supporting the five percent reduction.
30
31 Chair Garber: Okay, one topic at a time from both sides of the table here. First, the
32 Representative has ajob to do and he will be responsible for making the correct representations
33 of the Commission's actions to the City Council. I would expect both Comn1issioner Tuma as
34 well as Commissioner Lippert to do so regardless of how they voted on a topic. Commissioner
35 Keller.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: I would reaffirm that I trust Vice-Chair Tuma to properly represent the
38 position of the Commission. May I recommend that if the Staff decides to go along with the
39 reaffirmed recommendation, assuming we pass this as stated, to reduce office space by five
40 percent possibly by converting all or prui of it to retail use then no issue? If Staff decides not to
41 go along with that recon1mendation then Staff as part of the discussion indicates a summary of
42 the Planning Commission's expressed reasons for making the reduction and indicates Staffs
43 opinions or judgments or whatever word you want to use as to why it does not agree with that
44 assessment. This way it is simply laid out for the Council to be able to make the appropriate
45 decision. Just as I trust Commissioner Tuma to appropriately represent the Commission on this I
City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 42 of43
1 would trust Staff in this case to appropriately represent both sides of the issue fairly to the
2 Council and public to understand that in the Staff Report.
3
4 Chair Garber: With that let's vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All
5 those opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Holman, Martinez,
6 Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea and Commissioner Fineberg absent.
7
8 Thank you very much for your patience. We will take a ten-minute break and return for item
9 nun1ber two.
10
City of Palo Alto December 2,2009 Page 43 of43
ATTACHMENT B
AGREEMENT TO LEASE
THIS AGREEMENT TO LEASE (this "Agreement") is entered into as of this first
day of December, 2009 (the "Effective Date") by and between JOSEPH E.
OESCHGER, ELDORA O. MILLER and COMERICA BANK, all as trustees of the
CLARA E. CHILCOTE TRUST ("Owner") and JOHN GARCIA, an individual ("Grocer"),
with respect to certain real property to be located on the northwest corner of 2180 EI
Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, County of Palo Alto, State of California (the
"Premises"). Owner and Grocer are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties";
each of Owner and Grocer is individually referred to herein as a "Party."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owner has owned the city block on which the Premises is located
(the "City Block") for more than eighty (80) years; and
WHEREAS, Grocer's family has leased a portion of the City Block for more than
sixty (60) years and has operated thereon a family-owned grocery store during all that
time; and
WHEREAS, Owner has made application to the City of Palo Alto for a PC Zone
for the City Block for the purposes of redeveloping the entire City Block (the
"Application"); and
WHEREAS, the name of the new development of the City Block is College
Terrace Centre; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant includes a plan to locate a grocery store of eight
thousand (8,000) square feet on the Premises, along with an outdoor market of
approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet immediately adjacent thereto and
approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage
(collectively, the "New Grocery Store"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document Grocer's intention to lease the
Premises for the purpose of operating the New Grocery Store upon completion of
construction of College Terrace Centre in satisfaction of a condition of approval in the
"initiation" of the PC Zone pursuant to requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by
the Palo Alto City Council (the "City Council") at the July 27,2009 Palo Alto City
Council hearing, which condition of approval was that, prior to final approval of the PC
Zone by the City Council, the Parties would enter into a legal agreement (lease or other
agreement), binding on Grocer, regarding Grocer's intention to lease the Premises; and
WHEREAS, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Grocer
hereby enters into such legal agreement with Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 1
AGREEMENT
1. Agreement to Lease.
1.1 So long as, by no later than January 15, 2010, the City Council gives final
approval to PC Zone and the site and design plan for College Terrace Centre in their
entirety with all appropriate and/or necessary authorizations and entitlements, including
but not limited to those approvals required pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), Grocer, in the name of JJ&F or a yet-to-be formed entity (either,
the "New Entity"), shall enter into a lease for the Premises on the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement (the "Lease") as follows:
1.1.1 By no earlier than three (3) business days after the last to occur of
the following: (a) the expiration of the statute of limitations period on a legal challenge
by a third party to the City Council's approval of College Terrace Centre, including its
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, without the timely filing of any applicable
actions by any such third party or (b) the final disposition in a court of law of any legal
action brought by a third party to challenge the City Council's approval of College
Terrace Center and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
1.1.2 By no later than the date that is eighteen (18) months prior to the
expected completion of construction of College Terrace Centre and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the development (the "Final Lease Date"), Owner will
provide Grocer with written notice of the Final Lease Date at least sixty (60) days in
advance thereof.
1.2 If Grocer has not entered into a Lease by the Final Lease Date, Owner
shall vigorously market the opportunity to lease the Premises to other potential grocer
owner/operators, and neither Party shall have any further obligation to the other
hereunder.
2. Lease Terms.
2.1 The Premises shall comprise eight thousand (8,000) square feet of interior
space ("Interior Space"), approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet of outdoor
space ("Outdoor Space") immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred
(600) square feet of dry storage ("Storage Space") in the basement garage.
2.2 The initial term of the lease (the "Term") shall be a minimum of twenty (20)
years. At Grocer's option, the Term may be as long as thirty (30) years.
2.3 The Term will commence on the first day of the month following the
issuance by the City of Palo Alto of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which
the Premises are located (the "Commencement Date").
PCSA\45106\791128.3 2
3. Rent.
3.1 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are
located is issued before January 1, 2012, triple net base monthly rent for the first five (5)
years of the term of the Lease shall be as specified in Attachment A-1 attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference ("Base Monthly Rent").
3.2 "Triple net" means that the Grocer will be responsible for payment of
property taxes, insurance and utilities. Utilities (with the possible exception of water,
which Owner may not be able to separately meter) will otherwise be separately
metered. The Grocer will maintain all of its equipment, including but not limited to
HVAC.
3.3 Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 3.1, during the first three (3)
months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be waived completely and, during the
following three (3) months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be reduced by fifty
percent (500/0).
3.4 The rent will be subsidized by the Owner and their successors-in-interest,
if any, for as long as Grocer, any other grocer owner/operator and their successors-in-
interest for the earlier of (a) the useful life of the improvements, (b) the taking of the
Premises by eminent domain, or (c) the destruction of the Premises by fire or natural
disaster.
3.5 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are
located is issued on or after January 1,2012, the Base Monthly Rental shall be as set
forth in Attachment A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3.6 During the Term, the Base Monthly for each respective element of the
Premises (Le., the Indoor Space, the Outdoor Space and the Storage Space) will
increase, every five (5) years, by the amount of increase, if any, in the San Francisco-
San Jose-Oakland CPI Index over the previous five (5)-year period.
4. Termination of Agreement / Termination of Lease.
Prior to the Commencement Date, but no later than six (6) months following the
Final Lease Date, Grocer shall have the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement or
the Lease, as the case may be, without liability to Owner or to any third party, under any
of the following circumstances:
4.1 Grocer is disabled or otherwise incapacitated from performing his duties of
owning and operating the New Grocery Store;
4.2 JJ&F or the New Entity, as the case may be, is unable to obtain, after
exercising its good faith efforts, adequate and commercially reasonable debt financing
required for the purchase and installation of those tenant improvements, equipment and
fixtures necessary, in Grocer's reasonable jUdgment, to operate the New Grocery Store,
such financing to be at an annual interest rate not to exceed two percent (2.0°A,) over
PCSA\45106\791128.3 3
the prime interest rate (as determined by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on the last day of the
calendar month preceding the month in which Grocer plans to initiate construction and
installation of such tenant improvements, equipment and fixtures); or
4.3 Grocer determines, in good faith, that changed business circumstances,
economic conditions, or Grocer's own financial or personal conditions will not permit him
to operate the New Grocery Store to Grocer's reasonable satisfaction.
5. General Provisions.
5.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of Owner and Grocer and their respective estates, personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, successors and assigns.
5.2 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of California, and according to its fair meaning,
and not in favor of or against either Party.
5.3 Entire Agreement: Amendment. This Agreement (which includes the
Addendum hereto) embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the
Parties <relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior negotiations, agreements and
understandings, oral or written, related to the subject matter hereof are hereby revoked,
cancelled and rescinded and are all merged herein and superseded hereby. To be
effective, any amendment to this Agreement including but not limited to any oral
modification supported by new consideration, must be reduced to writing and signed by
both Parties.
5.4 Waiver. To be effective, any waiver of the performance of any covenant,
condition or promise by either Party must be in a writing signed by the Party who has
allegedly waived the covenant, condition or promise in question. The waiver by either
Party of a breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any
subsequent breach, whether of the same of another provision of this Agreement.
5.5 Severability. Should any part, term or provision of this Agreement or any
document required herein to be executed or delivered be declared invalid, void or
unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions hereof shall remain in full force
and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby.
5.6 Interpretation. The neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine,
and vice-versa, and the singular number includes the plural. The word "person"
includes, in addition to any natural person, a corporation, partnership, firm, trust,
association, governmental body or other entity. The captions of the sections of this
Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein
shall in no way be held to explain, modify, or aid in the interpretation, construction or
meaning of the provisions of this Agreement.
5.7 Litigation. If either Party files any action or brings any proceeding against
the other arising from this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as
PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 4
an element of its costs of suit, and not as damages, reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and litigation expenses to be fixed by the court. Under no circumstances shall
either Party be liable for consequential, special or punitive damages.
5.B Construction. The Parties agree that each Party and its counselor
advisor have reviewed and revised this Agreement and that any rule of construction to
the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in
the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits hereto.
5.9 Time Periods. As used in this Agreement, (1) a "day" is a calendar day
and (2) a "business day" is a calendar day other than a Saturday or Sunday upon which
(a) the Office of the County Clerk of Santa Clara County is open and accepting
documents for recording, (b) the United States Postal Service is delivering first class
mail, and (c) banks in Santa Clara County are generally open for business. If, pursuant
to this Agreement, a Party must act by a particular time, or an act is effective only if
done by a particular time, and the last date for the doing or effectiveness of such act
falls upon a day other than a business day, the time for the doing or effectiveness of
such act shall be extended to the next succeeding business day.
5.10 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of all provisions of this
Agreement.
5.11 Assignment. Grocer acknowledges that Owner is entering into this
Agreement because of the particular skills, knowledge, expertise, tenure in the Palo Alto
Community and reputation of Grocer. As a consequence, Grocer agrees that it ;s fair
and reasonable that Grocer shall not be permitted to assign this Agreement, or the
Lease, in whole or in part to any third party. No other person, firm, corporation,
partnership or other legal entity shall have any right, title, interest or claim to any
matters covered herein, or the right to demand performance of this Agreement.
5.12 Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute such other and
further documents and do such further acts (provided the same do not expand or
increase such Party's obligations hereunder or reduce or diminish such Party's rights
hereunder) as may be reasonably required to effectuate the intent of this Agreement.
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALL Y LEFT BLANK]
PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
OWNER:
THE.CHILCOTE TRUST
By:
Name:
By:
Name:
PCSA\45106\791128.3 6
Attachment A-1
Calendar Year 2012 $--
Calendar Year 2013 $--
Calendar Year 2014 $--
Calendar Year 2015 $--
Calendar Year 2016 $--
PCSA\45106\791128.3 7
Attachment A-2
Calendar Year 2012 $--
Calendar Year 2013 $--
Calendar Year 2014 $-
Calendar Year 2015 $-
Calendar Year 2016 $--
PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 8
2180 EI Canlino Real (College Terrace Centre)
RESPONSE TO CEQA QUESTIONS
From Pria Graves and Joy Ogawa
ATTACHMENT C
The following comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received on
November 9,2009 and December 2nd respectively. Staffs responses follow each
comment. These comments are related to issues that are already raised and addressed in
the MND, and do not raise any new substantial impacts. Therefore, Staff concludes that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate as presented to the City Council.
Response to Pria Graves Written Comments:
1. A.a,b,d (and D.d) Degradation of existing visual character, etc.
Staff Response: There is no significant impact since the street trees to be removed,
while mature and healthy, are not protected trees, and replacement will result in a
substantially greater number of trees, in support of the City's program for street tree
enhancement along EI Camino Real.
2. A.e Substantial light or glare source.
Staff Response: There is no significant impact since the City's regulations (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (P AMC) Chapter 18.23 Performance Standards) already require that
such outdoor lighting be shielded so that no off-site impacts would result. Also, the
location of the vegetated roof and gazebo are not adjacent to residential properties,
and the conditions limit use of this area to business hours.
3. H.d Substantially alter existing drainage pattern.
Staff Response: The comments do not cite any specific evidence, other than a
generalized "concern," that the project could have such an impact on the existing
drainage pattern. There is no significant impact since such perched water tables are
common and many other basements have been constructed in such circumstances
without adverse impacts. The groundwater impacts of such construction are
negligible on the overall subsurface regime.
4. Ld,e Substantially adversely change the use of the area.
Staff Response: There would be a change in the use of the area, but it would not
comprise a significant impact under CEQA unless it then results in significant
physical impacts, which are addressed by the remainder of the MND. Neighborhood
commercial uses supporting the adj acent residential area are to be retained, and the
more intensive commercial uses are located along the EI Camino Real frontage. The
assertion that this project is "opening the gate" to other large buildings in this area is a
generalized concern that is not supported by evidence. To the extent any other
projects are proposed, they will be evaluated based on existing conditions and
impacts at the time of the application.
5. K.b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or
ground borne noise levels.
2180 EI Canlino Real:
Responses to CEQA Comments
Decenlber 7,2009
Page 2
Staff Response: Temporary noise or vibration from construction is not considered
"significant" except in rare cases of very large projects with long phased construction
(e.g., Stanford University Medical Center). City code limits hours of construction
operation to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Also, unlike 585 College, this
project is not immediately adjacent to a single-family residence. P AMC Section
18.23.070(c)(iv) notes that construction and demolition work is exempt from the
vibration standard otherwise applicable to sites within 150 feet of residential property.
6. K.c Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Staff Response: No significant impact would result as the City's codes require
compliance with Section 18.23.060, which requires denl0nstration at the time of
building permit that the mechanical equipment will conlply with noise limits and then
requires demonstration after installation (before building occupancy) that the
operating equipment meet the criteria outlined at the building permit stage.
7. K.d Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
Staff Response: No significant impact would result as the area would generally only
be accessible during office hours (daytime). It is in any event a relatively small area
for quiet enjoyment and not likely to be a significant noise-generating location.
Again, the nearby low-density residential areas are not immediately adjacent to the
commercial portions of the site, including the vegetated roof and gazebo.
8. L.d Create a substantial itnbalance between employed residents and jobs.
Staff Response: No significant impact would result because the overall ratio of jobs
to employed residents is not significantly affected by the project. This assessment is
not made limited to the specific proj ect at hand, or otherwise every office building
would comprise a significant impact.
9. O.a,l Traffic impacts.
Staff Response: No significant impact on residential streets was predicted in the
traffic study. The study did not assume that all of the trips will travel only on EI
Camino, but instead concluded that other trips (outside those on EI Camino) would
not cause a significant level of increase on residential streets.
10. O.f Inadequate parking capacity.
Staff Response: No significant impact is anticipated. Although there may be some
who park on the neighboring streets rather than in the parking garage, the parking
spaces provided nleet the requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition, the
College Terrace Permit Parking Program is just underway, and staff has committed to
evaluate the program to ascertain if it should be extended closer to EI Camino Real
due to parking issues in this area.
Response to Joy Ogawa Comments at December 2 PTC Meeting:
2180 EI Camino Real:
Responses to CEQA Comments
December 7, 2009
Page 3
1. Traffic impacts: the intersection of Cambridge and EI Camino was not analyzed
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be modified and re-circulated.
Staff Response: A focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) typically analyzes the site
access and immediately adjacent intersections, and at City staffs
discretion/judgment, other intersections that are part of the regular monitoring
program and/or are known to have other traffic issues. The intersections ofEI
Camino Real at California Avenue and Page Mill Road are included in the annual
monitoring program, and were therefore included in the analysis. The intersection of
EI Camino Real and Cambridge is not included in the annual monitoring program and
was not required as part of the TIA. Since the intersections of California Avenue,
College Avenue, and Oxford Avenue with EI Camino Real were all analyzed, and
were all found to have no significant impact, the Cambridge/ECR intersection would
not be anticipated to experience significant level of service impacts, and doesn't
require separate analysis. The Cambridge intersection is not immediately adjacent to
the project. The traffic analysis was prepared for the larger project that included six
additional dwelling units and 1,000 square feet additional office space. The number of
net new peak PM trips resulting from the revised proj ect are therefore less than the 77
trips cited in the analysis. The Congestion Management Agency (VT A) does not
require analyses of intersection impacts when projects add less than 100 net new peak
PM trips.
Reich, Russ
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Russ/
Susan Rosenberg [susanpa@sonic.net]
Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Reich, Russ
Karen Holman; Martineau, Catherine; Williams, Curtis
EI Camino median trees
ATTACHMENT D
In reading the minutes of the October 14th/ 2009, Planning and Transportation Commission
meeting on the 2180 EI Camino Real Project/ you made the comment (page 59, line 22-25)
that because the ECR median is only four-feet wide/ Caltrans will not allow the planting
of trees.
Please take a closer look. That portion of the EI Camino Real median stretches from
Stanford Ave. to College Ave. Most of it is only four feet wide, but there is a section,
between Oxford St. and College Ave.
that is 121 wide and currently has several trees (gingko, evergreen pear). Commissioner
Karen Holman has raised the issue several times that the developer of this project be
required, as a condition of approval, to replace the existing median trees. In light of
the fact that the City of Palo Alto is working on the EI Camino Real/Stanford Ave.
Intersection and Streetscape Project that will widen this particular median in some parts,
I would encourage you to coordinate with Shahla Yazdy and Eric Krebs. This is an
opportunity for the City to get the entire median replanted as part of the plan developed
for the EI Camino Real Design Guidelines.
Thank you,
Susan Rosenberg
1