Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-12 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: April 12, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.SCOPING MEETING. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Replacement of Surface Parking Lots with a Public Safety Building and Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org 3.Review Draft Comment Letters to the City of Menlo Park and Mountain View for projects located at 500 El Camino Real (Middle Plaza Project) and North Bayshore Precise Plan Amendment, Mountain View. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Michael Alcheck Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Susan Monk Commissioner Eric Rosenblum Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7752) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments:  Attachment A: April 12, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Subject to Cancellation 12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck Subcommittees Comp Plan CAC: Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda April 5, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 26  Southgate RPP *Monday, May 8*  Joint Session with the City Council May 10 & 31  Downtown Parking Management  Annual Review of CIP June 14  3001 El Camino Real Site and Design Application for a new Mixed Use (Retail/Housing) Development.  Coleridge Ave at Cowper St Traffic Safety Project Update June 28  2755 El Camino Real: Zoning Text and Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Site and Design Application for a new Housing Development. July 12  Comp Plan Orientation July 26  Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Land Use & Transportation  Office/R&D Annual Limit Extension Ord. August 9  Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Safety and Natural Environment Elements August 30  Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Community Services and Facilities and the Business and Economics Elements  Downtown Parking Management Implementation #2 September 13  Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Governance, Implementation Chapters and User’s Guide September 27  Comp Plan: Final Public Hearing & Recommendation to the City Council on the Final EIR and Plan Update October/November  Code Clean-Up 2017  TMA Discussion  Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 December/January  Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Update Meeting Subcommittee Topic July 11  Land Use and Transportation Elements July 18  Safety and Natural Environment Elements August 1  Community Services and Facilities and the Business and Economics Elements and Governance Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7906) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 and 350 Sherman PSB and Garage Scoping Meeting Title: SCOPING MEETING. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Replacement of Surface Parking Lots with a Public Safety Building and Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a meeting to allow the public to participate in an Environmental Review Scoping Meeting for the Sherman Avenue Public Safety Building (PSB) and Public Parking Garage Project. Report Summary The purpose of this public meeting is to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on environmental issues they think the city should examine or study in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This type of meeting is referred to as a scoping meeting and is required for certain projects. While not legally required for this project, having an opportunity like this for early public consultation can be helpful to all parties. The PTC’s role in this meeting is to provide an opportunity for public comment and to offer its own perspective about issues that should be studied. Importantly, this meeting is not intended to serve as a forum for dialogue about the merits of the project. Once a planning entitlement City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 application has been received, noticed public hearings will provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. Representative: Matt Raschke, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ x 371’ (250 Sherman) and 130’ x 312’ (350 Sherman) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) area (from 640 Page Mill Road) Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): None on the two sites; adjacent to 350 Sherman (parking garage site) is a National Register eligible resource, 321 California Avenue, on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation Existing Improvement(s): The two blocks of the site are improved with asphalt and trees in planters in use as surface parking lots available to the public Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lots Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses) Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses) South/southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family residential land uses) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses) Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses) South/southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family residential land uses) Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: 250 Sherman: Public Facilities; 350 Sherman: Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, within 150 feet of multiple family residential land use Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2015: Council directed cost and impacts analysis to increase parking spaces beyond minimum 460 spaces, and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review of a 3-story PSB on Parking Lot C-6 and of a new Parking Garage on Parking Lot C- 7 with 460 spaces and 4,700 sf of commercial space. 250 Sherman 350 Sherman City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 April 2017: Council will provide direction on legislative approach PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: None. Environmental Review As noted, the purpose of this PTC meeting is to conduct a Scoping Session to “kick-off” the environmental impact report preparation process. The subject project has been preliminarily assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Scoping Session is an optional first stage in the environmental review process when the Lead Agency has determined an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project. The attached Draft Initial Study (IS, Attachment C) and Notice of Preparation (Attachment B) were circulated to the State Clearinghouse and notice was provided as per CEQA guidelines. Initial Study The attached IS does not provide any analysis or substantial evidence for the topics that will be evaluated in the EIR. The IS notes the project has the potential to result in significant impacts and that it could meet specific conditions set forth in CEQA, necessitating detailed analysis. It is possible that sufficient mitigation measures could be developed to reduce impacts to ‘less than significant’ levels. It is also possible that mitigation measures would not reduce impacts and that Council could consider adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Draft IS identifies several topic areas needing further study, and several potential adverse impacts upon the environment; it was published on March 24, 2017. The IS notes the project as having potentially significant impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, Energy, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Council will be the decision-making body for the project and will make the final determination with respect to the EIR. The Council may approve or deny the project. If the Council approves the project, the Council may adopt mitigation measures to lessen the identified environmental effects. Council may also consider making a statement of overriding considerations related to impacts that are not mitigated to “less than significant” status. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that notice of this public meeting be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance of the meeting. Notice of this meeting and availability of the Notice of Preparation was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 24, 2017. The PTC City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 meeting notice was again published on March 31, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Following submittal of a planning entitlement application, additional analysis may be required as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Notice of Preparation (PDF)  Attachment B: Signed Initial Study (PDF)  Attachment C: Location Map (DOCX)  Attachment D: Record of Survey August 2016 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment A: Location Map 250 Sherman 350 Sherman Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7891) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Middle Plaza and Mountain View Bayfront DEIR Comment Letters Title: Review Draft Comment Letters to the City of Menlo Park and Mountain View for projects located at 500 El Camino Real (Middle Plaza Project) and North Bayshore Precise Plan Amendment, Mountain View. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC): 1. Discuss two proposed projects in neighboring jurisdictions: the Middle Plaza Project in Menlo Park, and the Bayshore Precise Plan Amendment in Mountain View, and 2. Review the draft comment letters that staff has prepared regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for these projects. Comments made at tonight’s meeting will be included in the respective letters. Report Summary In late February, the City received notice that Menlo Park and Mountain View were circulating Draft EIRs on important projects proximate to Palo Alto. In the case of Menlo Park, the project is a large mixed use development located at 500 El Camino Real, within the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area. In Mountain View, the project is an amendment to their North Bayshore Precise Plan. The planning area for this project is located between US101 and San Francisco Bay at the east end of Shoreline Blvd. Staff has reviewed each of these reports and the draft comments on the Draft EIRs are included in the two letters attached for the PTC to review. The letters of comment are due on April 13, for Menlo Park, and April 17, for Mountain View. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The City routinely receives environmental documents from other agencies when those agencies are considering projects that may affect Palo Alto. In all cases, agencies request comments from the City within a prescribed time period, and the City endeavors to provide timely, focused responses that reflect the interests of the City and the community. Middle Plaza Draft EIR, Menlo Park The Middle Plaza project is located within Menlo Park’s El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area. Because the project is generally consistent with anticipated development outlined in the specific plan, the corresponding specific plan programmatic EIR can be used for this project. For this proposal, a focused environmental evaluation was completed using the Infill Environmental Checklist that identified concerns that were not previously analyzed (in the Specific Plan EIR) and require further study. In the case of this project, Menlo Park identified Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic as concerns requiring additional environmental review. The project documents can be found at: https://www.menlopark.org/172/500-El-Camino-Real-Project and the DEIR can be found at https://www.menlopark.org/1096/Infill-Environmental-Impact- Report. The proposed Middle Plaza Project at 500 El Camino Real includes combining six parcels that encompass 8.4 acres between El Camino Real and the Caltrain right-of-way (300, 305, 444, 550 El Camino Real). The project is anticipated to increase the population by 512 people and create 500 new jobs. The existing commercial structures would be demolished and replaced with five new buildings that would accommodate the following:  215 housing units  144,000 SF of non-medical office space  10,000 SF of ground floor retail and restaurant space  960 parking spaces in two level underground parking garages and surface parking lots, with 4 curb cuts for access/egress onto El Camino Real. The impact of the mixed use on the parking requirement has not yet been determined. In the staff review, the principle issue that was identified as a concern for Palo Alto was the impact of the project on traffic on El Camino Real that would spill over into Palo Alto. The attached letter lists specific concerns (Attachment A). North Bayshore Precise Plan Amendment (2017) DEIR, Mountain View The Mountain View Draft EIR concerns an amendment to the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which was most recently amended in 2015. In the 2015 amendment, Mountain View added 1,100 dwelling units to the proposed office development to the area currently developed with industrial and R&D uses. In that amendment it was anticipated that the existing industrial and R&D space would be replaced with office space with higher density employee occupancies. This assumption of a shift from industrial and R&D space to office uses with higher densities of employees continues in the current amendment, along with more proposed office development. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The North Bayshore area is about 630 acres located on the east side of US101, between the bay and freeway. The north end of this planning area abuts the City of Palo Alto Bayfront area. Access to the area is via three ‘gateways’ one of which is San Antonio Road that divides Palo Alto and Mountain View. The amended plan would propose by 2030 to add in the area:  3/2 million square feet of new office/commercial development  9,850 multiple family dwelling units (70% micro and one bedroom units, 20% affordable). The proposed development would be basically aggregated into three neighborhoods developed to urban densities. All three neighborhoods are concentrated at the center of the area at the east end of Shoreline Road. The DEIR can be found on the City of Mountain View’s website under: http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22104. The North Bayshore Precise Plan Amendment Draft EIR identifies a number of significant and significant unavoidable impacts. However, the focus of the Palo Alto response is on those areas in which the development would directly impact Palo Alto. City staff members in Public Works, Utilities, Fire, at the Palo Alto Airport, and in Planning have reviewed the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR. These reviewers’ concerns regarding the environmental analysis for this project are included in the attached letter (Attachment B). In general, the potential impacts on Palo Alto include: Hazards (Palo Alto Airport), Noise (night time noise transmission/aviation generated noise), Public Services (Fire access for mutual aid), Transportation and Traffic (issues related to impacts of significant and significant and unavoidable impacts on intersections in Palo Alto, impacts on Caltrain capacity, TDM implementation, limited access to the area and US101 capacity), and cumulative analysis (impact on the Peninsula). Discussion In recent cases, responses to Draft EIR documents have been developed at the staff level or at the City Council level. In the case of these two reports, staff could not schedule a review by the City Council, but did not feel that staff-level review was sufficient. This is because the studies show that the proposed projects will have significant, and in some cases, significant unavoidable impacts on the City of Palo Alto services and residents. Although specific mitigations within Palo Alto are not suggested, the long-term effects of these proposals should be considered in the context of Palo Alto’s future planning and coordination with both Mountain View and Menlo Park. PTC suggestions regarding the content and tone of the letters presented tonight would be welcome, although staff does not necessarily envision an official action or motion and does not anticipate the Commissioners will have time to review both of the Draft EIRs in detail. Staff expects to mail the final comment letters to the respective cities immediately following the PTC review/input. As noted the Middle Plaza (Menlo Park) Notice of Availability responses are due April 13 and the Mountain View responses are due April 17. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The requested action to review and comment on these two DEIRs does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore CEQA does not apply to this agenda item. Public Notification A notice of a public meeting for this discussion item was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 31, 2017. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Clare Campbell, Senior Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-3191 (650) 329-2679 clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Margaret Monroe, Management Specialist (650) 329-2425 margaret.monroe@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Comment Letter for Middle Plaza 500 El Camino Real (DOCX)  Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter for North Bayshore Precise Plan, Mountain View (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org March 27, 2017 Jean Lin, Senior Planner City of Menlo Park - Planning Division 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Infill Environmental Impact Report for Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real Project (State Clearinghouse #2016062053) Dear Ms. Lin: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Infill Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real Project (the “Project”). Recognizing our many shared interests, the City of Palo Alto has the following comments on the DEIR. A. Transportation 1. Intersection 25: The northbound El Camino Real on-ramp from the El Camino Real/University intersection is signalized at this location. Please ensure this movement is included in all scenarios and accurately reflected in the lane configuration figure. 2. Intersection 26: SB El Camino Real off-ramp has no through movement. Please remove this movement from the lane configuration figure and reassign trips accordingly. 3. Intersection 28: Palo Alto has a fully funded intersection improvement project at this location which is altering roadway geometry and will be constructed in the next 1-2 years. Please ensure intersection lane configuration for the background and cumulative scenarios reflects the configuration of the future improvements. 4. Intersection 28: The SB El Camino Real approach to Embarcadero/Galvez includes a channelized right turn lane which is not shown in the lane configuration figure. Please revise the lane configuration figure for accuracy, but note it will be removed as part of the project noted in comment #3. 5. Intersection 28: The average delay for this intersection in the DEIR is 7-8 seconds less than the average delay calculated for a recent city project. Please verify. 6. Trip Distribution: Based on regional distribution of employment and housing, the Transportation Division believes a much greater share of employment trips will originate along the US-101 corridor than 7%, the current estimate. Furthermore, 37% employment trips approaching/departing from the East Bay appears uncharacteristically high. Page 2 of 2 7. Additional intersections: Altered trip distribution may exceed ten peak-hour trips per lane per hour at additional intersections within the city of Palo Alto. This figure is the city’s standard threshold for including signalized intersections as part of TIA’s. Accordingly, please include Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road; Lytton Avenue & Alma Street; and Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road as study intersections. Include additional intersections if estimated trip distribution exceeds the ten-peak hour trips per lane threshold. 8. The Transportation Division recommends that transit passes, specifically the Caltrain GO pass, be included with the TDM measures to further reduce trips since the project is walking distance to the Menlo Park Caltrain station. As proposed, it appears transit passes are not part of the TDM program. 9. It’s unclear if adequate land area, proposed roadway design, or building orientation is provided to accommodate the planned Middle Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing beneath the Caltrain corridor. Menlo Park’s El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan identify this as a future grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing to align with potential Class II bike lanes on Middle Avenue. Please verify that the Project provides adequate land area and appropriate site planning to accommodate the future development of the undercrossing as specified. Furthermore, fair-share funding of this crossing was identified as a mitigation measure in the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project EIR. B. Land Use and Planning 1. The infill checklist states that the project is not within a planning area for a conservation plan, but the project appears to be located within the boundary of the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. The checklist discussion should include clarification on this issue and the Project’s consistency with the plan. Thank you again for giving the City of Palo Alto an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Hillary Gitelman Director of Planning and Community Environment Cc: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission James Keene, City Manager Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director PCE March 31, 2017 Mr. Martin Alkire Principal Planner Community Development Department First Floor 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Precise Plan in Mountain View (State Clearinghouse #2013082088) Dear Mr. Alkire, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Amendment to the North Bayshore Precise Plan (Clearing House #2013082088). Given the shared boundary of the North Bayshore Precise Planning area with Palo Alto and our many shared interests, the City of Palo Alto offers the following comments on the DEIR. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. In the aviation study there is discussion that the Palo Alto Airport is about 9,480 feet (from the western boundary) northwest of the North Bayshore area. (p. 295) However, the fact that the published approach minimums to the Palo Alto Airport over the planning area may be affected is not addressed. The addition of structures as tall as 15 stories, outside of the Moffitt Field impacted area could affect the operations of the Palo Alto Airport. This should be addressed in the DEIR and appropriate mitigations considered, including Palo Alto’s request that as parcels are individually developed, avigation easements should be required. These easements should acknowledge the presence of the Palo Alto Airport published approach minimums and that the parcel/development would be subject to aircraft over flights as well as other aviation impacts (vibrations, fumes, dust, noise etc.) from the aircraft using the Palo Alto Airport. Noise and Vibration 2. The noise analysis presented in the DEIR notes that sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours. The study goes on to present noise measurements from two concerts at Shoreline Amphitheater (both included measurement of evening hours). The conclusion is that the maximum noise level from these events was less than the threshold of significance. (Pg. 360,) However, it was noted that noise levels from Shoreline Amphitheatre are highest at the northernmost portions of the Precise Plan area ranging from 55 to 63 dBA. (Pg. 365) The analysis does not address the impact of atmospheric conditions on the transmission of noise particularly at night when ambient noise levels are low. During many events at Shoreline Amphitheater the sound can be clearly heard in portions of Palo Alto north of the planning area, Page 2 of 4 particularly during the summer months. The analysis should include the impacts on outdoor activity within the project area as well as on the long distance noise transmission at night during periods of atmospheric conditions that might impact noise transmission on locations north of the North Bayshore Precise Plan Area. More study is needed. 3. The DEIR indicates that the planning area is outside of the 65dBA zone from the Palo Alto Airport (1.6 miles away). (Pg. 362). However, the DEIR does not address the fact that the published approach minimums to the Palo Alto Airport are over the North Bayshore area. (See Hazards above). The potential impacts of this noise source on development within the planning area should be evaluated both in point source and cumulative noise analysis. In addition mitigation should be added to include noise and vibration impacts from the Palo Alto Airport over flights in the required avigation easement for each new development. Public Services 4. The DEIR notes that the amended North Bayshore Precise Plan increase in demand for fire protection services would not result in the need to expand or construct new fire facilities. (Pg. 395) The City of Palo Alto would note that the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View have both automatic aid and boundary drop agreements that send the closest fire unit to a call no matter what the jurisdiction and location of the call. These services include emergency medical and rescue assistance, assistance to suppress fires, as well as assistance to mitigate other types of emergencies. Given this agreement, Palo Alto could be affected by and additional public safety impacts could be created by the increase in resident and daytime population in the North Bayshore area. In addition, since the agreement includes response times, the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the traffic section of this DEIR could create inequities in the ability of Palo Alto Fire Department to meet the acceptable response performance standards into the City of Mountain View. This issue should be addressed in the DEIR and mitigations added. Transportation and Traffic 5. The largest number of significant impacts and the ones that cannot be mitigated identified in the DEIR are those related to traffic, and, in turn, on transportation that cannot move within the gridlock created by the traffic from the proposed project. a. With the project, because of their location relative to the northern most ‘gateway’ into the project area, two intersections in Palo Alto will experience significant impact that cannot be mitigated: San Antonio Road/E. Bayshore Parkway and Embarcadero Road/E. Bayshore Road. (Pg. 465) Mitigation should be added to provide for cooperation between the City of Mountain View and Palo Alto to achieve possible improvements and to require developers within the project area to support the funding of improvements that can be made to these intersections. A mitigation should be added that the Mountain View TDM model include collecting regular data on these intersections and when the traffic caps are reached add TDM programs that will address the traffic impacts at these locations. (Pg. 496) b. The traffic impacts also identify the project caused need for a new signal at Page Mill and Arastradero at the PM peak hour. (Pg. 465) Mitigation should be added to have Page 3 of 4 Mountain View should contribute to the Arastradero/Foothill Expressway Plan with a group of jurisdictions working on ‘hot spots’ in this area. c. The traffic analysis documents a project impact on 22 US101 segments, two of these affect Palo Alto directly: Embarcadero to Rengsdorff and Whipple to Oregon Expressway. (Pg. 484). The City of Palo Alto supports the mitigation proposed that Mountain View make a contribution toward freeway improvements. (Pg.489) This mitigation was not identified as reducing the impact of the project to less than significant on these freeway segments because the timing of the improvements could not be guaranteed to coincide with the increased trips generated, but shared funding, without regard for timing, is the appropriate way to address the project impact as well as the cumulative impacts. Further a mitigation should be added for Mountain View to participate in the development of a regional fee for freeway improvements is one is proposed by a regional agency. (Pg. 489) 6. Transit Service a. The project is projected to generate 6,800 peak hour transit riders (Pg. 490). The project includes implementation programs to enhance service connectivity to Caltrain and VTA light rail. However, the study does not address the impact of the projected increased ridership on Caltrain service that is already at or over capacity. This impact needs study. The mitigation for expanding the connecting transit services to be funded from private employers, landowners, city and regional sources, should also include programs to address impacts on Caltrain service and capacity. (Pg. 490) 7. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) a. In several parts of the Transportation and Traffic section the city’s TDM program including an added ‘trip cap’ program are identified as mitigation measures for reducing impacts to less than significant. However, it is noted that TDM programs will not fully address the significant impacts in many cases. (Pg. 496) It is important that the TDM program and particularly the ‘trip cap’ model be written so that it can evaluate changes over the cap limits as they occur in significantly impacted intersections in Palo Alto so TDM measures to address these changes can be implemented and their effects measured over time with mitigations changing as appropriate. This should be addressed in a mitigation measure. b. In the TDM impact analysis it is also noted that while the City of Mountain View could not directly reduce the impact of the project on the affected freeway segments, the City could make a fairshare contribution to freeway improvements. The report points out that, while a fair share contribution is not considered a mitigation it is an appropriate finding for Overriding Considerations. (Pg. 496). Palo Alto strongly supports Mountain View making a fair share contribution to freeway improvements. (See 5c above) Page 4 of 4 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian a. In the Bicycle/Pedestrian analysis a pedestrian/bicycle overpass of 101 at Adobe Creek and the Palo Alto Baylands is proposed to fill in an access gap. (Pg. 492). Palo Alto supports more bay access and improvements that encourage alternative modes of transportation. However, it is noted that this and other overpass bridges should be designed to later accommodate extension of light rail. (Pg. 494) Palo Alto would encourage the design of these bridges to continue to provide pedestrian and bicycle access after light rail is installed. Cumulative Analysis 1. This analysis documents that with the build out of this project traffic signals will need to be added at Page Mill and Arastradero. A mitigation should be added to have Mountain View join with the other jurisdictions already working on this in this area. 2. The cumulative analysis addresses ‘impacts on several transit corridors’ but still does not include specific information on either the short term or long term impacts on Caltrain capacity and service. (Pg. 538) Please address. 3. Significant and unavoidable impacts on 40 intersections are described in the cumulative traffic analysis. (Pg. 538) Twelve of these intersections are in Palo Alto strung along San Antonio, Charleston, and Embarcadero Roads generally between US101 and as far west as Alma and El Camino Real. (Pg. 509-511). Mitigation to include coordinated TDM programs and shared funding where appropriate for possible improvements and maintenance overtime should be addressed. Thank you again for giving Palo Alto the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Amendment to the North Bayshore Precise Plan. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Jonathan Liat, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment at Jonathan.Liat@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Hillary Gitelman Director of Planning and Community Environment Cc: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission James Keene, City Manager Margaret Monroe, Management Specialist, Planning and Community Environment