Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-05-31 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet
REVISED _______________________ 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: May 31, 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. a. Assistant Director Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments b.Comprehensive Plan Sub Committee Process and Schedule Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00086]: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of a Proposal for an Overpass Structure Near San Antonio Road, and Trail, and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 3.375 Hamilton Avenue, Downtown Garage: 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 a Surface Parking Lot with REVISED _______________________ 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. Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Contact Holly Boyd at holly.boyd@cityofpaloalto.org 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 260 California Avenue [16PLN-00289]: Request for a Hearing on the Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Sale of Beer, Wine, and Liquor in Conjunction With a Restaurant With an Outdoor Seating Area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P). For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.April 26 and May 10, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment April 26, 2017 May 10, 2016 REVISED _______________________ 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 # 7758) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/31/2017 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 5-31-17 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 Rosenblum, Summa, 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Rosenblum 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 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 May 22, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics June 14 Downtown Parking Management Implementation #1 2755 El Camino Real: Zoning Text and Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Site and Design Application for a new Housing Development. 305 N. California Ave: Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit June 28 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 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: Final Public Hearing & Recommendation to the City Council on the Final EIR and Plan Update September 27 Comp Plan Update: Putting it Together and Final 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 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MAY 31, 2017 REGULAR MEETING SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1B – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS AND SCHEDULE This memo is intended to supplement and update information in your packet regarding the PTC’s review of the Comprehensive Plan Update. At an earlier meeting, the Commission discussed its plan to create subcommittees to conduct its review of the Comprehensive Plan Update when the draft plan is referred to the Commission for review. Since then, the PTC has met with the City Council in joint session, where this subject was referenced, and City staff has been able to clarify the process set forth in the operable section of the Municipal Code. Staff is hoping the Commission can again have a brief discussion about its review of the Comprehensive Plan Update this summer, and this memo provides recommendations and meeting dates based on the Commission’s last discussion. Staff is requesting that the City Council refer the draft plan to the PTC on June 12, after which staff will make any requested changes and transmit the document to the PTC on or before June 30, 2017. This would enable the PTC to start its review. PTC’s Review Responsibility Section 19.04.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the planning commission “shall have the primary duty to prepare, adopt, and recommend to the City Council for their adoption, a long range, comprehensive general plan…” and subsequent sections of the Code specify relevant duties and procedures. The City Council initiated the update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2006 and the PTC prepared changes between 2008 and 2014, ultimately transmitting their recommendations to the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s recommendations, the City Council elected to make additional changes, creating a Citizens Advisory Committee to engage in further dialog and community outreach to inform the Council’s amendments. Section 19.04.080 of the Municipal Code describes two processes for adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update and reflects the State law as it existed in 1955. Former Government Code sections 65501 through 65510 apply to updates initiated by the PTC, while former Government Code sections 65511 through 65513 apply to updates initiated by the Council. The procedures are very similar in both instances: the PTC must hold at least one public hearing prior before making a recommendation to the Council. Where the PTC has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred back to the PTC for a 45 day review period; where the Council has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred to the PTC for a 90 day review period. In both cases, once this review period is complete, the City Council may ultimately adopt an update to the Comprehensive Plan at a noticed public hearing (former Gov. Code Section 65514). This process is similar to the one under current State law, which provides that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, for adoption by the City Council. Under current State law, however, the Planning Commission has only 45 days after council referral to submit its report. As explained above, the prior law incorporated into the Municipal Code provides the PTC with a review period of up to 90 days. As noted above, staff is requesting that the City Council refer the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC on June 12, 2017, and that the Council’s referral would be effective (and the PTC’s review period would start), when the document is transmitted to the PTC on or before June 30, 2017. Suggested Approach to PTC Review • Staff will review the subcommittee structure and schedule with the PTC on May 31 and ask the Chair to appoint subcommittee members. • Once the Council refers the draft plan to the PTC (expected on June 12), staff will revise the draft plan to reflect the Council’s input and transmit the document to the PTC with background materials on or before June 30. • The PTC would commence its review with a July 12, 2017 Orientation Meeting, where staff would provide an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update history, organization, major issues, and legal requirements. We could also review the process for we’re using for the PTC’s review once again. • Subcommittees would be established for the purpose of framing recommendations for the full PTC. The PTC’s recommendations will take the form of motions with a list of recommended adjustments/changes rather than in the form of tracked-changes versions of the draft Plan. • The Subcommittees would be asked to complete their work one week before the PTC meeting on individual elements/sections of the plan, as shown in the table below. If subcommittee members would like to meet more than once, they should schedule their additional meetings before the dates shown here and alert staff so staff can participate if feasible. • Subcommittee members will have copies of the PTC staff report on their elements/sections of the plan prior to their final meeting. The staff report will help the subcommittee’s work by identifying key issues. This will make it easier for the subcommittee members to frame the key issues, comments and potential policy changes that the entire PTC should address at their Regular meeting. The goal is for the subcommittees to draft motions to guide the PTC’s discussion of individual elements. The product of the subcommittee meetings is a brief memo that outlines the subcommittee’s proposed motion(s). Subcommittee meetings are tentatively scheduled for 1.5 to 2.0 hours on Tuesday afternoons, as shown in the table below. These meetings are intended to identify major policy issues and comments vs. editing the Elements. Subcommittees have two members, ideally representing different perspectives. Table 1. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PTC REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DATE ACTION Tuesday, May 31 Meet with the PTC to discuss the subcommittee schedule and request the Chair to appointment members1 Monday, June 12 City Council Referral of the Comp Plan to the PTC Friday, June 30 Staff transmits the plan to the PTC with background information2 Wednesday, July 12 PTC meeting –Comprehensive Plan Update Orientation Tuesday, July 18 Subcommittee on Land Use and Transportation Elements Wednesday, July 26 PTC meeting- Land Use and Transportation Elements Tuesday, August 1 Subcommittee on Safety and Natural Environment Elements Wednesday, August 9 PTC meeting-Safety and Natural Environment Elements Tuesday, August 15 Subcommittee on Community Services and Business & Economics Elements Friday, August 18 Staff transmits the Final EIR to the PTC Wednesday, August 30 PTC meeting: -Community Services and Business & Economics Elements, Wednesday, September 13 PTC meeting - Introduction, Governance and Implementation Chapters, Recommendation to the City Council on the Comp Plan and Final EIR Notes: (1) Subcommittee appointments should attempt to balance perspectives and be cognizant of Commissioners’ availability/travel plans over the summer. (2) The 90-day review would start June 30, so a final meeting could be scheduled for September 27 if necessary. Planning & Community Environment, May 26, 2017 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8014) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/31/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing Title: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00086]: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of a Proposal for an Overpass Structure Near San Antonio Road, and Trail, and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff requests the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a study session of the proposed project and provide comments to staff. Report Summary Staff seeks preliminary feedback from the PTC concerning a proposal to construct a Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101. The basic parameters and design of the bridge have been established and PTC’s role in reviewing the project is provided in the analysis section. The overcrossing would replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Highway 101 underpass in order to provide year-round connectivity between residential and commercial properties west of Highway 101 and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Business Park, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The proposed project spans multiple Zoning Districts, including the Pubic Facilities Zone with a Site and Design Review Overlay (PF[D]), the Public Facilities (PF) Zone, the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 (ROLM) Zone, and the GM Zone. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Light Industrial and Research Office Park on the west side of Highway 101 and Publicly Owned Conservation Land on the East side of Highway 101. There are four distinct sections of the overcrossing that are discussed in more detail throughout this report. These are referred to as the Principal Span Structure, the West Approach Structure, the East Approach Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge. These distinct sections of the overcrossing are designed using different structure types that are responsive to site constraints and ensure the structural integrity of the bridge based on the proposed span and alignment of that section. These separate sections are designed to transition seamlessly to present a single cohesive overcrossing. The proposed project also includes a new trailhead connection to the Adobe Creek Bridge and East Approach Structure from East Meadow Drive that follows the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road, herein referred to as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The project also includes the minor reconfiguration of Google’s private parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road to accommodate the East Approach Structure as well as connections to regional trails, drainage, site amenities, landscaping and lighting improvements. A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. The proposed project plans are provided in Attachment E. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Civil Engineer/Architect: Roy Schnabel, Principal, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc./ FMG Representative: Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Sr. Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: Approximately 0.3 miles north of San Antonio Road, Neighborhood: Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park Neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: 127-10-100 (89,941 sf); 127-56-006 (38,619 sf); 008-05-005 (44,645,693); 127-10-076 (89,941 sf) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Crosses existing roadways, including East and West Bayshore Road frontages and Highway 101; crosses over, and requires City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 reconfiguration of, the existing Google parking lot; and follows an existing SCVWD maintenance road on the west side of Highway 101 out to East Meadow Drive. Existing Land Uses: The majority of the project spans Caltrans right-of-way over Highway 101 or City right-of-way across the Bayshore Road frontages. The overcrossing approaches would be located on publicly owned conservation land on the east side of Highway 101 and land designated as Research Office on the west side of Highway 101. Most of the western approach structure, the Adobe Creek Trail bridge, and the Adobe Creek trail improvements would occur within Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) property adjacent Adobe Creek, which crosses land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Research Office and Light Industrial but that is currently used as a SCVWD access road. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Office, Caltrans right-of-way, and Publicly Owned Conservation land uses (ROLM and PF[D] Zone Districts) West: Research Office land use and some multi-family residential land uses (ROLM Zone District) East: Publicly Owned Conservation Land (Palo Alto Baylands) (PF[D] Zone District) South: Office/manufacturing Uses (GM Zone) on the east side of Highway 101, Caltrans and City street right-of-way and Research office and Research office/City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering offices on the west side of 101 (ROLM (D)(AD) Zone District) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Sources: Google Maps; Biggs Cardosa Associates Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PF (D), PF, ROLM, GM Comp. Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Light Industrial and Research Office on the west City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 side of Highway 101 and Publicly Owned Conservation Land on the East side of Highway 101. Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Other: The pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing alignment must comply with applicable Caltrans and CPUC clearances. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail path located within SCVWD property must conform to Santa Clara County’s Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): The overcrossing is not within 150 feet of residential uses or districts. However, the proposed project includes minor improvements to an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) levee/maintenance road adjacent and east of Adobe Creek, ending at East Meadow Drive, which would be known as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. This trailhead is located within 150 feet of multi-family residential uses on the west side of Adobe Creek and would become one of two main trailhead access point from the west approach (the other would be along West Bayshore Drive). Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Special Setback There is a special setback requirement of 24 feet along West Bayshore Road. Utility Easement/Corridor High voltage electric overhead and high pressure gas main PG&E utility easements, City utility easements, U.S. Highway 101, and SCVWD Rights-of-Way /corridors Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Council conducted a hearing on 11/7/16; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54482 During the hearing Council approved a motion to increase the budget for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, capital Improvements Program City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 (CIP) Project PE-11011; accept the $1 million contribution from Google use towards contingency funds; and to incorporate “enhanced amenities” for an additional cost of $0.13 million. Prior Council Actions on Project Website; http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/facilities/bridge_project/default.asp PTC: None HRB: None ARB: August 7, 2014 Study Session of Design Principles https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43282 No action was taken during this study session. May 4, 2017 Preliminary Study Session; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57467 Meeting Minutes Link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57836 On May 4, 2017 the ARB conducted a preliminary study session to provide input on the 15 percent design concept for the project. During the hearing ARB provided preliminary feedback on the proposed finish of the bridge, asked for refinement in the design of the bow string truss/pratt truss connection, commented on signage and lighting, and discussed the location of amenities. One board member asked to explore a better connection of the east approach structure and the trailhead. In addition, the idea of a traffic circle at the east approach structure trailhead entrance was encouraged. PRC: One session March 28, 2016; Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56624 No action was taken during this hearing. Commissioners primarily commented on the lighting, landscaping, and overlook, and encouraged staff to explore other options for material of the pathway connecting the Adobe Creek Bridge and the entrance from East Meadow Drive. Project Description The project description is provided as Attachment D to this report. Attachment D also provides a complete summary of design process efforts to date and highlights the goals and constraints of the project. As noted previously, the proposed project includes four sections of the overcrossing, including the Principal Span Structure, the West Approach Structure, East Approach Structure, and the Adobe Creek Bridge, as described in more detail below. The Project Plans in Attachment E provide images of the concept design. As shown in the plans, other pedestrian friendly amenities such as lighting, signage, benches, bike racks, and drinking fountains are proposed as part of the overcrossing and trail head design. Principal Span Structure City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The Principal Span Structure is perpendicular to and spans Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans, spanning 165 feet across Highway 101 and 60 and 70 feet, respectively, across East and West Bayshore Roads. The minimum height of the principal span bowstring truss structure is 18.5 feet above the highway surface and 17 feet above the East and West Bayshore Roads per applicable City and Caltrans clearance requirements. The bowstring truss arch reaches a top height of approximately 40 feet above the center highway surface. There is an eight foot vinyl clad safety fence located on the outside edges of this span. The safety fence includes 1 inch square opening per Caltrans standards. The proposed project is 14 feet wide across the Principal Span Structure. West Approach Structure The alignment of the west approach structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure. The West approach consists of a four span, 2’6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’6” X 5’0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts. The span lengths vary between approximately 40 to 50 feet. The eight foot vinyl clad safety fencing over Highway 101 portion of the bridge reduces to 4 feet high along the concrete approach ramps. East Approach Structure The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximately 168-degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The east approach structure consists of a seven span, 2’6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’6” X 5’0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts, consistent with the design of the West Approach Structure. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long. The safety railings will be 4’ high on the East Approach Structure. The East Approach will include an overlook between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide trail users a viewing point toward the Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle traffic. It will also include seating to provide users a place to pause and rest. Adobe Creek Bridge The Adobe Creek Bridge will connect the West Approach and the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. It consists of a 140 foot long, 14 foot wide prefabricated steel pratt truss spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the 4 foot high safety railing of the structure. The abutments will be concrete, supported by large diameter piles. Adobe Creek Reach Trail The Adobe Creek Trailhead/West Plaza is approximately 1,300 sf and connects the proposed Adobe Creek Bridge with the proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The plaza provides an access option to West Bayshore Road as well as an access option to continue onto the Adobe Creek Reach Trail, which will follow the Adobe Creek maintenance road out to East Meadow Drive. A gravel surface is proposed at this time for the Adobe Creek Reach trail between the plaza and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 East Meadow Road; however, an alternative may be to consider impervious pavement at an additional cost. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail is 620 feet in length and approximately 14-16 feet wide. The plaza along West Bayshore Road is approximately 1,300 square feet plaza along West Bayshore Road; 8-foot wide x 115 foot long access ramp/raised sidewalk. The new fence along the Adobe Creek Reach Trail is proposed to mount on the existing concrete barrier along Adobe Creek to a minimum height of 4 feet above the trail surface to meet ADA requirements. The Project Plans in Attachment E provide images of the concept design. The prefabricated steel surfaces will be self-weathering, consistent with several ARB members’ comments on the proposed project during the study session. As shown in the plans, other pedestrian friendly amenities such as lighting, signage, benches, bike racks, and drinking fountains are proposed as part of the overcrossing and trail head design. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: Staff is requesting the PTC’s initial input on these plans prior to advancing them to 35 percent of the design concept for the formal application submittal. Following completion of this preliminary review, the applicant would submit a formal application. The following discretionary applications will eventually be requested and subject to PTC purview: Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forward to the City Council for final action. Site and Design projects are evaluated against specific findings that include both the ARB findings (ARB purview) and Site and design findings (PTC purview). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project re- design or denial. The findings for PTC to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time since no action is taking place. Additionally, the project requires approval for the following, which are not subject to PTC review: Park Improvement Ordinance: The project would also require a Park Improvement Ordinance, which would be reviewed for recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission and forwarded to City Council for final action. Public Art: The applicant is exploring options and artists for on-site public art. The Public Art Commission (PAC) will review and issue a determination on the proposed public art work in accordance with PAMC 16.61.070 prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The on-site art work is subject to the requirements outlined in PAMC 16.61.050 and 16.61.060 for eligible artwork. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Analysis1 The stated purpose of the project is to better connect the West Bayshore commercial and residential areas to the many multi-use trails in the Baylands on the east side of Highway 101. This would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by encouraging walking and biking to the Baylands area, improves safety for bikers along East Bayshore Road, and provides a connection to the regional trails in the Baylands for bikers commuting to nearby cities. Per Council direction, the 15 percent design concepts of the project were presented for Council consideration in November 2016. Council selected the design presented herein and directed staff to complete the environmental assessment and initiate the 35 percent design. Through previous study sessions and hearings, Council has determined the bridge alignment, height, width, and structure type. Staff requests that the PTC comment on the following aspects of the project, specifically as it relates to the site and design findings included in Attachment B: Refinements to the three trail heads at East Meadow Drive, East Bayshore Road, and West Bayshore Road The addition/design of the overlook landscaping Lighting Railing and fencing design The type of signage (e.g., directional/wayfinding signage) The Location of amenities (benches, drinking fountains, bike racks, trash receptacles) and signage at overlook and trailheads Neighborhood Setting and Character The location of the overcrossing is designed to connect existing roadways and trails to adjacent commercial and residential areas to provide a collective, functional system. West Bayshore Road includes several commercial centers along the road frontage and there are many newer multi-family housing units, as well as single family residences in the Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/ Meadowview Park neighborhoods, west of West Bayshore Road. The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail would connect to East Meadow Drive to provide improved access to the Baylands and to West Bayshore Road for residents walking or biking in the area. The west plaza and west approach structure is designed to provide easier, safer access for people using alternate transportation from West Bayshore Road, including employees of commercial areas along West Bayshore Road. The east approach structure is located within the Baylands; therefore the structure design, location, the trailhead and proposed vegetation planting is all designed within the context of consistency with the Baylands design guidelines and Baylands Master Plan and to connect into the regional Bay Trail network. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Zoning Compliance2 Staff has completed a basic review of the proposed project’s consistency with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and would complete a more thorough review of the proposed project’s consistency as part of the formal application. The proposed project is not subject to any interim ordinances or moratoriums. The proposed project spans multiple parcels located within multiple zone districts. The proposed Adobe Reach Trail is located within the GM, PF, and ROLM Zone Districts. The Adobe Creek Bridge is located within the ROLM Zone District. The West Approach Structure is located within the ROLM and PF Zone District. The Principal Span Structure is located within the PF Zone District and the East Approach Structure is located within the PF(D) Zone District. While this project technically requires that each portion of the bridge be developed based on its respective zoning, this is impractical given the purpose and design of the proposed infrastructure improvement. Staff will evaluate options to ensure the design meets the intent and objectives of the code, the comprehensive plan, the Baylands Master Plan, and other city policies. However, it is likely that the project will require variances or other discretionary approvals or legislative changes to formally entitle the project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan programs and policies support land use decisions and facilities that promote pedestrian and bicycle use, support a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle use, support improvements to the Bay trail network, and that support the responsible management of public open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals and supports public safety. The purpose of the proposed project is to better connect the West Bayshore commercial and residential areas to the many multi-use trails in the Baylands on the east side of Highway 101 in order to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage walking, biking and other alternate forms of transportation to this area. Therefore, the goals of the project align with the program and policy goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs outlined in the Transportation Element, the Community Services Element, the Land Use Element and the Natural Environment Element: Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, biking, public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Goal T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-model transit stations. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Policy T-17: Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. Program T-19: Encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities linking trips to parks, schools, retail, centers, and civic facilities, which enables and encourages residents and visitors to bicycle or walk for discretionary trips. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-26: Completed development of the Bay trail and Ridge Trail in Palo Alto Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvements. Policy C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101. Program L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas … in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. Consistency with the Baylands Master Plan4 and Baylands Design Guidelines5 The following Baylands Master Plan goals, policies and programs relate to this project: Policy 3: Expand Bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible. Policy 13: Follow Guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature preserve published in 2005. Policy 14: Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by 4 Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/baylandsmp.asp 5 Site Assessment and Design Guidelines: Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/13318 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The proposed project is consistent with Policy 3 because it expands opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians to enjoy the Baylands, providing opportunities to safely access this area without the need to drive and park. The rustic design selected for the bridge is intended to integrate into the Baylands design theme, which focuses on low-profile features, natural colors, and low maintenance. The bowstring and pratt trusses will be constructed using self-weathering steel, which results in a muted, natural coloring that is consistent with the general design principals. The self- weathering steel also reduces maintenance costs for repainting of the bridge. The bridge is designed to have as low of a profile as feasible while still meeting separation requirements between the City roads and Highway 101 below. The project is not within the Airport Influence Area, as identified in the Airport Land Use Plan. Signage has not yet been developed but will be designed consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines recommendations for signage. The proposed project would be located at the border of one of the two areas identified as “The Natural Unit” in the Palo Alto Baylands. The proposed project would be consistent with Natural Unit Policy 1, “Maintain the trails described in the access and circulation section.” The Baylands Master Plan also notes that the original vision for a natural environment was ample pedestrian and bicycle trails that link to regional trails with a limited role for automobiles. The project would be consistent with this vision. Consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan6 The proposed project incorporates both the top recommended Capital Improvement project under the across barrier connections category (ABC-1 Adobe Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing) and one of the top recommended projects under the trails category (TR-2 Adobe Creek Reach Trail) identified in Table 7-1 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The project would also be consistent with the following objectives outlined in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. A key strategy of Objective 2 is to remove and/or upgrade substandard bike lanes and trail crossing barriers to improve safety and convenience and key strategies of Objective 3 include 6 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 prioritizing enhancements to the Bay to Ridge trail corridor and expanding trail networks along creeks through partnership projects with regional agencies including the SCVWD. The project would be consistent with these strategies and objectives because it provides a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Baylands for residents and commercial developments on the East side of Highway 101, discouraging the use of single-occupancy vehicle trips to cross over the highway in order to take year-round advantage of this area. It also improves the existing bike lanes along East and West Bayshore Road, better connecting them to trails and residential/commercial areas. Multi-Modal Access, Circulation, and Parking The project improves multi-modal circulation in all directions with three additional trail heads (one at the Bay Trail off East Bayshore Road, one at West Bayshore Road, and one at East Meadow Drive). The trailhead at East Meadow Drive follows the SCVWD access road to where it meets the West Plaza at the base of the west approach structure. A grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 could serve a variety of users for commute, utilitarian, and recreational trips. The overpass would be accessible for bicycles, pedestrians, skaters, strollers, wheelchairs and power-assisted mobility devices, serving a cross-section of residents from infants to the elderly and those with pets. Therefore, the design of the over crossing must be wide enough to provide maneuvering space for pedestrians and bicyclists while also attempting to slow bicyclists so as not to speed. The design is intended to separate directions of travel and staff is seeking input from the PTC on signage identifying desired user behavior (e.g., slower traffic keep right). There are no at-grade crossing facilities on East and West Bayshore Roads proposed for the project. However, signage could be provided to alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of a crossing from the northbound bicycles traveling on West Bayshore Road to the overcrossing trail head. An at-grade crossing on East Meadow Drive to the new Adobe Creek Reach Trail head is proposed to provide a better alternative to access the overcrossing than from West Bayshore Road. The proposed project eliminates the need for the existing sidewalk located on the vehicle bridge over Adobe Creek; therefore, a dedicated southbound bike lane is proposed for West Bayshore Road in place of this existing sidewalk. Because the proposed project would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by providing a multi- use connection between commercial and residential areas and the Baylands, staff is not preparing a traffic study. In addition, no new public parking is required as a result of the proposed project. Per the Transportation Division’s request, the driveway and parking has been reconfigured in the private Google parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road to improve circulation exit/entrance and avoid conflicts with the overcrossing column supports. There would be no net loss or increase of parking stalls. Although some trees would need to be removed, these trees would be replaced. The project engineer is working with the City’s landscape architect to balance the tree number with storm water drainage needs. The reconfiguration over the parking layout shifts parking stalls towards the existing building, away from the southern corner of the site owned by the City, to accommodate the raised sidewalk and accessible landing of the overcrossing approach ramp. The landscape area around the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 parking lot may also serve as a bio-retention area and potential site for a future storm pump facility in the southern end of the parking lot. Environmental Review This is a preliminary review process in which commissioners may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. A full review under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would be initiated with the formal filing for a development application. The proposed project would be subject to NEPA, in addition to CEQA, because it may involve the use of federal funds administered by the Federal Highway Administration. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 19, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 17, 2017 which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Public comments received during the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission March 28, 2017 study session included the desire to complete a functional, cost-effective bridge as soon as possible, consideration to enhance the site vegetation within the Baylands, and requests for the public art component of the project to be bird friendly, to not have an overlook because it may not be used, and a request for a dog drinking fountain. Some public comments sent to commissioners prior to the meeting would like to see the Pope/Chaucer and Newell Road Bridge projects built first. Additional oral and written comments were provided at the ARB hearing held on May 4, 2017. Oral comments expressed an interest again in a dog drinking fountain, an interest in exploring bird friendly features (e.g. soffit areas) for swallows to nest, and noted that LED lights should not be used if feasible because they are not bird friendly. In addition, one commenter noted that this bridge will be an important connection to the regional bay trails to provide a better route for those biking to work in neighboring cities. Many commenters noted that this project should be finished as soon as possible. Written comments provided since the PRC hearing are included in Attachment C. Report Author & Contact Information PTC7 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.orgl jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) 7 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Attachment B: Site and Design Objectives (DOCX) Attachment C: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment D: Project Description (DOC) Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 01 09-001 127-09-002 127-09-003 127-09-004 127-09-005 127-09-006 127-09-007 127-10-106 127-11-065 127-09-008 127-09-009 127-09-010 127-09-011 127-09-012 127-10-050 127-09-013 127-10-049 127-09-014 127-10-107 127-09-015 127-09-016 127-09-017 127-09-018 127-09-019 127-09-020 127-09-021 127-10-084 127-09-022 127-09-023 127-36-026 127-36-029 127-10-099 127-36-032 127-10-098 127-36-031 127-68-077 127-68-076 127-68-075 127-68-078 127-68-058 127-68-057 127-68-079 127-68-080 127-68-059 127-70-046 127-68-056 127-68-074 127-68-073127-68-072 127-68-071 127-70-047 127-70-072 127-68-060 127-70-026 127-68-055 127-70-073 127-70-074 127-70-075 127-68-061 127-70-048 127-70-027 127-68-054 127-70-076 127-70-039 127-70-040 127-68-062 127-70-041127-70-042 127-70-043 127-70-049 127-70-044 127-68-053 127-70-045 127-10-094 127-70-028 127-68-005 127-68-063 127-68-052 127-68-070 127-70-050 127-68-004 127-68-066 127-70-029 127-68-003 127-68-069127-68-068127-68-067 127-68-064 127-70-071 127-68-051 127-70-070 127-70-030 127-70-069 127-68-065 127-70-051 127-70-068 127-68-050 127-70-067 127-70-031 127-70-052 127-70-032 127-70-038 127-70-034 127-70-035 127-70-036 127-70-033 127-70-037 127-68-006 127-70-024 127-68-007 127-68-008 127-68-036 127-68-049 127-70-025 127-68-035 127-10-076 127-68-026 127-70-023 127-68-037 127-68-048 127-70-022 127-68-034 127-68-027 127-70-053 127-68-038 127-68-047 127-70-021 127-68-033 127-70-016 127-70-066 127-68-028 127-70-015 127-70-054 127-70-002 127-68-039 127-68-046 127-70-018 127-68-032 127-68-029 127-70-003 127-70-065 127-70-014 127-70-017 127-70-055 127-68-045 127-68-011 127-70-013 127-68-010 127-70-004 127-70-020 127-68-009 127-68-040 127-68-031 127-68-044 127-70-056 127-70-064 127-68-030 127-70-019 127-70-005 127-70-012 127-68-043 127-70-063 127-70-057 127-10-103 127-68-042 127-70-062 127-70-006 127-70-011 127-70-058 127-70-061 127-70-009 127-70-059 127-70-010 127-12-023 127-70-060 127-70-007 127-70-008 127-68-015 127-68-021 127-68-016 127-68-022 127-68-020 127-68-024 127-68-014 127-68-023 127-68-017 127-68-018 127-68-019 127-68-012 127-68-013 000-00-000 127-12-017 127-12-018 127-12-019 127-12-020 127-12-021 127-12-022 127-12-025 127-12-026 127-12-027 127-68-002127-68-041 127-10-035 127-10-060 127-12-083 127-56-007 127-56-006 127-10-100 116-01-049 127-56-008 127-56-004 127-56-005 116-01-041 127-56-003 116-01-048 116-01-046 116-01-050 116-01-045 116-01-024 116-01-023 127-56-002 116-01-052 116-01-051 116-01-033 116-01-014 116-01-013 147-01-097 private MFG Space Systems Loral CAFETERIA CPA Utilities Engineering OFFICES OFFICES Eichler Swim & Tennis Club OFFICES OFFICE BATTERY LAB OFFICE 22.7' 69.5' 31.4' 36.1' 89.1' 88.0' 109.8' 65.0' 110.0' 50.2' 14.8' 104.1' 67.0' 109.8' 67.3' 76.8' 88.0'75.0' 104.1' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 110.0' 89.1' 101.4' 25.0' 38.4'60.0' 50' 115.0' 60.0' .0' 56.1' 9' 101.0' 37.3' 26.6' 81.9' 11.8' 86.9' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 53.0' 31.4' 69.5' 10.5' 73.1' 100.0' 90.9' 74.9'117.6' 129.6' 67 50.6'107.2' 503.3' 310.8' 80.0' 31.4' 51.8' 100.0' 71.8' 72.9' 115.4' 69.9' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 111.6' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 111.8' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.6' 78.0' 63.0' 109.3' 63.0' 37.8' 13.0' 72.4' 78.1' 110.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 61.5' 115.5' 61.5' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 55.0' 31.4' 95.4' 75.0' 115.4'.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 69.7' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 75.0' 45.4' 54.4' 27.4' 49.9' 115.4' 97.0' 73.3' 97.0' 73.3' 78.0' 86.9' 74.2' 4.7' 97.0' 82.0' 97.0' 62.6' 104.8'77.8' 104.8' 42.5' 18.1' 125.6' 105.4' 126.3' 59.8' 31.4'25.0'18.2' 63.0' 146.3' 66.3' 125.6' 100.8' 70.0' 100.0'11.6' 50.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 104.0' 69.2' 100.0' 63.0' 65.0' 104.4'34.4' 30.7' 104.8' 34.4' 47.0' 100.8' 52.4' 104.4' 106.7'76.0' 102.0'54.0' 76.0' 104.0' 54.0' 102.0' 124.2'65.5' 116.8' 65.0' 20.7' 45.5' 124.2' 65.0' 113.8' 109.2' 65.0' 113.8' 68.7' 20.7'96.4'18.5' 46.0'106.6'22.4' 37.6' 106.6' 52.0' 111.1'14.2' 62.4' 111.2'60.0' 111.4' 60.0' 111.1'60.0' 111.2' 60.0' 111.4'31.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 20.5' 157.9' 120.0' 80.0' 140.0' 242.4' 34.8' 36.0' 96.7'60.0' 134.3' 64.6' 134.3' 60.0' 157.9' 64.2' 1.3' 150.8' 60.0' 176.7' 63.0' 131.6' 60.0' 150.8' 31.5' 131.6'31.5' 50.4' 116.8' 81.8' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 102.0' 69.5' 100.0'24.4' 36.2' 70.0'65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 104.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.1' 107.4'20.5' 49.4' 104.0' 61.9' 100.0' 65.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 101.1' 80.0' 100.0'4.2' 59.7' 114.1' 75.0' 101.1' 60.5' 238.1' 125.9' 347.6' 164.5' 509.6' 147.2' 174.8' 660.1' 1204.1' 175.0' 156.2'30.4' 1138.1' 175.0' 1165.7' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 90.0' 101.6' 19.3'16.8' 24.3' 112.8' 135.1' 165.3' 44.7' 101.6' 161.0'95.7' 38.4' 165.3'28.5' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 73.3'72.1' 31.4' 39.7' 44.0' 100.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5'70.0' 100.0' 125.0' 131.2' 4.1'37.0' 95.7' 105.0' 20.0' 105.4' 38.7' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 49.9' 17.1' 153.2' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 80.0' 31.4' 50.0' 100.0' 126.7'135.0' 53.2'153.7' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 256.2' 195.7' 170.9' 48.0' 177.4' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0'100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 25.0' 50.3' 62.4' 100.0' 42.0' 39.3' 115.2' 81.6' 96.4' 60.0' 104.5' 63.5' 109.2' 67.2' 117.8' 44.9' 104.5' 87.5' 101.8' 52.9'117.8' 1.3' 77.4' 101.4' 69.3' 100.0' 52.6' 100.0' 69.0'50.2' 25.0' 39.3' 40.1' 27.0' 76.5' 115.2' 53.3' 138.3' 105.7' 77.4' 128.4' 54.7' 17.0' 80.0' 75.0'105.7' 45.0' 31.4' 98.1' 109.1'63.7' 103.7' 238.6' 602.2' 171.7' 26.0'470.1' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 61.3'100.0' 61.3' 67.5' 80.0' 31.4' 47.5' 100.0' 67.5' 100.0' 47.5' 31.4' 80.0' 100.0' 78.0'100.0' 78.0'107.4' 57.9' 10.1' 100.0' 113.0' 44.4'100.3' 119.5' 56.0' 107.4' 2.6'10.1' 41.0' 119.8' 117.9' 173.6' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 69.4' 2.9' 14.5' 65.3' 32.6' 24.1' 31.0' 100.0' 48.7' 134.4' 109.0' 20.6' 135.8' 41.5' 135.8' 175.8' 138.8' 167.3' 81.1' 45.0' 138.8' 74.7' 105.9' 39.0' 25.9' 80.6' 14.5' 81.1' 116.0' 31.7' 148.7' 45.3' 74.0' 114.1'58.0' 105.9' 89.0' 116.4'58.0' 145.8' 65.0' 173.6' 74.0' 209.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'100.0' 65.0' 80.0' 31.4' 45.0' 65.0' 108.3' 65.5' 100.0' 65.0' 101.9' 37.9' 27.2' 100.0' 80.0' 104.4'60.5' 101.9' 35.0' 56.9' 111.3'60.5' 104.4' 65.0' 100.0' 45.0' 31.4' 80.0' 7.4' 71.7' 111.3' 49.5' 108.3' 73.0' 114.0'54.4' 111.3' 116.4' 82.5' 102.0' 55.0' 103.5' 74.5' 107.4' 48.0' 73.0' 103.5'59.4' 114.0' 111.3'56.9' 20.0' 114.1'60.5' 114.1' 140.6' 100.0' 85.7' 80.0' 31.4' 21.9' 26.8' 101.8' 75.0' 118.9' 12.0' 104.8' 124.5' 100.0' 60.4' 59.1' 21.9'31.4' 50.0' 76.0' 106.7'57.4' 97.1' 22.2' 58.0' 97.1'58.5' 100.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3'108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 94.0' 108.3' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 75.7' 106.0' 115.4' 72.9' 95.5' 31.4' 52.9' 100.0' 71.0'100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 51.5' 31.4' 80.0' 71.5' 145.0' 318.8' 148.5' 287.0' 121.9' 67.9' 125.3' 60.0' 121.9' 60.2'122.9' 60.0' 125.3' 60.1'119.6' 65.0' 122.9' 20.2'39.7' 135.0' 150.0'143.5'148.5' 27.7' 331.7' 31.4' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 36.2' 110.6' 59.6' 32' 70.0' 100.0' 36.1' 0.6' 133.8' 2 0' 70.0' 11.4' 99.8' 65.0'00.0' 35.9' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 39.1' 38.4' 50.0'2.1'31.4' 56.7' 100.0' 113.3' 98.7' 122.4' 40.0' 54.4' 30.0' 59.4'3.8'31.4' 64.4' 99.3' 92.3'117.5' 36.0'100.2' 50.7' 19.7'100.2'2.3' 79.0' 59.6'1.3'100.0' 46.3' 100.0' 51.9' 21.9'14.5'47.3'31.4' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 117.5' 51.3' 26.8' 94.0' 66.3' 91.6' 46.4'8.8' 99.8' 99.0' 32.2' 80.6' 99.7'21.9' 73.1' 46.4' 46.3' 31.4'47.3'14.5' 21.9' 51.9' 100.0' 88.0' 100.0' 46.3' 31.4'3.8'80.3' 139.5' 100.0'119.6' 50.2' 150.1' 139.5' 72.8' 24.2'18.1'23.2' 120.7' 110.0' 150.1' 54.3' 99.7' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 50.0' 101.5' 70.0' 81.5' 31.4' 70.0' 112.8' 50.0' 31.4' 92.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 42.0' 165.5' 97.0' 147.1' 109.3' 147.1' 54.3' 165.5' 21.7' 165.5' 101.5' 145.0' 120.7' 145.0' 40.9' 165.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'63.5' 145.0' 63.5' 145.0' 37.6' 135.5' 283.4' 31.3'231.1' 285.0' 32.3' 218.7' 63.2' 50.3' 285.0' 94.1' 106.8' 116.1' 295.5' 212.0' 295.5' 212.6' 311.6' 61.4' 112.9' 532.5' 15.0' 358.7' 76.1' 215.0' 183.4' 228.3' 376.8' 31.5' 207.9' 384.3' 206.1' 250.2' 167.8' 76.1'137.5 159.5' 90.0' 50.0' 116.4' 219.9' 206.1' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 193.0' 82.6' 144.7' 14.1' 256.2' 159.9' 48.9' 115.2' 230.0' 215.1' 241.2' 189.5' 230.0' 189.5' 230.0' 96.0' 67.4' 244.9' 212.4' 230.0' 337.3' 165.1' 244.9' 77.2'95.8' 96.9' 106.8' 220.1' 183.3' 28.4'158.0' 332.3' 156.9' 264.0' 199.9' 259.2' 10.8' 113.1' 91.0' 35.7' 131.0' 32.8' 131.0' 100.0' 120.0' 38.0' 63.3' 120.0' 100.0' 122.6' 75.0' 122.6' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 68.5' 120.7' 10.0'49.9' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.2'8.8' 61.2' 100.2' 85.0'115.5' 48.7' 100.5' 60.0' 100.0' 46.5'13.5' 115.5' 9.7' 90.0'100.5' 54.9' 100.0' 17.1' 86.3' 7.0' 100.0' 14.5' 24.7' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 111.5' 123.3' 39.3' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 104.9' 123.8' 10.4'22.1' 100.0' 19.2' 89.9' 113.3' 30.0' 223.7' 115.6' 94.2' 26.9' 225.8' 214.6' 201.1' 215.4' 36.0' 181.3' 194.0'201.1' 236.0' 156.1' 31.1' 54.7' 166.7' 106.8' 96.9' 291.6' 240.3' 46.7' 220.8' 389.7' 14.0' 181.5' 478.6' 130.4' 384.3' 74.9' 162.5' 242.0' 215.0' 76.1' 58.2' 46.5' 211.5' 179.0' 242.0' 20.8' 197.2' 385.2' 218.7' 82.6' 216.0' 293.4'279.3' 304.5' 154.8' 182.0' 203.3' 34.5' 241.3' 311.6' 72.0' 239.9' 174.8' 146.1' 293.4' 145.7' 304.5' 408.0' 127.9' 385.2' 286.9' 389.7' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.6' 60.0' 108.7' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.9' 60.0' 112.1' 33.4' 26.8' 78.1' 59.7' 7' 63.8' 32.2' 73.1'8' 113.7' 73.8' 113.7' 9.8' 135.6' 77.7'45.3' 115.4' 20.0' 115.4' 25.6'38.8' 73.2' 102.0' 80.0' 102.0'82.0' 80.6' 104.0' 80.6' 84.9' 27.5' 45.0' 27.4'57.8' 72.4' 79.9' 104.0' 100.0' 96.0'100.0' 79.9' 55.0' 42.5' 14.5' 38.8' 33.9' 52.8' 104.5' 65.0' 104.5' 00.0' 30.0' 140.1' 44.2' 120.0' 131.0' 120.0' 90.5' 38.4' 140.1' 72.8' 100.0' 21.7' 10.1' 35.3' 90.5' 72.8' 107.8' 100.8' 77.9' 100.0' 65.0' 94.2' 55.4' 9.5'20.9' 100.0' 72.1' 100.0' 60.0' 60.2' 100.0' 72.8' 100.8' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 29.2' 57.8' 65.5' 77.2' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 60.0' 140.0' 40.4' 9.5' 11.4' 133.4' 107.5' 133.4' 50.4' 147.7' 50.0' 147.7' 32.7' 101.9' 156.3' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 96.3'100.8' 96.3' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 130.2' 27.7' 9.5'24.4' 140.0' 39.7' 130.2' 75.4' 36.2' 122.4'122.4' 131.4' 110.0'9.5' 67.4' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 77.0' 100.0'22.0' 34.5'105.4' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 90.8' 105.4' 50.8' 136.3' 19.5' 73.7' 100.0' 41.8' 107.9' 103.2' 136.3'58.4' 103.3' 74.0' 19.5' 107.9'42.2' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 80.0' 103.3' 26.9' 37.3' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 102.4'80.6' 96.0' 100.0' 64.0' 100.0' 65.0' 40.0' 65.0' 25.0'81.1' 39.4' 77.7' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 6601' 175.0' 246.8' 134.0' 120.5' 156.1' 255.5' 237.9' 196.7'214.6' 56.6' 75.8' 134.0' 214.6' 215.0'214.6' 215.0' 95.0' 98.4' 70.1' 32.5' 16.8' 173.7' 162.1' 149.2' 47.1' 90.6' 98.9'158.9' 150.3' 158.9' 234.8' 173.7' 93.6' 221.0' 63.6' 47.1' 191.0' 93.6' 221.0' 93.6' 221.0' 119.5' 130.0' 214.4'187.3' 125.3' 32.5' 82.6' 37.0' 199.7' 119.5' 50.0' 214.6' 219.8' 214.6' 55.8' 98.4' 95.0' 200.8' 136.5'136.5' 136.5'136.5' 71.9' 61.8' 131.2'66.3' 58.0' 74.6' 73.8' 136.5' 32.2' 100.0' 125.1' 136.5' 60.9' 66.0' 99.3' 81.1' 45.0' 2.0'96.8' 50.1' 37.4'1.9'47.7' 96.8' 109.2'109.2' 100.0' 65.0' 70.0' 102.4' 25.0' 127.0' 299.5' 360.0' 374.2' 299.5'221.5' 274.8'274.8'219.6' 196.6' 197.8'252.5'252.5' 223.2'223.2' 284.5' 266.2' 335.5' 54.3' 478.6' 118.9' 112.6' 18.0' 180.6' 54.3' 735.7' 156.9' 28.7' 123.4' 21.1' 20.6' 57.2' 264.2'264.2' 139.8' 30.2' 196.8'196.8' 67.1' 124.3' 180.6' 112.6' 18.0'118.9' 170.0' 809.4' 228.6'228.6' 616.4' 109.9' 581.0' 115.1' 58.0' 34.8' 464.2' 104.6' 312.1' 109.9' 280.0' 1133.1' 205.6' 62.0' 91.2' 401.7' 30.3' 663.2' 209.9' 391.5' 454.0' 170.0' 265.4' 170.0'440.0' 387.0' 564.0' 439.7' 490.5' 238.1' 338.7' 419.2' 200.0' 400.0' ' DRIVE ASPEN WAY LUPINE AVENUE FABIAN WAY LOUIS ROAD EVERGREEN DRIVE LOUIS ROAD FABIAN WAY NATHAN WAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY BA Y S H ORE FREE W AY EAST MEADOW CIRCLE EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FABIAN WAY CORPORATION WAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY FABIAN WAY SAN ANTONIO ROAD KENNETH DRIVE THOMAS DRIVE GREER ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY WEST BAYSHORE ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAYWEST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY ELWELL COURT E NNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE ORTEGA CO EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW CIRCLE UTUS AVENUE EAST BAYSHORE ROADWEST BAYSHORE ROAD EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY DRIFTWOO D D R I V E D G R E E R R O A D EAST MEADOW DRIVE QUAIL DR QUAIL DR PALOMA DR HERON WY EGRET LNPLOVER LN SANDPIPER LN MALLARD LN CURLEW LN FEATHER LN KLAMATH LN PALOMA DR TRINITY LN STANISLAUS LN TUO LUMNE LN Almanor Lane Barron Creek Creek3623 GM PF R-1 ROLM (D)(AD) (8000) ROLM PF PF(D) ROLM This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Highlighted Features Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'467' Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2017-04-14 10:17:19 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing 17PLN-00086 Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review under Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D), the PTC shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design objectives, as required in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 4826 § 121, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Ped/Bike Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann Pianetta [mailto:annpianetta@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:43 AM To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips Subject: Ped/Bike Bridge To Whom It May Concern: It is a well thought‐out project except for one thing. There is not enough protection for peds and bikes next to the roadway. There should be a wall. This will keep people from jumping in front of cars and cars hitting peds. And this should be on both sides of the freeway. Also, when is there going to be better landscaping in general at all the entry ways into Palo Alto from 101. It looks horrible and reflects on our city. Please do something about it and let me know. Sincerely, Ann Pianetta 3815 La Donna Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐424‐9070 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Joel Davidson [mailto:joelscottd@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:08 AM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bridge To whom it may concern, I am strongly supportive of the proposed Bike bridge on Highway 101. This project has been too long on the waiting list of the Parks and Recreation Commissions agenda. I guessing about 10 years. Please move forward on this project ASAP. Thank you, Joel Davidson former Parks and Recreation Commissioner 504 Thain Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge From: Judd Volino [mailto:gobike20816@typespot.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:33 AM To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Dear ARB and City Staff: I am a Palo Alto resident and cyclist and am writing that you do everything possible to expedite this project to ensure that inflation doesn't catch up again and cause it to be short on funding. A bridge that allows mounted riding and that is much more visible than the Embarcadero bridge will do a great deal to open access to the Baylands and provide safe crossing of the freeway. Please just build this thing! Thank you, Judd Volino 1150 Parkinson Ave 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:21 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa.dusseault@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:11 AM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge Hi, I just wanted to say I'm excited about this bridge. As a family we use the existing bridges (Oregon and Stevens Creek trail) maybe 10 times a week. My husband commutes by bike, and I sometimes go to meetings by bike from the Duveneck area where we live to places like Google. Sometimes we go to the baylands or Shoreline Park with our kids. Sometimes my husband runs in the baylands and Shoreline park and we bike along with him to keep him company. My main frustration with the Oregon bridge is the difficulty getting a bicycle trailer through the slow-down gates. From the images I've seen about the new bridge this will be much easier and we'll have more choices where to cross the 101. I have to admit we totally ignore the "walk your bikes" injunction along the top of the Oregon bridge. I've never seen any problems with people riding their bikes - people are polite and pass each other civilly whether anybody is biking, walking or walking their bike. Perhaps the problems, when they occur, are not with people riding their bikes (which they're going to do anyway) but with being unsafe or inconsiderate (which they're going to do anyway). Lisa 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 2:49 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:lenraven1@gmail.com; Architectural Review Board; Larry; Cornelia and Arne Stoschek Subject:Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Hi Claire, Thank you for responding so fast! Some of my thoughts/concerns regarding the project are (there are 4 key areas): 1) Managing cyclists/pedestrians: I propose that there are separate lanes for both parties. Many cyclists will use this trail for getting to work, pedestrians for pleasure. I have seen many unnecessary near clashes because the walkers spread out over the entire walkway or one or the other had headphones on. This is particularly concerning where there are benches for viewing-as many may congregate there. 2) Transitions Remember what happened to the cyclist on Pagemill that was hit by a car a year ago? I believe part of the responsibility lies in not having an adequate transition. Indeed, there is NO notice-(even a year later!) to motorists that a cyclist may enter a highway and little guidance to a cyclist. Even a stop sign would be a solution. This is a rampant problem. I have seen this many times, where the bike paths, once you are on them are lovely, but getting there and transitioning to another road are nightmares. I don't mean to attribute blame, unfortunately, dead cyclists can not tell "their" side. 3) Safety I'm concerned (from a brief look at the plans) that the fencing over any overpass or high area is not sufficient to deter a person from attempting to "jump" off the bridge. How are we going to ensure this? 4) Cost I have seen many bridge constructed over 101 that takes these concerns into account. They may not be the prettiest, but they look nice and look to be cost effective. Perhaps we should reconsider that? In fact, in so doing, there may be funds to address the transition issues or perhaps to update that "nightmare" of a bridge near Oregon along with getting onto the bike path on the other side of the road. Thank you for permitting me to "vent" , I DO hope I was being constructive in my comments. Please do keep me updated. I have scheduled for myself to be attend on the 25th of May. :-) Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iphone On May 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Good afternoon Lenore and Debbie, Thank you for your comments regarding the Architectural Review Board meeting set for May 4, 2017. All meetings for the Architectural Review Committee are held on Thursday mornings. However, there are several other opportunities for you to provide input on this project. You may: 1) Call, e‐mail, or mail me, the Project Planner for the proposed project, to discuss any questions/comments/concerns about the project. 2 2) We will have a study session in the evening with the Planning and Transportation Commission so that anyone that cannot attend the Architectural Review Board meeting on May 4th could still express comments at that public meeting. The Planning and Transportation Commission hearing for this project is tentatively set for May 25, 2017 and starts at 6pm. 3) Following these two study session meetings the City’s Public Works Engineering Division will work to incorporate/address comments from the public (whether expressed at the hearing or provided separately to the project planner) as well as comments from both the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission study session meetings. 4) The City’s Public Works Engineering Division will then come back to the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and to City Council before a decision on the proposed project is issued. The Planning and Transportation Commission and Council hearings will both be held in the evening. I’d be happy to update you once the dates for those hearings have been set. Warm regards, Claire Hodgkins <image001.jpg> Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Architectural Review Board Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:11 PM To: Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc: Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject: FW: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting From: Lenore Cymes [mailto:lenraven1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:38 AM To: Deborah Baldwin Cc: pwecips; Architectural Review Board; Jeff Levinsky; dsfna@yahoogroups.com dsfna@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Good catch Debbie. I didn’t even read it. I agree! Not just this meeting, but no meeting concerning community input should ever be held during the day and this meeting must be rescheduled to a proper time for people to finish their work and show up. If it is not changed, why bother at all - what is the goal of the Arch. Review Committee? Lenore On May 1, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Deborah Baldwin baldwinart@mac.com [dsfna] <dsfna-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi I noticed that the planning meeting set for this important bike bridge is set for the morning. To me, It is very confusing to have the time set specifically at a time many 3 commuters by bikes can not come because they are working. What is the mechanism to have these voices and their wealth of experience heard? Thank you Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iPhone __._,_.___ Posted by: Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. NOTE: By default replies to this message will be sent to the message author only. VISIT YOUR GROUP Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:52 PM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing Attachments:W.BayShore Bike Lane - 02.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 04.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 15.jpg From: roycsnyder@comcast.net [mailto:roycsnyder@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:45 PM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: pwecips Subject: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing To the City of Palo Alto Architecture Review Board - May 4, 2017 (We have lived in the south Palo Alto Palo Verde neighborhood for over forty years. In all but the most inclement weather, we bike at the Baylands 2-4 times per week, using the existing Adobe Creek Undercrossing or the Embarcadero Overcrossing.) Comments: The proposed overcrossing is not a destination, but rather a mere conveyance from South Palo Alto to the main attraction, the Baylands. It should be simple, cost effective, speedily constructed, and, since it crosses a main artery, seismically robust. The concept of an Eastern Approach Overlook is wrong headed: There is nothing of natural beauty nor remarkable wildlife to be viewed from such a point. The proposed location is close to HWY 101 and the constant traffic noise will detract from any "appreciation" of the adjacent Baylands. The proposed Overlook is redundant to existing and better nature viewpoints actually located in the Baylands, only 200-300 meters further along the trail. It adds undue cost. The proposed drinking fountains, trash and recycling containers, trail head art, bike racks, etc. would serve greater purpose if located further up the trail where it joins the Baylands Trail at the Coast Casey Forebay. Again, this structure is not a destination. Such amenities will only impede flow along the trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail should be opened immediately, even if in a temporary configuration. The bike lane along West Bay Shore - northbound is currently unsafe due to south bound vehicles drifting into the bike lane. (See photos attached.) Respectfully, 2 Roy Snyder Thomas Drive, Palo Alto HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE PATH OVERCROSSING PROJECT AT ADOBE CREEK WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing (Overcrossing) is located in the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County, between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101, and will replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass of Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor. The grade-separated crossing will provide year-round connectivity from residential and commercial areas west of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands), East Bayshore Business Park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The project will include a new bridge structure over Highway 101 and West and East Bayshore Roads, a trail connection along Adobe Creek to East Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along West Bayshore Road, and landscaping and habitat restoration within the Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. The project lies primarily within City and Caltrans rights-of-way, although the south/west project area includes Santa Clara Valley Water District property and private property owned by Google. The proposed Overcrossing will consist of multiple structure types in order to maximize the benefits of the different structure types for the various constraints present in the project. The Overcrossing structure is divided into the following four major elements: 1. Principal Span Structure: Three span structure over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads 2. West Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located west of West Bayshore Road 3. East Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located east of East Bayshore Road 4. Adobe Creek Bridge: Simple span crossing of Adobe Creek west of West Bayshore Road STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION: PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURE The Principal Span Structure is set to a straight alignment that is essentially perpendicular to the Highway 101 and Bayshore Road alignments. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans spanning across West Bayshore Road, Highway 101, and East Bayshore Road. At this location, Highway 101 is a 12-lane highway with a 162-foot wide right-of-way (See Figure below). East Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with a 20.5-foot wide traveled way and two 6-foot shoulders. West Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with an approximately 20.5-foot wide traveled way and a 5.5-foot shoulder and 6-foot bicycle lane. The span over Highway 101 will consist of a 165-foot long, simply-supported prefabricated steel bowstring truss. The bowstring truss is able to achieve the long clear span while keeping the profile depth from the top of deck to bridge soffit to a minimum. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over West Bayshore Road will consist of a 60’-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over East Bayshore Road will consist of a 70-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. All spans will accommodate a 12- foot clear width pathway. Bents under the Principal Structure spans will consist of 2-foot thick non-skewed concrete pier walls on cast- in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations. In order to reduce traffic control requirements within Highway 101, the pier walls adjacent to Highway 101 (Bents 6 and 7) will be founded on a concrete pile cap supported by CIDH piles located within the medians between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The concrete pier walls supporting the other ends of the steel Pratt trusses (Bents 5 and 8) will be founded on a concrete pile cap which is supported by CIDH piles. Pier walls at Bents 5 and 8 will support both the steel Pratt trusses of the Principal Span Structure and the end of the West and East Approach concrete slab spans. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the Principal Span Structure. The railings will consist of 8-foot tall galvanized welded wire safety fencing. WEST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure over Highway 101. The alignment closely abuts the adjacent Barron Creek to enable retention of all parking spaces with in the Google parking lot and to provide the maximum elevation gain between the adjoining Principal Span Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge crossing. The West Approach Structure consists of a four span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by a large diameter CIDH pile. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the West Approach Structure. The railings consist of 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. EAST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximate 168-degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to conform at the San Francisco Bay Trail. The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by CIDH piles. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Bent 8 supports both the end of the concrete slab of the East Approach Structure and the end of the steel Pratt truss span of the Principal Span Structure. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the East Approach Structure. The railings will be 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. An overlook area consisting of an extension of the reinforced concrete slab will be located between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide the trail users an opportunity to pause, rest and view the adjacent Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle through traffic. The architecture of the overlook will extend from the main bridge structure elements including railings and concrete facing textures and colors. The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in texture and color. The decking and the bench elements could potentially be constructed from the existing timber decking being removed from the adjacent Baylands Boardwalk project that can be recycled, refinished and repurposed as part of the Overcrossing Project. Amenities such as benches and informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for the users. Benches will be located along the overlook to allow users to rest and/or view the surrounding vistas of the Baylands. ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE The Adobe Creek Bridge consists of a 140-foot long prefabricated steel Pratt truss, spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks, adjacent to the existing Adobe Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 37C- 0060) along West Bayshore Road. The bridge will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway allowing for travel in both directions. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the 4 foot high safety railing for the structure. The abutments will consist of concrete seat type abutments supported by large diameter CIDH piles. ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS: WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS A pedestrian access ramp has been incorporated into the Western Approach Structure between the Google property (3600 West Bayshore Road) and Adobe Creek Bridge to provide continuous access for pedestrians along West Bayshore and access to the Overcrossing. For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road the access structure can reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet. This access structure also provides equal access to mobility impaired trail users and provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing bike lane along West Bayshore road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can be used as a primary ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes the trail access area for their channel sedimentation maintenance. STRUCTURE LIGHTING Lighting design will be provided for the Overcrossing that contributes to the project goals of providing connectivity while addressing environmental concerns. The Overcrossing paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support pedestrian and bicycling activates, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from higher illuminated urban areas on the western side of Highway 101 to the lower lighting of the Baylands to the east. Photometric levels will conform to standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society. The Western Approach Structure will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to the surrounding environment. Pole mounted luminaires will provide uniform illumination along the pathway and at landscaping areas leading to the Overcrossing. At the Principal Span Structure, lighting will be integrated into the guardrail where possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Direct view of any light source is to be shielded from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. Lighting at the Eastern Approach Structure and Eastern Approach Overlook will be integrated into the urban infrastructure components, such as railings and benches, in order to reduce visual interferences of the Baylands. Careful consideration will be given to providing appropriate illumination at environmentally sensitive areas such as areas adjacent to Adobe and Barron Creek and the Baylands. Lighting on the Eastern Approach Structure will be minimal in order to reduce potential glare and distraction for wildlife with the Baylands. Step lights will be utilized, meeting photometric requirements, to provide low levels of functional lighting along the pathway. Warm color lighting techniques will be used to reduce lighting effects to migratory birds and other wildlife. The lighting system will be designed to be mindful of the surrounding environment. Lighting poles and bollards with full-cutoff capability will be used in order to reduce light emitted above the 90° plane, limiting contribution to light pollution. Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with limited activity. Light levels dim down on a set time schedule synced with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their presence, allowing the lighting to change in response to pedestrian and bicycle activity. PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER RETENTION Landscaping is limited to restoration of areas disturbed by construction. Primary areas for restoration include: 1. The portion of the Baylands under and adjacent to the Eastern Approach Structure which will be restored with native grasses and planting as well as some hardscape and planting at the east plaza where the East Approach Structure joins the San Francisco Bay Trail. Trail head amenities in the form of trash and recycling receptacles as well as an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 2. Disturbed areas of the Google Parking Lot under and adjacent to the Western Approach Structure will be landscape to provide screening to the structure and will include accommodation of a bioretension area, replacement of existing landscaping trees affected by construction and reconfiguration of the existing Google Parking lot resulting in no net loss of parking. 3. The west plaza at the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Head will include hardscaping at the plaza and existing aggregate base along the SCVWD maintenance road compatible with the regular SCVWD maintenance operations and materials, as well as proposed trail head amenities including trash and recycling receptacles and an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 4. Storm water collection into bioretension systems will include native planting and drainage swales leading into retention basins to filter storm-water. These systems will be located in landscaping areas in the vicinity of the western and eastern approaches. ADOBE CREEK TRAIL The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail involves designating a 10-foot wide by approximately 800 linear feet of the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road on the east side of Adobe Creek, between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a more direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West Bayshore Road for pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. The trail will utilize the existing SCVWD maintenance road along Adobe Creek (maintaining the existing aggregate base surfacing) and will include installation of safety railing along the top of bank of Adobe Creek (subject to acceptance by the SCVWD). The project will include trail heads at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Trail heads will consist of simple concrete connections to the adjoining streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and street signage. Resurfacing of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail will not be included in this project. However, potential trail resurfacing as part of a future project, will be environmentally cleared as part of this project. Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. Click on “Development Proposals” 3. Click on “Development Projects” under Commercial and Mixed Use Developments. 4. Click on “3600 Bayshore” to view the project plans Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8026) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/31/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Garage Scoping Meeting Title: 375 Hamilton Avenue, Downtown Garage: 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 a Surface Parking Lot with Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Contact Holly Boyd at holly.boyd@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct an Environmental Review Scoping Meeting for the Public Parking Garage Project at 375 Hamilton Avenue. 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 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 application has been received, noticed public hearings will provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed project. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Watry Design, Inc. Representative: Holly Boyd, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 375 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: L-shaped lot; 29,200 square feet of surface parking lot area Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Site is non-historic; adjacent is 526 Waverley Street, a Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory; across Hamilton is the US Post Office, a Category 1 and National Registered resource Existing Improvement(s): The site is surfaced with asphalt and trees in planters or use as a surface parking lot available to the public Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lot City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Subject site is zoned Public Facilities; all adjacent sites are zoned Downtown Commercial West: 345 Hamilton, 1958 building occupied by AT&T and Excel Aviation East: 526 Waverley, a 1928 building, Category 3 historic resource recently retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop and Toy World Inc.) East: 550-552 Waverley, a 1952 building occupied by the Prolific Oven retail bakery and Day One retail store, East: 558-560 Waverley, a 1938 building housing the Tai Pan Restaurant on the ground floor and second office space. South: Post Office North: CVS Pharmacy Special Setbacks: 7 feet Along Hamilton Avenue Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Public Facilities Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not within 150 feet of residential uses or district Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55028 April 11, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Environmental Review 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 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS, Attachment A) were uploaded to the City website for the project on May 8, 2017. Notice of the NOP appeared in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 12, 2017, and the Draft Initial Study was circulated to the State Clearinghouse. Initial Study The attached 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 IS identifies several topic areas needing further study, and several potential adverse impacts upon the environment; it was published on May 12, 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, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 Notice of PTC meeting and availability of the Notice of Preparation were published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 12, 2017. The PTC meeting notice was again published on May 19, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. The Public Works Department webpage for this project can be found: www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage. 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 and Signed Initial Study (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7994) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/31/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 260 California Avenue: PTC Hearing Request Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 260 California Avenue [16PLN-00289]: Request for a Hearing on the Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Sale of Beer, Wine, and Liquor in Conjunction With a Restaurant With an Outdoor Seating Area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P). For More Information, Please Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend the City Council find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. Recommend approval of the draft Record of Land Use Action to the City Council approving the proposed conditional use permit for alcohol sales, subject to findings and conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: 260 Cal Partners, LLC Architect: Keith Morris / Studio KDA Representative: Mark Conroe Legal Counsel: None Identified City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Property Information Address: 260 California Avenue Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 13,509 square feet Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, in City sidewalk fronting property Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): 3-story mixed use building with basement garage; 37 feet in height; c. 2015 Existing Land Use(s): Ground floor retail/restaurant shell / 2nd and 3rd floor office space Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Northwest: PC-4172 (Parking Garage) Southeast: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Southwest: CC(2)(R)(P) (California Avenue Business District) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CC(2)(R)(P) Comp. Plan Designation: CC (Regional/Community Commercial) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Minor Architectural Review to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on June 1, 2017 Director: Tentative Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Architectural Review on April 6, 2017 Discussion The subject application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for alcohol sales in conjunction with a proposed restaurant. The restaurant would occupy a ground floor lease area in an existing mixed-use building at 260 California Avenue. Requests to sell alcohol for on- or off-sale consumption requires a CUP and are subject to the following findings: The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning staff evaluates these requests and makes a tentative decision, which any person may challenge and request a hearing before the PTC. The Commission’s review of an application is City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 similarly subject to the same findings above and based upon the evidence in the administrative record and testimony received at the hearing. Conditions may be imposed on the project to ensure compliance with the code, including the findings, and other applicable city policy documents. Staff recommended findings and conditions of approval are included in the draft record of land use action in Attachment C. Conditions that have been revised since the tentative approval are included in bold font in the draft record of land use action. The Commission’s recommendation on the project is forwarded to the City Council and placed on the consent calendar where three or more council members may request a hearing on the application. In addition to the CUP request, an application for a minor Architectural Review (AR) was filed and approved by the Director’s designee. The planning department also received a hearing request for the AR application, which is going to the ARB on June 1, 2017. Hearing Request The request for hearing was based on concerns that the proposed outdoor dining area exceeded the permitted floor area and resulted in a parking deficiency. The hearing request letter is included in Attachment E and additional correspondence is included in Attachment F. A description of the gross floor area and parking issues is addressed below. Gross Floor Area Since the hearing request, staff determined that an error had been made by not including the covered outdoor service area of the proposed restaurant towards the gross floor area for the building. The outdoor seating area proposed for the restaurant would be located beneath a glass canopy cover and building eave, and in accordance with Section 18.04.030 of the Municipal Code, such covered service areas are included in the gross floor area. The hearing requestor also questioned the extent of the outdoor seating area as shown on the project plans, indicating that the plans understated the size of the area by not including covered areas in front of the building entrance and to the left of the building door. While the code does not specifically define the term “covered outdoor service area”, staff understands the term to include areas for tables, seating, and the space needed to access such seating. The service area would not include areas where customers cannot be served, and therefore the areas immediately in front and to the left of the building entrance do not meet the intent of the term. The covered outdoor seating area shown in the project plans does not account for the building eave and is slightly more than 150 square feet. The revised conditions of approval include a provision to clarify the extent of the area with the plans submitted for building permit. Furthermore, the building’s original entitlement excluded from gross floor area several storage areas in the basement parking garage. At the time of the building’s entitlement in April 2013, these storage areas were incorrectly considered accessory to the parking facility and exempted City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 from gross floor area. Under a strict application of the code, these storage areas should have counted toward gross floor area. To remedy this condition, staff recommends two options: 1. Convert, to the extent necessary, existing fenced off storage areas to bicycle parking, which is exempt from gross floor area, or, 2. Remove the chain link fencing surrounding the storage areas to the extent necessary to comply with the maximum floor area for the site, including the proposed covered outdoor dining area. Removing the chain link fencing would convert the storage areas to interstitial garage space, which is exempt from gross floor area. The property owner has expressed a willingness to implement either of the above options. The individual requesting the hearing, however, found option 1 objectionable due to concern about enforcement and ensuring the space remains dedicated to bicycle parking. It is unknown if the hearing requester has any objection to option 2 above. A revised condition has been incorporated into draft Record of Land Use Action requiring compliance with either of the above options. Parking The hearing requestor also requested information on the parking for the building and the proposed use. The existing building was approved on April 22, 2013 with 97 parking spaces; 41 parking spaces onsite and an additional 56 spaces provided through payment into the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. The request to intensify the retail to restaurant use requires two additional parking spaces. The applicant proposes to meet this demand by adding mechanical parking lifts that would be used by the office tenant occupying the building. The City Council amended PAMC 18.54.020(b) to address and specifically authorize mechanical lifts under certain circumstances; use of the proposed lifts would comply with those recently adopted regulations. With the draft, revised conditions of approval, staff has determined that the project is consistent with the applicable development standards in the Municipal Code. Environmental Review The subject project has been 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. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Weekly on May 19, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 16, 2017, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff has received public comments on the project which led to the hearing request, and these comments and staff’s response are included in Attachment (F). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend project approval with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Staff Approval Letter (PDF) Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment D: CC(2) Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Hearing Request Letter (PDF) Attachment F: Correspondence (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org F Molly Stone's Market County Courthouseand Jail 5 Bank of the West Bldg 8 Bldg 7 J H G E B D C A 40.1' 90.0' 312.4' 309.7' 40.0' 121.4' 40.6' 75.0' .6' 46.4' 75.2'125.0' 60.2' 15.7' 40.5' 74.7' 84.4' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 125.0' 46.0' 40.0' 46.4'85.0' 92.4' 125.0' 46.8' 125.0' 46.9' 95.0'125.0' 95.0'125.0'125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 110.0' 195.0' 110.0' 195.0' 125.0' 130.2' 115.0' 14.1' 120.3' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 351.6' 120.0' 15.7' 341.6' 160.0' 351.6' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 230.3' 1 5.7' 114.1' 70.0' 15.7' 381.6' 140.0' 381.6' 140.0' 50.4' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 99.9' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.9' 100.0' 99.9' 50.0' 150.0' 70.0' 50.0'70.0' 50.0' 80.0' 50.0' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 51.0' 110.0' 96.0' 110.0' 96.0' 125.0' 96.0'125.0' 96.0' ' 75.0' 100.0' 100.0' 0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 4' 50.4' 50.0' 5.0' 50.0' 110.0' 82.5'110.0' 82.5' 110.0' 250.0' 110.0' 250.0'132.2' 50.0' 132.3' 132.0' 50.0' 132.2' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 132.0' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.5' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.6' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 131.1' 37.5' 131.2' 37.5' 30.9' 50.0' 131.1' 131.2' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5'37.8' 131.5' 37.5' 131.4' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5' 131.4' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 14.1' 40.0' 110.0' 50.0' 40.0' 90.0' 40.0' 90.0' 85.0' 100.0' 85.0' 100.0' 125.0' 92.0'125.0' 92.0' 135.6' 100.0' 10.0'9.5' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 171.2' 257.7' 218.5' 121.5' 25.0' 135.0' 157.6' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.1' 20.0' 10.0' 25.1' 135.0' 45.0 125.0' 50.0' 45.2' 49.5' 86.5' 2 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99.0' 26.0' 26.0' 99.0' 41.0' 41.0'41.0' 125.0' 84.0'62.9' 26.2' 26.2'26.2' 36.7' 45.5' 45.5' 125.0' 125.0' 46.5' 46.5' 126.0' 126.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 89.0' 57.5' 57.5' 67.5' 67.5' ERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STRE NEW MAYF IELD LANE CALIFORNIA A VENUE LANE BIRCH ST REET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVEN PARK BOULEVARD CAL PA R K BO ULEV AR D SH JACARANDA LANE SHERMAN AVENUE BIRCH STREET NOGAL LANE PF(R) PF(R) CC(2)(R) -2 PF(R) PC-4127 (R) CC(2)(R) CC(2) (R)(P) RM-40 PF CC (2)(P) RM-40 R) C(2)(R) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'135' 260 California Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altogowen, 2017-05-11 14:36:19 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment C Page 1 of 5 Draft ACTION NO. 2017-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 260 CALIFORNIA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (16PLN-00289) On XXXXXX, 20XX, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Conditional Use Permit application for alcohol sales in conjunction with a restaurant in the CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. A conditional use permit was tentatively approved with conditions by Planning staff on behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment on April 6, 2017. B. A timely request for a hearing was received on April 19, 2017 due to concerns regarding the outdoor dining area and parking associated with the proposed restaurant use. C. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on May 31, 2017. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR #XXXX and the associated attachments. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Existing Facilities). SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The sale of beer, wine, and liquor with a permitted eating and drinking service is a compatible use in the California Avenue area. The proposed ancillary alcohol service will be conducted within an existing building and in a dedicated outdoor seating area that will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment C Page 2 of 5 The restaurant use, with the ancillary alcohol service, is compatible with the site’s land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and with its CC(2)(R)(P) zoning designation. Eating and drinking establishments will serve to enliven the mix of businesses along California Avenue and contribute to the area’s economic vitality. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, development and operation shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Protégé Restaurant, 260 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301”, stamped as received by the City on April 5, 2017. The approved plans are on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301. 2. PARKING LIFTS. The project plans include the use of puzzle-style mechanical parking lifts to provide two (2) additional parking spaces in the on-site parking garage. The lifts shall provide independently-accessible spaces, and provide sufficient vertical clearance to accommodate a mid- sized sports utility vehicle. The property owner shall ensure that the lift system complies with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.54.020(b)4. 3. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the Protégé restaurant. The outdoor seating area for the restaurant shall be limited to 150 square feet of covered service area, including the glass awning and roof eave. Gross floor area in the basement garage shall be limited to 232 square feet. All other existing garage storage areas shall be converted to either dedicated bicycle parking areas or removed. 4. APPROVAL LETTER. This approval letter, including the Conditions of Approval, shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit review, as applicable. 5. RESTAURANT USE. This conditional use permit allows the sale of beer, wine, and liquor service, in conjunction with a restaurant use, to be located within an existing building and dedicated outdoor seating area. A full service food menu shall be provided during all business hours. 6. KITCHEN FACILITIES. Suitable kitchen facilities shall be maintained for the eating and drinking establishment. 7. HOURS. Alcohol services shall not be served beyond the hours of operation. The use is allowed to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per Zoning Code Section 18.16.040(b). All clean up or set up activities shall be conducted within these approved business hours. 8. SIGNAGE. This approval does not include new signage or adjustments to existing signage. Attachment C Page 3 of 5 9. INTENSIFICATION. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and any other entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 10. EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 11. GENERAL OPERATION. This conditional use permit allows indoor and outdoor sales and service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use. The consumption of beer, wine and liquor shall be consistent with the established hours of operation and permitted functions of the restaurant. A full service menu selection shall be available during all operating hours. 12. ENTERTAINMENT. This permit does not allow any operations associated with a nightclub-type use and live entertainment shall not be permitted. There shall be no live entertainment, live music dancing or other amusement facilities or devises. An amendment to this use permit shall be required to permit these uses at the restaurant. 13. CODE COMPLIANCE. The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business regulations) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 14. AGREEMENT. The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 15. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 16. REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF APPROVALS: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 17. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final inspection. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen, to schedule this inspection. Additionally, access to the below-grade parking garage shall be provided in Attachment C Page 4 of 5 perpetuity upon request by City Staff for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Conditions #2 and #3. 18. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PUBLIC WORKS 19. TABLES, CHAIRS, AND PLANTERS: Restaurant tables, chairs, and planters may be placed on the sidewalk in the public right-of-way if the restaurant owner first applies to the Planning Division for architectural review and, upon approval, applies for and receives an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center. An 8-ft wide pedestrian pathway clear of all obstructions, including the tables, chairs, and planters, must be maintained along the frontage. FIRE 20. FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE. Fire sprinkler protection is required under any covered outside seating areas. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Conditional Use Permit Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within twelve months of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Attachment C Page 5 of 5 _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 260 California Avenue, 16PLN-00289 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 13,509 sf No change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0 feet No change Rear Yard No Requirement 0 feet No change Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement 0 feet No change Street Side Yard (left) No Requirement 0 feet No change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Not applicable Not applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 77% No change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement Unknown Unknown Max. Building Height 37 feet (4) 37 feet No change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (27,018 sf) 27,343 sf 27,013 sf with revised Conditions of Approval Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) Not applicable Not applicable (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office and Restaurant Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per 310 sf for office: 75 spaces 1 space per 155 sf for restaurant: 25 spaces Total: 99 spaces 41 spaces on site, 56 spaces in Assessment District, Total of 97 spaces 99 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 per 3,100 sf for office (40% long term and 60% short term): 7 spaces 1 per 1,500 sf for restaurant (no class requirement): 3 spaces Total: 10 spaces 10 spaces (6 long term, 4 short term) Additional bicycle areas to be provided per Revised Conditions of Approval Loading Space 1 space for 10-99,999 sf for office 0 loading spaces for 0 - 4,999 sf of restaurant 1 space No change From:Owen, Graham To:"Jeff Levinsky"; "Paul Machado"; "Neilson Buchanan" Subject:260 Cal Ave - Meeting Followup Date:Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:54:00 PM Attachments:image001.png 260 California Avenue - ARB Approved Plans.pdf DRAFT REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.docx Hi Jeff, Paul, and Nielsen, I’ve looked into the questions that were outstanding from our meeting last week, and have the following responses. I hope I’ve addressed everything, but if anything remains please let me know. Bicycle Parking: I’ve reviewed the project with the Transportation Division, and the section of the code that you’ve referenced (18.54.060) contains standards for bicycle parking that is a component of a new building, addition, or change in use requiring the provision of additional bicycle parking spaces per Section 18.52.060. The project would dedicate these areas for bicycle parking in excess of the minimum required number of bicycle spaces, and therefore this section does not apply. As we discussed in the meeting, another option would be to remove the existing chain link fences entirely. From the City’s perspective, it would be preferable for the project to dedicate these areas for bicycle parking in order to encourage cycling for the office and restaurant employees, rather than revert these areas to interstitial garage space which would be exempt but, due to the design of the garage, would serve no function. The applicant has indicated their willingness to do either, and I’ve amended the conditions of approval to allow for either scenario. Code Enforcement: As a condition of approval, the City will reserve the right to inspect the garage areas for conformance with the bicycle parking conversion requirement and the lift operation. This condition has been added in the attached draft (Condition #17). Parking Assessment Spaces: The original development was credited with 56 parking spaces in the assessment district (see attached ARB plans). This number is associated with the most recent assessment of the site prior to the redevelopment, and is shown in the approval for the building. With the expiration of the assessment district the City considers the site to remain credited for these 56 spaces, and the intensification of the use from retail to restaurant requires additional parking for the delta. Planters: The planters are permitted to encroach into the sidewalk, and this allowance has been added to the Public Works condition of approval requiring an encroachment permit. As I had assumed in our meeting, Public Works will indeed require that the planters be rolled indoors at the end of each evening. Seating area: The area in front of and to the immediate left of the front door is not considered a service area as there is no proposed seating. As you referenced in the meeting, Section 12.12.020 of the Municipal Code permits encroachments for the eating areas of eating and drinking establishment uses. Public Works handles encroachment permits and has their own language to describe the areas that are permitted encroachments, and they are not equivalent to the covered service areas that Planning defines for the purpose of determining the Gross Floor Area of the site. Regardless, the draft revised conditions of approval include a provision to explicitly allow no more than 150 square feet of covered outdoor service area, which will be clarified on the building permit plans to include the areas under both the glass cover and the red roof eave at the top of the building. I have included a second draft revision to the Conditions of Approval here for your review, which captures the added condition for garage and lift inspections, and affirms that planters are permitted encroachments. If you wish to withdraw the hearing requests please let me know and we will issue the revised approval letter accordingly. Best, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From:Jeff Levinsky To:Owen, Graham Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado Subject:Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Date:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:58:51 AM Attachments:1998-1999_92-13_Assessment_Roll.pdf Hi Graham: Thanks again for meeting with us yesterday. As you requested, please find attached a city record for the California Avenue Assessment District. There's an entry for 260 Cal Ave on the top of PDF page 6 (document page 3). It shows that the property was required to have 62 spaces in 1968 but was providing 54 (via an adjacent lot, per our research), and so only had to pay for 8 spaces. In 1986, it was providing just 5 spaces and thus needed to pay for 57 spaces. It then adjusted a bit again in 1987 (more intense use?) and again in 1995. The final numbers of needing 62 and having just 6 equals the 56 spaces you are crediting the building with. There's also an entry at the bottom of the prior page for the vacant lot -- which didn't have to provide any parking. If you skim through the report, you'll see many other such examples of buildings whose contribution to the assessment district varied over the years. Since the City credits 260 Cal Ave with 56 spaces when for many years it paid for fewer spaces, my question is where is the policy that governs how many spaces to credit it with? Would a building that paid for many spaces in most years but just a few in the final year only get credit for the few? That doesn't seem fair. So I was hoping to find our City has a written policy that addresses all this. For the Downtown Assessment District, the Municipal Code actually dictates what report to use to determine how many spaces to credit a building with. That rule had a problem that we protested and staff and the Council fixed a few years ago. There's nothing in the Code though for Cal Ave. Thanks, Jeff From:Owen, Graham To:"Jeff Levinsky" Subject:RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Date:Monday, May 01, 2017 3:59:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Jeff, That’s fine, I’ll see you tomorrow at noon. Our conference room is on the 5th floor of City Hall, so just check in with our receptionist Phyllis Davis when you arrive. Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:55 PMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: No -- let's go ahead and meet at noon tomorrow. It's certainly not necessary from our perspective that the applicant be present. We would really like to discuss the issues with you and I'd hope you could convey to the applicant anything relevant that arises. Thanks very much, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 2:50 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Thanks. I’ve checked with the applicant and they can make a meeting on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. I’m looking at the meeting room schedules and 4pm or 5pm on Wednesday or Thursday could work. Would either day/time work for you and the others with PAN? Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:26 AMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: That sounds fine. Tomorrow at noon sounds best -- I checked and I think one or more other PAN people involved in the hearings request can be there then as well. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:17 AM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, I’m happy to meet, it might make sense for the applicant to be there as well so everyone can be on the same page. Are there any times that work best for you? I could do tomorrow at 12pm or 4pm, Wednesday at 9am or 12pm, or Thursday at 12pm or 4pm. Thanks, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:10 AMTo: Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: Thanks for the note. I do have a bunch of questions and remaining concerns. The draft revised conditions don't seem adequate and others neighborhood leaders involved with this agree. Would it be possible to meet with you next week to review the plans and issues in more detail? If so, please let me know what times might be possible. And I may try to bring along another person as well. Thanks again, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:42 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Just following up to see if you had any questions and if the draft revised conditions are satisfactory. Thanks, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:31 PMTo: 'Jeff Levinsky'Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Jeff, Please see my responses to your questions below in red and the attached parking/FAR calculation sheet for reference. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this. If you would like to withdraw the appeal we will issue revised conditions of approval for the project to reflect the changes below. I have included a draft of the revised conditions here for your reference, with the changes in bold to conditions #2 and #3. Best, Graham From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:43 PMTo: Owen, Graham; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Graham: Thanks very much for sending us the materials and offering to answer questions. I do have a few questions: 1. Item 2 in the conditions of approval does not state that the puzzle lifts must remain in proper working condition. Furthermore, there is no provision for what happens if they are not working. Will the restaurant cease operating until the lifts are repaired? If need be there is a code enforcement process for bringing an applicant into compliance. If it is determined that the lift is not functioning we would inform the applicant of the violation of the required parking, and provide a timeframe for bringing the lift system back on line. To ensure compliance, we will clarify in Condition #2 that the lifts must be maintained in proper working condition. 2. The lifts are to be located in the publicly-accessible rear parking area. Is the intent that the customers of the restaurant will park in the puzzle lift system? Your letter says the lifts will be, "independently-accessible spaces that can be used by the building tenants or restaurant customers" The city in general has frowned on retail usage of puzzle lifts. Furthermore, the ground floor parking area is currently only for the office tenants. I’ve spoken with the applicant on this to get further clarity on the use of the proposed lift system, and it makes the most sense for it to be used by the building employees rather than customers. 3. Condition 7 on page 3 of the conditions of approval seems to limits all restaurant activities, not just alcohol service, to operating from 6 am to 10 pm. Is that the intent? Yes, these are the permitted hours of operation for the restaurant proper, although the applicant has indicated that they would open at lunch (11:30am – 2:30pm) and dinner (5:30pm – 10:00am) only. If the restaurant wishes to extend these permitted hours to allow late night operations, they would need to amend the CUP through a new planning application. 4. Has the city recently denied any conditional use permit requests for restaurant alcohol use? If so, on what grounds did the city deny the permits? I don’t believe that we have denied any alcohol-relate CUPs in the past few years, but we actually don’t get that many alcohol applications to begin with. We certainly look at the specific circumstances of each proposed site and use when evaluating the applications, and request changes to proposals to ensure that the findings can be met. 5. The plans and parking analysis state that there will be 150 square feet of restaurant out in front. Municipal Code §18.04.030(a)(65)(A)(vii) says that Gross Floor Area includes, “Permanently roofed, but either partially enclosed or unenclosed, building features used for sales, service, display, storage or similar use.” The 150 square feet appear to be under the overhang of the second floor, which extends for over 5 feet, and having customer seating there definitely seems to be sales and service activities. So that 150 square feet seems to qualify as Gross Floor Area. Doesn’t that extra 150 square feet of Gross Floor Area then put the building over its 2.0 FAR limit? I’ve looked into this and you are correct, the outdoor seating area counts towards GFA. I had incorrectly considered this area as counting towards parking but not towards GFA. This 150 SF of outdoor seating is offset by 172 SF of area in the trash/recycling room on the first floor, which was included in the GFA for the building’s original entitlement but should have been excluded. However, there are currently caged-off areas in the garage which are used for storage, and as these areas are not used for parking they also count towards GFA. The original entitlement plans for the building showed these storage areas, and it had been our interpretation at that time that such areas were considered accessory to parking and therefore excluded from GFA. We no longer interpret the code in this fashion, and as a result, most of these storage areas will need to be converted to an excluded function in order to fit under the 2.0:1 FAR. I will issue a revised approval letter with the attached draft conditions to ensure that these storage areas may only be used for bicycle parking, which the applicant has agreed to and is exempt from GFA. The applicant had previously proposed to use 430 SF of basement storage area, which had been counted towards their GFA and parking, and this area will be reduced to 232 SF through the revised conditions of approval. As a result of this smaller storage area for the restaurant, the total number of required additional spaces would drop from 4 to 2. 6. Furthermore, the 150 square foot number appears to understate the actual covered area being added in front of the restaurant in both depth and width:. o Depth: In addition to the overhang, there are permanent overhead glass plates above the area and a red outrigger on the top of the building. The latter appears to extend out for about 3 feet beyond the second floor overhang, so much of the outdoor seating area will be under it. o Width: The plans show the 150 square feet excluding an area in front of the restaurant entrance. But that area will be traversed by restaurant staff serving customers sitting outside. Hence, it is part of the service area of the restaurant and thus constitutes gross floor area as well. That widens the outdoor area to about 43 feet. Using the revised numbers, the covered outdoor area is then roughly 344 square feet of Gross Floor Area. Doesn’t that put the building even further over its 2.0 FAR limit? The 150 SF of covered service area does need to be parked. See Section AB in sheet A300 of the project plans for clarity on the extent of the outdoor seating area. The area to the left of the seating area is indeed covered but isn’t part of the service area, so there is no need to provide parking for these areas. Tables and chairs are not proposed in the area in front of the door and would not be considered service area. To ensure that there is no confusion on this, the conditions of approval will be revised to specifically allow no more than 150 SF of outdoor seating. 7. Gross Floor Area for restaurant use needs to be parked. Based on the prior point, the plans should show approximately 344 rather than 150 square feet of outdoor area in the parking calculation. Doesn’t that mean the building needs another parking space and the current proposal leaves it underparked? See above. 8. Does the city have a formal written policy as to how to treat parking requirements for new and rebuilt square footage in the California Avenue Assessment District? I could not find any such policy. Please see section 18.52.060 of the Municipal Code for more information on parking requirements in the Cal Ave Assessment District. 9. Because the Director’s decision entails both a Conditional Use Permit and an Architectural Review, should I request a hearing for each of them if I wish to protest the above issues? Any guidance would be appreciated. For example, do all the parking and FAR issues fall under the Architectural Review? 10. Does the city have any official forms I should use to request the hearing(s)? Thank you again, Jeff Levinsky 1682 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650 328-1954 ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen, Graham To: Jeff Levinsky ; Neilson Buchanan ; Paul Machado ; Rebecca Sanders Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 6:00 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Mr. Levinsky, I wanted to update you on the application for the Protégé Restaurant at 260 California Avenue. The applicant has proposed to add the four parking spaces required to covert the existing retail space to a restaurant in their garage through the use of “puzzle”-style mechanical parking lifts. The lift system specifications are included in the revised plan set (page 9), and allow for independently-accessible spaces that can be used by the building tenants or restaurant customers. Given this change to the plans we have tentatively approved the CUP/ARB application, and I have attached the approval letter, conditions, and revised project plans in this email for your reference. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Owen, Graham Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 4:40 PMTo: 'Jeff Levinsky'; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Mr. Levinsky, I have received your messages and will respond to your query once I have finished reviewing the project. Thank you, Graham Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 3:03 PMTo: Hernandez, Victoria; Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca Sanders; Owen, GrahamSubject: Re: 260 California Avenue Status Request Hi Everyone: It's been two days and we haven't heard back from Graham, so I left a voice message for him as well just now. Jeff 650 328-1954 ----- Original Message ----- From: Hernandez, Victoria To: Jeff Levinsky Cc: Neilson Buchanan ; Paul Machado ; Rebecca Sanders ; Owen, Graham Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:37 PM Subject: RE: 260 California Avenue Status Request Dear Jeff, I am writing to let you know that the application for 260 California Avenue has been reassigned to a different Planner, Graham Owen. I have included Graham’s contact information below and have copied him in this e-mail. Please direct any questions or concerns you may have to Graham. Graham Owen | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Thank you, Victoria Hernandez | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2662 |E: victoria.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 5:24 PMTo: Hernandez, VictoriaCc: Neilson Buchanan; Paul Machado; Rebecca SandersSubject: 260 California Avenue Status Request Dear Ms. Hernandez: I'm writing to you on behalf of the PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Zoning Committee, which looks at zoning issues and violations on behalf of Palo Alto residents. We'd like to know the status and city's position on the use of the ground floor of 260 California Avenue as a restaurant. We are aware that a restaurant application has been filed with the city. However, restaurant use of the retail space on the building's ground floor in addition to the building's other office use appears to require more parking than the building has provided onsite and via payment into the assessment district. Hence, we don't understand why the restaurant application is proceeding at all. Can you explain? Furthermore, we see that an Architectural Review of outdoor seating has been requested. Can you tell us if that will be before some or all of the Architectural Review Board? And when is that review scheduled for? As you likely know, the California Avenue area already has an extreme parking shortage, leading to complaints from both existing merchants and nearby residents. Therefore, any new use on California Avenue that fails to comply with legal parking requirements is of grave concern. We look forward to your reply. Thanking you in advance, Jeff Levinsky Chair, PAN Zoning Committee Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to PTC Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “260 California Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “260 Cal, updated restaurant plans, 4.5.17”.