Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-12 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: July 12, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.Comprehensive Plan Update: Overview of the Comp Plan Review process, including legal requirements of the Plan, objectives, key issues and schedule. 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.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3980 El Camino Real [17PLN-00197]: Request by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County for a Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site that Includes the Buena Vista Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and Two Adjacent Commercial Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access and Utilities Easements. The Three New Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5 Acres, Zoned RM-15 for Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena Vista Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for Neighborhood Commercial Use (Existing Retail Building), (3) Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned CN (Existing Gas Station Site) and RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More than Eight Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre Residential Portion Would Be Leased to the Housing Authority for Up To Three Years, _______________________ 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. Allowing Tenants to Remain Until They can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. For More Information Contact Project Planner Amy French at Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.com 4.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN- 00220]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-Use Development with 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as well as a Three-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the circulation period ends on August 2, 2017. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM-30 (Multi-family Residential, and R-1 (Single-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.June 14, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment June 14, 2017 Meeting Minutes _______________________ 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 # 7763) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments:  Attachment A: July 12, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa, 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing 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 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 Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda July 6, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics July 26  Comp Plan: Public Hearing on Land Use & Transportation  Office/R&D Annual Limit Extension Ord.  Stanford GUP 2018: Initial Traffic Study Findings  4157 El Camino Way August 9  Comp Plan: Land Use and Transportation  101 Bike Bridge  Downtown Cap Study-Residential Infill Analysis  Rail Program CSS Alternatives Analysis Plans, Problem Statement  Downtown Parking Management #2 August 30  Comp Plan: Public Hearing Land Use & Transportation  Marijuana Ordinance September 13  Comp Plan: Public Hearing: All Elements including, Natural Environment, Safety, Community Services, Business Economics  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 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8096) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Overview Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Overview of the Comp Plan Review process, including legal requirements of the Plan, objectives, key issues and schedule. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Receive a staff presentation providing an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) by the City Council. The presentation and materials are intended to assist the PTC with its review and recommendation over the next few months, and no formal action is recommended at this meeting. Nonetheless, Commissioners may identify specific issues they would like to focus on at one of their following meetings. Report Summary This staff report will serve as a guide for the PTC’s review and recommendation regarding the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan over the next three months. The report and presentation will provide the following:  Explanation of the Comprehensive Plan Update process so far;  Overview of the contents, organization, and legal requirements for the Comprehensive Plan (which is a called a “general plan” under State law);  Summary of key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements, on which the PTC has chosen to focus their review; and  Description of the proposed objectives, approach and schedule for PTC’s review, consistent with earlier discussions by the Commission. Background On June 12, 2017, the City Council referred the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC for review and a recommendation within 90 days. This draft Plan (referred to in this report as the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan) reflects the Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC) May City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 16, 2017 recommendations to the Council and incorporates changes based on Council’s review up to and including their meeting on June 12th. Consistent with Section 19.04.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s direction, the PTC’s 90 day review began with dissemination of the Draft Plan on June 30, 2017 and will end (unless extended by the Council) on September 30, 2017. The June 30, 2017 Draft Plan has been distributed to the PTC and is available on the 5th floor at City Hall, at the City libraries and on the Comp Plan Update website: www.paloaltocompplan.org. The PTC has had several discussions at prior meetings regarding how to conduct its review, whether it is feasible within 90 days, whether to use one or more subcommittees, and how many meetings to hold. At the June 14, 2017 meeting, the PTC passed a motion to focus its review on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and decided not to form subcommittees. In response to a Commission question, staff noted that PTC members can consult with other members outside of meetings, as long as these discussions adhere to Brown Act requirements and do not involve a majority of the members. The PTC also discussed what issues the PTC should address in its review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This staff report includes a list of key issues for both the Land Use and Transportation Elements. Some of these issues were the subjects of significant discussion at both the CAC and the Council. Others are included because they are key policy updates in the Comp Plan. Resources Staff suggests that PTC members become familiar with the Comp Plan website at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/, which was created for the most recent phase of the Comp Plan Update and serves as a central location for project updates, published documents, meeting materials, and background information. It will be a valuable reference to inform the PTC’s review. Of particular relevance, the Comp Plan website includes individual pages with meeting materials for all public meetings, including the City Council and Citizen Advisory Committee, that have been held as part of the Update process. CAC meeting materials (full CAC and subcommittees): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/ PTC meeting materials (including study sessions dating back to 2008 – this will continue to be updated regularly during your review over the summer): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/ City Council meeting materials (including recent reviews of the CAC draft Elements in 2016 and 2017, as well as initial direction on the Goals and Visions for each Element from 2015): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/ City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The website also has all EIR documents (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). The fiscal study that analyzes the six Comp Plan EIR scenarios, the existing conditions reports prepared in 2014, materials from the 2015 Summit, and other background documents are available on the Resources page at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/resources/. Discussion The discussion below provides a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, followed by a discussion of the organization and legal requirements governing each section of the Draft Plan. Subsequent sections focus on key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements for the PTC’s review and the status of the environmental review process. Comprehensive Plan Update Process The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource, community services, and safety. The City Council recognized the need to update the Plan and initiated the update in 2006. The PTC then spent close to six years working on the Comprehensive Plan Update (from 2008 to 2014), ultimately sending its recommendation to the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s recommendations, the City Council adopted a schedule and strategy for “reframing” the long-running update to include expanded community engagement and a full evaluation of alternatives, cumulative impacts and mitigation strategies. The Council held a community-wide Summit, attended by over 350 people in May 2015, and created the CAC to engage in further dialog and community outreach to inform the Council’s amendments. Between July 2015 and May 2017, the full CAC met 23 times to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC, and receive and review community input. The CAC also formed subcommittees to discuss each Element, as well as a Sustainability subcommittee that considered sustainability-related issues in several Elements. There were a total of 29 meetings of CAC subcommittees. All CAC meetings were noticed and open to the public and included time for public comment. All meeting materials and minutes from CAC meetings are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/ In addition, the City Council has met independently to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC and the CAC, and receive and review community input. The City Council has discussed the Comp Plan goals and vision statements, EIR scenarios, and draft Elements at 24 meetings since 2010. City Council agendas, staff reports, and other relevant materials for Comp Plan discussion items are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/city-council/ 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 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 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). The Council-initiated process applicable to the update underway is similar to the process 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 city 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, the City Council referred the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC at the June 12, 2017 Council meeting, with the referral to be effective upon transmittal of the draft Plan. Therefore, the Council’s referral is effective and the PTC’s review period begins as of June 30, 2017 when the document was transmitted to the PTC. Comprehensive Plan Update Organization The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by State law, as well as optional elements and topics. This relationship is shown in Table 1. The Plan includes a total of seven Elements; two are optional. All of these draft elements are based on the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the PTC’s proposed revisions and public input. These draft elements are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, CAC subcommittees, staff, and consultants. Table 1. State-Mandated and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Elements State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element Land Use Land Use & Community Design Circulation Transportation Housing* Housing* Open Space Conservation Noise Natural Environment Safety Safety Optional Elements Business & Economics City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element Community Services & Facilities *The City’s current Housing Element was adopted separately in November 2014 and certified by the State in January 2015, so it has not been part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 Each element begins with a vision statement which lays out the overall objective and spirit of the element, followed by an introductory narrative. Following the vision statement and narrative, the plan’s organization is achieved via a series of headings, subheadings and goals. Goals are high-level statements articulating an end point towards which the City will direct its efforts. They provide a structure for the subsequent policies and implementation programs that serve to advance the goals. This structural framework is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Structural Framework of the Comprehensive Plan (Used in All Elements) Vision Statement summarizing what Palo Alto will be like at the end of the planning horizon. Goal General end towards which the City will direct effort. Policy Specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program. Program An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Programs require resources—primarily time and money—to complete. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 In addition to formal “elements,” the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of other sections or chapters intended to improve the usability of the document. These include the introduction, governance chapter, and implementation chapter. The function of each section and element is described further below, along with applicable legal requirements. For the elements that the PTC has chosen not to focus on, we have also briefly summarized changes from the current Comprehensive Plan. (See the sections that follow for a more in depth discussion of key issues and changes related to the Land Use and Transportation elements.) Introduction Legal Requirements The Introduction is considered a “section” or “chapter” of the Comp Plan and is not an Element. It provides background information for users of the Comprehensive Plan. Organization The Introduction chapter provides an overview of the basic requirements and format of the Plan, as well as the public participation and implementation processes for its development. The City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 subsection on major themes has been updated to describe the current planning challenges and opportunities addressed by this update, specifically, the themes of “meeting housing supply challenges” and “protecting and sustaining the natural environment.” A new section – “maintaining a safe community” – has been added to reflect the new, separate Safety Element. The comprehensive plan update process section has been completely replaced with a description of the roles and contributions of the CAC, Council and PTC to the Plan’s overall structure, vision, goals, policies and programs. This section also describes the Plan’s community engagement framework, including the Summit and Open City Hall. Land Use Element Legal Requirements The State law requiring adoption of a general plan (referred to as the Comprehensive Plan in Palo Alto) provides that the land use element must: define categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under the City's jurisdiction; recommend standards for population density and building intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and include a Land Use Map and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in the city. Organization The Land Use Element addresses: growth management, compatibility and design policies within each land use designation, urban design, historic and archaeological resources, parks and gathering places, public streets and public spaces, including parking, gateways, the urban forest, utilities and infrastructure, and public art, as well as the Palo Alto Airport. The Land Use Element also includes the Land Use Map and land use designations. See the discussion of Key Issues below for more information. Transportation Element Legal Requirements State general plan law says that the circulation element must correlate directly with the land use element. According to Government Code Section 65302, the circulation element should include the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities. In addition, the element must plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element addresses most of the required aspects of the required circulation element, including complete streets, expressways and freeways, transit, walking, bicycling, parking, and special transportation needs. The portion related to local public utilities is addressed in other elements. Organization The Transportation Element addresses: sustainable transportation; decreasing traffic delay and congestion; streets; neighborhood impacts; motor vehicle and bicycle parking; road safety; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 transit-dependent community; and regional collaboration and coordination. See the discussion of Key Issues below for more information. Natural Environment Element Legal Requirements In Palo Alto, the existing Natural Environment Element encompasses four of the seven mandatory elements of a general plan (Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety). In this Comp Plan Update, Safety is separated into a separate element, so the updated Natural Environment encompasses three legally-required elements of a general plan. Therefore, the Natural Environment Element must respond to clearly-defined statutory requirements, as well as a number of legislative changes in general plan law over the past fifteen years since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. State general plan law says that the conservation element must address the “conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, and minerals” (Gov. Code, § 65302(d)(1).) According to Government Code Section 65560, the open space element should cover any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to 1) the preservation of natural resources; 2) the managed production of resources (in the case of Palo Alto, this is limited to Williamson Act-contracted lands only) ; 3) outdoor recreation; 4) public health and safety (which is also addressed in the Safety Element); 5) support of the mission of military installations (there are none within the Palo Alto SOI); or 6) the protection of any Native American historic, cultural, burial or sacred site. (In the Comprehensive Plan, protection of tribal burial sites and sacred sites are addressed as archeological resources under Goal L-7 of the Land Use Element.) Finally, the noise element is a mandatory element described in Government Code Section 65302(f) that covers the issues and sources of noise relevant to the local planning area. The element should utilize the most accurate and up-to-date information available to reflect the noise environment, stationary sources of noise, predicted levels of noise, and the impacts of noise on local residents, and include measures to address existing or foreseeable noise problems. Organization The Natural Environment Element addresses: open space, including connectivity, habitat, and public access; the urban forest and the understory; creeks and riparian areas; water resources, including water quality, water supply, drought, and groundwater; air quality; noise, including impacts from construction, aircraft, and rail; energy, including carbon-neutral energy, conservation and efficiency, and grid improvements; and climate change and climate adaptation. The draft Element reflects Council recommendations to incorporate a new Goal on City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Climate Change and Climate Adaption, and to create a new Safety Element by moving Goals on Natural Hazards (Goal N-2), Hazardous Waste (Goal N-6), and Solid Waste (Goal N-7) to a separate Safety Element. The Council also added language to two goals, and revised the vision statement to address traffic congestion. The Natural Environment Element, as well as the Land Use and Community Design Element and the Transportation Element, was drafted to be consistent with the goal and strategies in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), which has been under preparation in a separate, parallel process and is pending Council adoption. Safety Element Legal Requirements The Safety Element is a required Element under State general plan law. As noted above, the current Comprehensive Plan presents Safety Element content as part of the Natural Environment Element. Based on Council direction, the Safety Element has been drafted as a standalone Element. According to Government Code Section 65302(g), the Safety Element must address protection from seismic hazards, dam failure, landslides and other geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. There are specific requirements to map, and have policies responding to, flood hazard zones, wildfire hazard areas, and sea level rise, as well as other topics related to climate adaptation and resiliency. According to Government Code Section 65302, the land use element must also identify and provide for annual review those areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. Note that although the Government Code references this requirement as part of the land use element, the City has the flexibility to place the required information in another Element as appropriate. These floodplain requirements are fulfilled in the Safety Element. Organization The Safety Element includes the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste goals that were removed from the existing Natural Environment Element. The Safety Element addresses: community safety, including public awareness, emergency management, and volunteer programs; natural hazards, including earthquakes, fire, and flood; and human-caused threats, including hazardous materials, solid waste, and cybersecurity. It also touches on the protection and respect for civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy; safety from climate impacts; emergency preparation; and protection from outside threats or terrorism. Community Services & Facilities Element Legal Requirements The Community Services & Facilities Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Organization The Community Services & Facilities Element addresses: community service delivery, including broad participation, partnerships, access, schools, children youth and teens, seniors, and those with special needs; City services provided to the public; maintenance of existing parks and community facilities; planning for future parks and community facilities; and community well- being. This Element reflects CAC-identified themes, including inclusion, participation in civic life, vitality of Palo Alto, better connection to schools and school-age children’s needs, services for teens, emphasis on the diversity of citywide programming, redefinition of “customer service”, increased and stronger connection to metrics to measure success. In addition, this Element recognizes the upcoming Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Business & Economics Element Legal Requirements The Business & Economics Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. Organization The Business & Economics Element addresses: the City’s overall economy, including fiscal health and business attraction and retention; compatibility and interdependence between businesses, residential neighborhoods, and the environment; the local culture of innovation and support for small businesses; flexibility and predictability for businesses seeking City approvals; and the physical settings of Palo Alto’s retail centers and business employment districts. This draft Element reflects Council recommendations to adopt the current Goals and organization of the Element, with updates limited to modifications to the wording of Goal B-2 and Goal B-3. The Element also reflects Council direction to consider policies and programs that would mitigate impacts of job growth, such as parking, housing and traffic. Governance Legal Requirements The Governance chapter is a not an “element” of the Plan and is not required by State law. It addresses community involvement in local decision-making processes. Organization The Governance chapter is intended to provide guidance to citizens and community groups participating in City decision-making. Substantive changes recommended to the Governance Chapter mostly focus on the new technologies and tools for citizen participation that have been developed since the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Plan also includes an Implementation Chapter that identifies specific actions to be taken to carry out the Plan. For each action, the priority, anticipated level of effort, and responsible agency or department is identified. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Implementation Legal Requirements Similar to Governance, the Implementation Chapter is not a Plan Element, but is intended as a description of the steps to be taken in order to achieve the Plan’s goals. It consolidates and repeats implementation programs from all of the elements of the plan into a single list. Organization The Implementation chapter has two main parts: a background narrative and a table that consolidates and prioritizes the timing for all programs in the Comp Plan. The narrative explains how programs implement the Comp Plan and how the timing of that implementation is established by decision-makers based on evolving priorities and available resources. The narrative clarifies that it will not be feasible to implement all of the programs over the 15 year life of the plan. This means that the City has to prioritize, and the text acknowledges that priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time. The narrative also calls on the PTC to conduct an annual review of the plan as required by State law, and concludes with a caveat: “The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching vision and themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The City recognizes there are resource constraints and a need to focus those resources.” The Implementation table provides the following information for each program in the Comp Plan:  Lead Department or Agency: The City Department that would have primary responsibility for tracking and completing the program.  Timing: Five categories are used: o R: “Routine” activities that are part of the normal course of business for staff; o IP: “In progress” – programs that are already underway to complete a specific, defined work effort; o S: “Short-term” – programs planned for implementation within the first five years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; o M: “Medium-term” – typically means programs that would be implemented or completed roughly within five to ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; and o L: “Long-term” – programs that would be implemented or completed more than ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption. With resource constraints and changing circumstances, it is expected that the timing identified here may change. For example, as short-term programs begin, they will change to “In Progress.”  Anticipated Level of Effort: Gives an order-of-magnitude of cost in terms of staff and monetary resources required to implement the program. Some programs are already budgeted and ongoing, while the City Council will need to identify resources during future budget cycles in order to implement other programs. The PTC may City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 recommend changing priorities or adding/subtracting programs in the course of their regular annual review, which staff is recommending occur in December each year. Staff may then recommend prioritization or funding during the annual budget process, which begins shortly thereafter. PTC Review As shown in Table 3 below, the PTC will be reviewing the Land Use and Transportation Elements in July, August and September 2017. The PTC brings a new and valuable perspective, one that is enriched by the Commission’s work on planning issues, policies and projects, to the Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC can add the greatest value to the draft Comprehensive Plan Update by focusing on key issues and questions in the Land Use and Transportation Elements and bringing their experience and needs as key users of the Comp Plan to this review. It is anticipated that the PTC’s recommendations to the City Council will take the form of a report that includes one or more motions with a list of suggested changes to the Draft Plan transmitted to the PTC on June 30, 2017. These suggested changes would be at a policy level, not at the level of wordsmithing existing policies. For example, the PTC could recommend “Strengthen the policies on transit dependent populations” instead of editing the language of the existing policies on this topic. The Council will be reviewing these elements after the PTC review has been completed (see Table 3 below) when the Council holds its final set of hearings to adopt the Comp Plan Update and will review the PTC report then. Suggested objectives of the PTC’s review are:  To recommend needed high-level adjustments to policies and programs in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, and the Implementation Plan, to better address major policy issues.  To identify any inconsistencies or redundancies between the elements for clarification or elimination in order to make the document more useable for the PTC and the public. A draft schedule for PTC review is provided below. Environmental Review The Commission will receive the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update in late August or early September and will be asked to recommend certification by the City Council pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Table 3. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule Month Topic June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 July July 12 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation July 26 7/26 PTC Hearing Land Use (1 of 2) Goals L-1 to L-4 August Aug. 9 8/ 9 PTC Hearing Land Use (2 of 2) Goals L-5 to L-10 and Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing Transportation (1 of 2) Goals T-1 to T-4 September + Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission Sept. 13 9/13 PTC Hearing Transportation (2 of 2) Goals T-5 to T-8 and Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table Sept. 27 9/27 PTC Hearing Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the Final EIR Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 Key Issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements Below are key issues in the Comprehensive Plan Update’s changes to policy and program direction affecting the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The policies and programs on this list were important updates during the discussion and refinement of these Elements at the CAC and/or the Council. This list is intended to help the PTC frame their review of these Elements. The PTC is encouraged to bring its own fresh perspective to these issues and to the review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This PTC perspective is likely to have more impact and value for the City Council, which has already reviewed the CAC’s recommendations. Land Use Element This section provides background information from the CAC and Council discussions of key issues to help the PTC understand the options discussed and the recommendations included in the June 30 draft. A. Non-residential Growth Management The CAC and Council both spent considerable time and energy addressing non-residential development, especially the amount of future office and R&D space. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 The current Comprehensive Plan manages non-residential development through Policy L-8, which places an absolute numerical cap on the amount of non-residential space in the nine “monitored” planning areas shown on Map L-6, as well as through Program L-8, which has a similar cap for downtown. After learning about the existing system and reviewing data on past non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC developed a series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management options evolved into three major components: a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a downtown cap. The CAC, primarily through the work of the Sustainability subcommittee, also developed a list of development requirements and community indicators, intended to regulate the quality of growth alongside other policies to regulate the quantity of growth.  December 15, 2016 CAC staff report: Initial introduction to the Land Use Element, including growth management policies: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Dec-15-2015-CAC-packet1.pdf  April 6, 2016 Land Use subcommittee agenda packet, including discussion of dynamic growth management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/CACLandUseSucommitteeAgendaPacket-20160406.pdf  April 19, 2016 full CAC staff report, including discussion of dynamic growth management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAC-Packet- 04.19.2016-Memo.pdf  May 17, 2016 CAC staff report presenting multiple options for growth management policies and programs: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf  June 13, 2016 Land Use subcommittee staff report with detailed discussion of evolving growth management policy options and questions for refinement: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CAC_Subctte-Memo- 06.13.16_Corrected.pdf  June 24, 2016 continuation of June 13 subcommittee discussion of growth management policy options, presented in a staff report: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160624.pdf and attachment: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Att.-A-Land-Use- Growth-Management-Options.pdf  July 19, 2016 full CAC staff report summarizing growth management policy options developed by the Land Use subcommittee: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_7.19.16.pdf  July 26, 2016 Sustainability subcommittee staff report; initial exploration of performance measures and community indicators: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160726.pdf  August 16, 2016 full CAC staff report, describing the work of both the Sustainability and the Land Use subcommittees. Presents three major components of growth management policy options: overall cumulative growth management policy options, performance measures, and numerical caps. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14  September 20, 2016 full CAC staff report, reporting consensus that the Land Use and Sustainability subcommittees had drafted a full range of growth management policies and programs that accurately represented the range of options to forward to the City Council for discussion: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff-Report_Sept20-2.pdf. Beginning on November 28, 2016, the City Council reviewed the draft Land Use Element that the CAC unanimously recommended at its September meeting, including the growth management options. The November 28 Council packet, which includes a detailed description of the CAC-drafted range of cumulative cap options, annual limit options, and downtown cap options, is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54761 On November 28, 2016, Council provided some initial feedback, and requested additional information, but did not make any formal motions. The Council took up the Land Use Element again on January 30, 2017. The staff report for January 30 is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582. The comments from November 28, 2016 are summarized in Attachment, C, which begins on page 147 of the packet. The Council discussed the cumulative cap, annual limit, and downtown cap in detail at its January 30, 2017 meeting. Ultimately, the Council moved to:  Maintain the existing citywide (cumulative) cap on non-residential development, recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet are remaining, and focus the cap on office/R&D development only, rather than including retail and other non-residential uses. Also, continue to exempt medical office uses in the SUMC vicinity and require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap should be adjusted. (Goal L-1, Policy L-1.9)  Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance making permanent the interim Annual Limit of 50,000 square feet of New Office/R&D Development, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and  Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus on monitoring development (see Program L1.9.1) and parking demand (see Transportation Element Program T5.1.3).  Maintain the policy requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts, (see Goal L-1, Policy L-1.10) but delete policies and programs that refer to specific development requirements.  Delete the policies that refer to creating Community Indicators from the Comp Plan since there are several other city programs that assess community indicators. The Council motion on the Land Use Element, including direction on growth management policies, is available in the January 30, 2017 action minutes, here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 (see page 5). While staff would be happy to answer questions about the CAC’s growth management options and the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Council’s decisions, we urge the PTC to focus on areas where they can add their perspective(s) or recommend adjustments that would improve the usability of the plan, rather than re-visit the Council’s high level decisions. B. Housing The CAC and Council discussed the need for Palo Alto to be more assertive in sustaining a socio- economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. The draft Land Use Element reflects a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable” rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” Policies and programs refer to “housing that is affordable,” meaning housing that is at the lower end of the local price range due to age, size, design, location, or other characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a certain income level (Program L1.3.1, Program L2.5.1, Policy L-2.7). There was also consensus on the need to preserve existing housing that is affordable and to minimize displacement of existing residents. (Policy L 2.7 and 2.8) CAC members offered a range of different ideas about how to address housing supply and affordability. Many CAC discussions of housing issues occurred as part of discussions of related issues of design and land use planning. For example, some CAC members expressed willingness to exceed the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for seniors and people with special needs, while others did not agree. (See below for background on height limit discussions.) Some strongly supported protecting local retail and/or existing surface parking in shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping Center, while others felt that these spaces could be considered as potential locations for new housing. (See D below for background on discussion of commercial centers.) The array of housing policies and programs under Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8 in the June 30 draft Element is based on both CAC draft policies and Council direction on the components of the preferred scenario in the Comp Plan EIR. The Council also discussed locations for new housing, adding programs to explore housing in the Stanford Research Park, near Stanford University Medical Center and, under certain circumstances, at the Stanford Shopping Center. (See Policy L-2.4 and its programs). Following Council direction, the June 30 draft Element includes policies to:  Allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes for greater affordability and laying out strategies to increase housing supply (Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8) Height limits were an issue closely related to both housing and growth management. The subcommittee and full CAC discussed height limits extensively and developed a range of options for Council consideration that included keeping the existing 50-foot height limit, allowing some flexibility if needed to achieve better design (e.g. to allow taller ground floor retail spaces), and to allow heights of up to 65 feet – or even taller - in specific areas to encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options. See the May 17, 2016 full CAC staff report for a discussion: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf (page 6-7). The Council considered the range of height limit policy options in its January 30, 2017 review of the Land Use Element. Councilmembers noted that the City’s 50 foot height limit is currently referred to in a narrative section of the Comprehensive Plan, but is not contained in any goal or policy and the Council motion was to maintain the current 50 foot height limit in the zoning ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update. Therefore, the June 30 draft Element does not include a policy establishing a height limit; however, the Council was clear that they do not see a strong need to change the existing 50-foot height limit. The Council motion is here (see page 5): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 C. Neighborhoods Throughout the development of the draft Land Use Element, there was strong consensus on both the Council and the CAC that the Comp Plan should continue to set high standards for urban design and protect neighborhood character through a focus on neighborhood compatibility. In this context, a major topic of CAC focus was basement construction. The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply, flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC also explored a policy and program addressing concerns about basement design and the impact of large basements on neighborhoods. CAC staff reports on this issue were provided on July 19, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff- Memo_7.19.16.pdf - see page 8), August 16, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf -see page 16), and September 20, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff- Report_Sept20-2.pdf - see page 5). These efforts resulted in a draft policy to avoid the negative impacts of basement construction (Goal L-3, Policy L-3.5), which Council refined through its review. The following Land Use Policies address the key Policy Updates in Goals 4 through 10. They address current and emerging issues. D. Hotels Identify suitable hotel locations and explore increasing Hotel FAR (Goal L-4, Policy L-4.4). This policy was added by the Council. E. Commercial Centers Identify characteristics of commercial centers- including exploring additional retail FAR at Stanford Shopping Center and preparing coordinated area plans for the Fry’s site and the surrounding California Avenue area and downtown (Goal L-4, Policies L-4.6 to L-4.8). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 F. Employment Districts Foster compact employment districts that reduce auto trips. Explore a diverse mix of uses at Stanford Research Park, including residential, retail and a hotel (Goal L-5, Program L-5.1). G. Urban Design Promote compatibility and avoid abrupt changes in scale and density (Goal L-6, Policy L-6.7). H. Historic Resources Protect historic resources, including protecting resources that have not been evaluated for inclusion in State or Federal Historic Resources Inventory prior to substantial alteration or demolition. Consider revising the TDR ordinance so development transferred from historic buildings downtown can only be used for residential development. (Goal L-7, Policies L-7.2 and L-7.13) I. Civic Uses Support existing community facilities and create new gathering places. Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. (Goal L-8, Policy L-8.1) J. Public Streets and Spaces Create and enhance publicly accessible outdoor gathering spaces (Goal L-9, Policies L-9.4 to 9.6). K. Palo Alto Airport Minimize environmental impacts associated with airport operations, including noise and bayland protection and enhancement (Goal L-10, Policies L -10.3 to 10.6). Transportation Element In the Transportation Element, key policy questions include prioritization of future transportation infrastructure investments and sustainability-based strategies and initiatives. There was more consensus at the CAC and at the Council on the Transportation Element as compared to the Land Use Element. For example, at the CAC, there were no issues or policies within the draft Transportation Element that resulted in the CAC generating policy options for Council decision. Therefore, this section does not include a detailed review of CAC policy options and Council direction, as presented above for the Land Use Element, but this section gives a brief overview of how the Element was developed, and provides links past CAC and Council staff reports that offer more detailed background information. The CAC discussed the Transportation Element at 6 full meetings and 4 subcommittee meetings from September 2015 through July 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also discussed the Transportation Element. The staff report for the first CAC discussion of the Element provides the background of the contents of the 1998 Element, previous PTC revision process, the Council City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18 direction on Element goals and vision, and a goal-by-goal overview of key issues and related City efforts. It is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Agenda-Item-3- Transportation-Element-Discussion.pdf The staff report for the first CAC review of a Draft Transportation Element includes background on Transportation Element subcommittee areas of consensus and topics for further CAC discussion, including an evolving discussion of approaches to parking, and the appropriate balance between encouraging alternative’s to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips without demonizing drivers. See: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Staff-Report.pdf The CAC considered recommending the draft Element to Council at their June 21, 2016 meeting. The staff report prepared for that meeting contains a detailed summary of the CAC and subcommittee process of deliberation that led to the draft Element, including the issues that garnered both consensus and differences of opinion through the process. It also provides links to interim drafts of the Element. It is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_06.21.16.pdf After in-depth discussion on June 21, the CAC unanimously recommended the draft Element to the Council at their July 19, 2016 meeting. The City Council first reviewed the CAC draft Transportation Element at the Council’s August 15 and September 19, 2016 meetings. The Council staff report summarizes the CAC process and outlines key issues on which staff sought Council feedback, including overall Element organization, strategies for reducing SOV trips, a phased approach to parking supply, and utilizing both vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and level of service (LOS) as metrics for traffic analysis. It is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53339 In addition to responding to issues raised by the CAC, the Council also focused on the policies and programs supporting the City’s new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy and the associated Transportation Management Association (TMA); ensuring that policies accurately reflect the new Residential Parking Program (RPP); and carefully reviewing the legally-required list of planned transportation infrastructure investments. The final Council staff report covering the draft Transportation Element is from its May 1, 2017 meeting. That staff report reviews the Council’s prior feedback on transportation infrastructure investments and other revisions made in response to Council direction. The May 1, 2017 Council staff report is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57258 Key policy topics for PTC discussion include:  Transportation Infrastructure Investments: the Council considered and provided direction on this list, which reflects the planned improvement assumed as part of the Comp Plan EIR analysis. The Council-approved list appears in the background section of the draft Element (page T-12) and is: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19 o Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings. o Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue. o Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto. o Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended. o The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge. o El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements. o Downtown mobility and safety improvements. o Geng Road extension to Laura Lane. o Middlefield Road corridor improvements.  Single-occupant vehicle use: The Element tackles this topic from several angles, developing a comprehensive strategy throughout Goal T-1 of this Element that encompasses: o making it easier and more convenient to use alternatives to the automobile (Policy T-1.1) o improving first/last mile connections (Program T1.6.1, Policy T-1.13), with an emphasis on continuing the free shuttle program (Policy T-1.14) o increasing efforts to market, promote, and educate about alternatives to the automobile and make transit more convenient (Policies T-1.7 through T-1.12) o identifying funding sources for transit and alternative transportation improvements (Policy T-1.25, T-1.26 and T-1.27) o preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation, including zero-emission vehicles (Policy T-1.3 and T-1.4). Council directed addition of a new policy on autonomous vehicles, which was crafted with input from staff technical experts (Policy T-1.5).  TDM requirements: The Element formalizes a program to implement TDM requirements for future development. The program establishes specific quantified goals for trip reduction and is closely tied to an EIR mitigation measure to reduce traffic congestion impacts. (Goal T-1, Program T1.2.2)  Traffic congestion: Policies and programs under Goal T-2 address traffic congestion, including through expanding the existing TMA (Policy T-2.2) and addressing school- related congestion (Policies T-2.6 and T-2.7)  VMT and LOS: The draft Element maintains a policy of using conventional vehicular LOS to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic congestion as a result of new development. Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. (Goal T-2, Policy T-2.3 and Program T2.3.1)  Enhancing connectivity: Policies and programs under Goal T-3, Efficient Roadway Network, emphasize the City's commitment to Complete Streets principles (PolicyT-3.5), City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 20 improved connections to primary destinations (Policy T3.10.3), and prioritize the safety of school children (Policy T-3.14).  Neighborhood impacts: Traffic calming and minimizing impacts to neighborhood streets (Goal T-4)  Parking: Under Goal T-5, the draft Element includes a phased approach to managing parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time (Policy T-5.1); the concept of parking pricing is introduced as well (Program T-5.2.2). It also includes a policy to work to protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts (Policy T- 5.11).  Safety: As a key component of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, policies under Goal T-6, Roadway Safety, prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level of-service at intersections and vehicle parking (Policy T-6.1), and add a new Vision Zero policy (Policy T-6.2).  Transit-dependent community: With a series of new policies and programs under Goal T-7, this draft Element expands support for the transit-dependent community to address the needs of those who are dependent on transit due to economic disadvantage or choice, as well as maintaining policies and programs that improve access for seniors and those with mobility constraints.  Regional cooperation: Policies and programs under Goal T-8 emphasize working with other State and regional agencies to prioritize Caltrain grade separations (Policy T-8.1), freeway improvements (Policy T-8.6), and bicycle (Policy T-8.11), pedestrian (Policy T- 8.12), and transit projects (Policy T-8.10). Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Council motions: A table showing all Council motions on the Land Use and Transportation Elements, as well as the revisions made in response to each motion, is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Att.F_050117_Council- Motion-LU-Transp_Table_w_links.pdf 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8228) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and Adjacent Commercial Lots Tentative Map Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3980 El Camino Real [17PLN- 00197]: Request by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County for a Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site that Includes the Buena Vista Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and Two Adjacent Commercial Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access and Utilities Easements. The Three New Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5 Acres, Zoned RM-15 for Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena Vista Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for Neighborhood Commercial Use (Existing Retail Building), (3) Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned CN (Existing Gas Station Site) and RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More than Eight Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre Residential Portion Would Be Leased to the Housing Authority for Up To Three Years, Allowing Tenants to Remain Until They can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. For More Information Contact Project Planner Amy French at Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.com From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the tentative map application to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the draft Record of Land Use Action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 (Attachment B). An updated version of Attachment B, including approval conditions, will be provided to the PTC members at places. Report Summary The PTC is requested to review the Tentative Map application submitted by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC, Applicant). The proposed map and subdivision agreement would reconfigure and remove lot lines to reduce the number of parcels to three, and provide access and utilities easements. The map is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and meets tentative map approval findings and, as conditioned, would meet development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff therefore recommends City Council approval of the application. Buena Vista Manufactured Home Park Closure of the existing Buena Vista Park (Park) located on the subject property was imminent in 2015, following the owner’s submittal in 2012 of a park closure application. To avoid the loss of these affordable housing units, City Council committed to providing $14.5 million in affordable housing fees via approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June 2016. All MOU parties - the City of Palo Alto via City Council, HACSC via Housing Authority Board, and Santa Clara County via County Board of Supervisors - have committed to preserving the affordable housing at the Park by contributing the same amount of funding. The funding will be used to purchase and make improvements to the housing units in the Park. Background Project Information Owner: Joseph Jisser Architect: Civil Engineer Representative: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Property Information Addresses and APNs: 3972, 3980, and 3990 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Barron Park vicinity (portion of Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito) Lot Dimensions & Area: 6.19 acres (269,636.4 acres; approx. 815’ x 330’) Housing Inventory Site: Yes (3972 El Camino Real: 5 units) Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes (Oaks) Historic Resource(s): No (Retail 1958-modified 1999; BV 1925 residence; Station 1959) Existing Improvement(s): 3972 El Camino Real: Two commercial buildings (service station); 3980 El Camino Real (Park): 117 structures (104 Mobile homes, 12 studios, 1 SFR); 3990 El Camino Real: 1 retail building Existing Land Use(s): Multiple family residential use and commercial uses Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Zoning (R-1, single-family and RM-15, multi-family residential) West: Zoning (RM-30, multiple family residential at 630 Los Robles) East: Zoning (CN, commercial, Keys School and motels) South: Zoning (RM-30, multiple family residential (corner of Los City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Robles and El Camino), and multiple-family residential PC-2930) across from the Park Special Setbacks: El Camino Real: 25 feet Aerial View of Property (left); Plan View of Existing Building Footprints and Neighborhood (right) Source: Google Streetview Source: GIST (Palo Alto GIS System) Right Image: Five Existing Parcels on Site Show: (1) in blue at bottom - 17 buildings, (2) large green - 93 small buildings, (3) small blue - no buildings (4) smaller green - 1 retail building, (5) white site - two buildings (service station) Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: RM-15 and CN zone districts Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Context-Based Design: Applicable Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Council committed to providing funding in June 2016 to preserve the affordable housing at the Park. ID #7125 Staff report includes MOU: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53001; item 18 on the agenda; video available here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-92/. PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: None. Project Description Existing Conditions The Barron Park neighborhood was annexed into the City in 1975. While the site, standard buildings on the site, and anchorage of mobile homes are within the review purview of the City of Palo Alto, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has purview over mobile homes and alterations thereto. The 6.19-acre site owned by Joe Jisser, Family Trust Manager, currently includes:  The Park at 3980 El Camino Real, zoned RM-15,  A gas service station at 3972 El Camino Real, zoned CN, and  A retail building at 3990 El Camino Real, zoned CN. The Park is currently accessible via one driveway each from both Los Robles Avenue and El Camino Real. Access to the Park from El Camino Real is provided across the retail building parcel. There existing access easement from El Camino Real to reach the first set of homes is as deep as the gas service station site; this easement is proposed to be abandoned. Proposed Tentative Map The addresses, zone districts and land uses would remain following recordation of the final map that reduces the number of parcels from five to three and provides new utility and access easements. Prior to recordation, several adjustments would need to be made within the Park, to ensure the proposed new lot lines do not bisect the footprint of any existing mobile homes. The attached location map (Attachment A) shows the site’s zoning; the zoning designations will remain, though one of the new parcel lines will not be coterminous with a zoning district boundary. Information is provided herein about existing and proposed conditions allowing for Council approval of the map. The three new parcels, with proposed ownership and easements, will be as follows: Parcel 1 (4.5 acres): City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The HACSC would take ownership of Parcel 1 to preserve the property’s use as an affordable modular home park community. HACSC would contract with an entity that would make repairs and updates to the site to ensure compliance with building codes. Some adjustments to the locations of existing housing units will be necessary to ensure building and zoning code development standards (setbacks) will be met. Access will continue to be from the Los Robles Avenue driveway. Access will also be available across Parcel two from both Los Robles Avenue and El Camino Real, as described below. Parcel 2 (1.0 acre): The current owner (Jisser) will continue to own this parcel, which is in neighborhood commercial use. No change is proposed to the existing retail building or uses of the site, and the existing parking spaces for the retail building tenants and customers will be unaffected by the proposed map. Easements on Parcel 2:  A 10-foot wide access easement across Parcel 2 from Los Robles Avenue to the Park will be provided west of the retail building from Los Robles Avenue. The easement will double as an electrical utilities easement to allow continued service of electricity to the housing units on Parcels 1 and 3. The electric utilities easement will also bend in a ‘dog leg’ to the east, to incorporate the transformer and switch gear on Parcel 2 that feed electricity to Parcels 1 and 3. The switch gear easement would be a private easement for this equipment that is not owned by Palo Alto Utilities.  A 20-foot wide vehicular access easement from El Camino Real to the Park will be provided to the north of the retail building. This easement will also serve as a public utilities easement and private utilities easement. Parcel 3 (0.7 acre): No changes are proposed to the existing gas station site (which has a three year lease), nor to the multiple family residential use on the RM-15 zoned, 0.41-acre rear portion of proposed Parcel 3. There are approximately eight housing units on this 0.41-acre area, which the owner (Jisser) would lease back to the Housing Authority for up to three years, allowing tenants to remain until they can be accommodated on Parcel 1. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview:  Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 21. If recommended for approval, the map requires review and action by the City Council. Map applications are evaluated to specific findings. As map findings are set up in Title 21, all findings must be made in the negative to approve the project. The findings to approve the application are provided in the attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). Due to the subject property’s acreage (6.19 acres), a Preliminary Parcel Map process is not available; the map must be reviewed by the PTC and City City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Council in public hearings. Beyond the requested tentative map approval, no other activity is proposed at this time and no subdivision improvement agreement is required, since no right of way improvements are proposed. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The 6.19 acre site is in the Barron Park neighborhood that was annexed to Palo Alto in 1975. The site has over 300 feet of frontage on El Camino Real. The current El Camino fronting parcels are developed with one-story buildings (two service station buildings and one retail building). The corner retail building, originally built in 1958 as a grocery store, was converted and updated in 1999. The 1959 gas station buildings have also been modified. There are eight single family residences on R-1 zoned sites along the northerly boundary of the Park. The buildings and mobile units in the Park are one-story, and house approximately 400 people, including many families with children. The residence on the site dates back to 1925, but has not been identified as a historic resource; it is not proposed for demolition in conjunction with this map. The site is next to and across from multiple family residential housing units on Los Robles Avenue, and next to and across from commercially zoned and used El Camino Real fronting properties Potential Redevelopment of El Camino Real Properties The gas station site is listed in the City’s Housing Element as a housing opportunity site for five housing units. The proposed 0.7-acre Parcel 3, on which the gas station is located, includes a 0.41-acre, RM-15 zoned area currently in residential use with approximately eight mobile homes. Development is not proposed at this time; however, if proposed Parcel 3 were to be redeveloped after the three year lease term, a mixed use development could include at least 10 market rate units across the site, in addition to a 5,052 square foot commercial building. Conversion of auto service use existing as of March 19, 2001 to office use is not allowed in the CN zone district. The corner property, updated in 1999, is also a potential redevelopment site for mixed use or commercial use. No such redevelopment is proposed at this time. Zoning Compliance2 The existing mobile homes and residential structures on proposed Parcels 1 and 3 are non- conforming as to setbacks, existing and proposed. As noted, there are no proposed development plans at this time. The proposed lot lines would create the following conformances and non-conformances:  A 10-foot setback would be provided for the retail building on Parcel 2 from the common property line with Parcel 1 (Park). This setback allows the proposed access and 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. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 utility easement for Parcels 1 and 3 and will meet the minimum 10-foot setback requirement for CN zoned parcel that abuts a residentially zoned parcel. The CN zone requirement for landscape screening and solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height cannot required at this time, since this is not a development proposal and there is no room for such improvements given the location of existing buildings and the need for access and utility easements to serve the existing mobile home park. Landscape and fence requirements can be imposed with future development of these parcels.  The proposed lot line between Parcels 1 and 3 are shown bisecting two existing mobile homes. One is vacant and will be removed. The other will remain in place for a limited time or adjusted through a building permit and/or HCD process.  The proposed lot line between Parcels 2 and 3 will be very near three existing mobile homes but not touching them; these homes will also remain in place for a limited time or adjusted through a building permit and/or HCD process. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Commercial Properties The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy L-35, contains a diagram that shows the commercial sites at the northwesterly corner of Los Robles and El Camino Real as a location to encourage street facing convenience commercial shopping. Manufactured Home Park The Palo Alto Housing Element notes that mobile homes represent less than 0.35 percent of the total housing stock in Palo Alto, and cites a total of 99 mobile homes in Palo Alto as of 2013. The Buena Vista Park is cited in the Housing Element, which notes that the Park consists of 104 mobile homes, 12 studio units and one single family home with estimated 400 residents. Program H3.1.8 recognizes the Buena Vista mobile home park as providing low-and moderate- income housing opportunities and states that to the extent feasible, the City will seek appropriate local, State and federal funding to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the existing units. The City’s Housing Element contains policies both supporting the preservation and rehabilitation of existing units (Policy H1.1 and H1.2), and policies supporting actions to increase the supply of affordable housing (Policy H2.1 and H2.2). The Housing Element also documents at length some of the housing challenges facing Palo Alto and the region, and articulates quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 planning period for rehabilitation (600 below market rate units), preservation (334 below market rate units), and new development (1,401 below market rate units), indicating the need for investments in all of these activities. These policies and programs provided the basis for Council’s approval of funding commitment for acquisition and improvements to the Park. Consistency with Application Findings 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 8 The attached draft Record of Land Use Action contains findings for approval of the Subdivision, in accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto 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 has been found exempt from CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs. 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 June 30, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the site occurred on June 29, 2017, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. The applicant has committed to notifying the tenants of the Park as to the map application and PTC hearing. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Next Steps City Council is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the map on August 14, 2017. A final map process and recordation would quickly follow tentative map approval. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend Council Approve the map with modified findings or conditions; or 2. Recommend denial based on revised findings. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679 amy.french@cityofpaloalto@email jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: LOCATION MAP (DOCX)  Attachment B: ROLUA Tentative Map BV (DOCX)  Attachment C: Tentative Map (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org LOCATION MAP: 6.19-acre Site, 3972, 3980 and 3990 El Camino Real File: 17PLN-00197, Tentative Map APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3972, 3980, 3990 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION [FILE NO.17PLN- 00197] On August 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Tentative Map application for reconfiguration of lot lines on a 6.19-acre site to three parcels, 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. On June 2, 2017, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County applied for a Tentative Map application for the reconfiguration of five lots to three lots on a 6.19-acre site that includes the Buena Vista Modular Home Park (zoned RM-15) and commercial land uses (zoned CN); B. The RM-15 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 8,500 square feet. The Parcel Map would result in a 4.5-acre parcel (Parcel 1) for the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park under RM-15 zoning, and a 0.41-acre (17,859.6 square foot) portion of Parcel 3 that would remain in RM-15 zoning. Multiple family housing use would continue on these RM- 15 zoned sites and compliance with RM-15 standards related to new lot lines would be assured with implementation of approval conditions; C. The CN zoning district will remain on (1) proposed Parcel 2, where no site or building changes are proposed, and where the proposed easements will not adversely impact site improvements and required parking spaces, and (2) the portion of Parcel 3 supporting the 0.29- acre gas station site, where no site or building changes are proposed. Access and utility easements across Parcel 2 to serve housing units on Parcels 1 and 3 are proposed and have been reviewed and approved by relevant City staff; and D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Tentative Map on July 12, 2017, supporting a condition of approval requiring up to a three-year lease back of the 0.41-acre housing site on Parcel 3 to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs. SECTION 3. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The proposed Tentative Map, as conditioned, is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including the Housing Element 2015-2023, the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.20), and the RM-15 zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.13) development standards. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is physically suitable for the existing uses, and the revised lot configuration is compatible with the pattern and scale of existing and neighboring development, with implementation of approval conditions. There is no specific plan designated for the area; 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site’s lot reconfiguration will allow for continuation of existing land uses. No development is proposed at this time; repair and unit footprint(s) adjustment are necessary prior to Final Map recordation. The site is adjacent to commercial, single-family residential and multi-family residential uses, and is zoned to allow the continuation of uses and densities. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. As conditioned, the subdivision would be consistent with the site’s development regulations of the RM-15 zone district. The existing densities are not proposed to be changed; in particular, the overall number of housing units will not be increased with this map. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. The final map will comply with conditions of approval for protected tree preservation. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not cause serious health problems. The map is designed to provide easements allowing access for emergency services, and utility services, such as electricity, gas, sanitation and water, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The reconfiguration of existing parcels will not conflict with existing public easements, and new public and private easements are proposed for utilities and vehicular access. Because none of the statutory findings authorizing denial can be met, the City Council hereby approves the subject “Tentative Map”. SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval. 1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 2. 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. APPROVAL CONDITIONS CITY DEPARTMENTS, IN RESPONSE TO MAP SUBMITTAL OF JULY 6, 2017, SHALL BE PROVIDED IN A REVISED ROLUA SET AT COMMISSIONERS’ PLACES SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Tentative Map Approval. Within two years of the approval or conditional approval of a tentative map the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a final map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the tentative map as approved or conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this title and submitted to the city engineer PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachment C Tentative Map Hardcopies of the Tentative Map are provided to Commissioners. The Tentative map is 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 “3990 El Camino Real” 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 “Tentative Map Submitted July 6, 2017” 6. Open the attachment named “Tentative Map” Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8015) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3001 El Camino Real: 50 Units Mixed Use (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-Use Development with 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as well as a Three-Story Multi- Family Residential Building with 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the circulation period ends on August 2, 2017. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM- 30 (Multi-family Residential, and R-1 (Single-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the Site and Design Application to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Report Summary The proposed mixed-use project, located on the corner of El Camino Real and Acacia Avenue, includes 50 residential rental units and approximately 19,800 square feet of ground floor retail. The project would replace the existing Mike’s Bikes retail use and surface parking lots. A preliminary parcel map is also required to merge three existing parcels to create the resulting parcel for the proposed development. The Director’s decisions on the Preliminary Parcel Map, shared parking adjustment, and Design Enhancement Exception are deferred to the Council in accordance with PAMC 18.40.170, which allows all project components be reviewed by the City Council when one of the applications is subject to Council approval. The project, as proposed, requires two exceptions: 1) a shared parking adjustment in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.050 to allow a four-space shared use parking reduction (2.07%); and 2) a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow the below-grade garage and associated ramp to encroach five feet into the required 10-foot rear setback. Approval of the DEE requires the City make findings outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.050 (4)(c). The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines), South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines), context-based design criteria, and performance criteria. Because the project is a mixed-use project that includes more than nine residential units it is subject to Site and Design review. The project plans are included in Attachment J. Per PAMC 18.30(G).055(a) the plans provided for the PTC include all pertinent information requested by the Director but, in accordance with the process, may be refined based on further input from PTC, ARB, and staff prior to the Council’s decision. The PTCs role is to review the project based on the Site and Design findings (included in Section 3 of the draft Record of Land Use Action) and to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Although the Preliminary Parcel Map, DEE, and Parking Adjustment are not subject to the PTC’s review, draft findings and conditions for these discretionary entitlements/requests are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action to help inform the PTC’s review. The project will also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board before being reviewed by Council. Background Project Information Owner: SI 35 LLC/Sobrato Organization Architect: Steinberg Architects Representative: Tim Steele/Sobrato Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 3001 and 3017 El Camino Real (132-37-055; 132-37-056; and 132-38- City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 072) Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: CS portion -250’ X 200’; 49,927 sf RM-30 portion—278’ x ~110’; 30,738 sf R-1 portion— 250’ X ~19’; 4930 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes, realistic capacity of 7 units on 3001 El Camino Real Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): Building #1 (3001): 6,112 sf; one-story; built 1930 Building #2 (3017): 2,988 sf; one-story; built 1968 Existing Land Use(s): Retail (Mike’s Bikes); Vacant lot at Acacia corner; Surface parking lot with 66 undesignated parking spaces Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (Single-family homes): (land uses) West: CS (retail/Verizon wireless) East: CS (commercial recreation/Equinox; office/GM Advanced Technology) South: PC (office; theater/Palo Alto Square); CS (eating and drinking/McDonald’s; Fish market; hotel/Hotel Parma) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: City of Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems; Google Maps City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Split zoning: Service Commercial (CS); Medium Density Multi-family Residential (RM-30) and Single-family Residential (R-1) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential Context-Based Design: Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: On November 3, 2016 a first formal hearing was held with the ARB to provide early input on the proposed development. The staff report for that hearing can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54499 A transcript of the hearing is included in Attachment I. Project Description The proposed project includes a request for approval of a preliminary parcel map to merge three existing parcels into one 85,588 square feet (sf) parcel (1.97 acres) and to redevelop the resulting parcel with two buildings, a mixed-use development and a multi-family residential development. The resulting parcel has split zoning, which requires each zoned portion of the lot to be developed based on the respective zoning. The portion of the lot along the El Camino Real frontage is zoned Commercial Services (CS) and includes a 49,927 sf area; a portion of the lot along Acacia Avenue is zoned medium density multi-family residential (RM-30) and includes 30,738 sf; and a portion of the interior of the lot that parallels Acacia Avenue is zoned single- family residential (R-1) and includes 4,930 sf. Attachment A includes a map of the proposed parcel with the zoning district boundaries. The mixed-use building would be located within the CS zone and the multi-family residential building would be in the RM-30 zone. No buildings are proposed in the R-1 zone. The CS building along El Camino Real is four-stories with 36 surface parking spaces and one level of below-grade parking with 116 spaces. This building has 30 residential units and 19,798 sf of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 ground-floor retail. The proposed below-grade garage and vehicle access ramp encroach five feet into the rear 10 foot setback, adjacent to a single-family residence. The second building, located within the portion of the parcel zoned RM-30, is three-stories and includes covered, partially below-grade parking (29 spaces) and surface parking (8 spaces) for 20 residential units. This development backs up to one-story single-family homes for the length of the parcel and allows for an access easement through the property to enter the Fry’s site at the northeast edge of the subject property. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary entitlements requested are within the PTC’s purview:  Site and Design: The project is mixed-use with more than nine residential units and is therefore subject to Site and Design review. The process for evaluating this type of entitlement is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forwarded 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 redesign or denial. The draft findings are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. In addition, the following entitlements/approvals are being requested and are not within the PTC’s purview, although the PTC may comment on these requests:  Preliminary Parcel Map: A preliminary parcel map is requested to merge three existing parcels into one 85,588 sf parcel. Although the preliminary parcel map is typically processed at a staff level, the decision on this application is deferred to the Council in accordance with PAMC 18.40.170.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The project includes a 5 foot encroachment for the access ramp into the 10 foot rear yard setback and planting strip required in accordance with PAMC Sections 18.16.060(B) and 18.23.050(B)(vi) respectively. This encroachment allows for better circulation and reduced traffic adjacent single-family residences while also reducing surface parking visible from El Camino Real and allowing for increased setbacks between the proposed buildings and adjacent single-family residential uses to increase privacy. The process for evaluating this type of entitlement is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. Design Enhancement Exception applications are reviewed in conjunction with the larger development project, and for this project the recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final action as part of the Site and Design review. DEE requests are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the exception. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The draft findings for the Design Enhancement Exception are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Director’s Parking Adjustment: The project is providing four spaces fewer than required for the proposed site development in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements. To address this 2.07% reduction in the total required parking, the applicant has requested a shared parking adjustment in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.080. Approval of the adjustment requires that the applicant prepare and submit a Parking Management Plan proving that the reduction would be effective based on anticipated peak demands of proposed uses to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Division and the Director of Planning. In accordance with PAMC 18.40.170 the Director has elected to refer the Parking Management Plan to Council for final decision along with all other project entitlements. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character Surrounding buildings with single-family, retail, and commercial recreation uses are primarily one-story, ranging from 14 to 24 feet in height. The Palo Alto Square Complex across El Camino Real is a 10-story development but has a substantial setback from El Camino Real. The proposed mixed-use building along El Camino Real would be built to a maximum height of 50 feet along the El Camino frontage, and step down to 35 feet within 150 feet of residentially zoned areas as required by code. There is a minimum 75-foot setback provided between the mixed-use building and adjacent residential zoning districts. Although the height of the proposed building along El Camino Real may appear tall in comparison with other adjacent buildings (14 feet on the left side and 17 feet on the right side), the proposed site is surrounded by streets on three sides. This provides for a greater setback between the proposed building and these adjacent one-story buildings along El Camino Real, which helps to transition between the buildings along the streetscape. The proposed building fronting Acacia Avenue at the rear portion of the parcel would be three stories, built to a maximum height of 35 feet. There would be a minimum 28 foot setback between the building and portions of the site zoned R-1. There would be between 28 and48 feet between the building and the rear lot line of the residences abutting the property, helping to transition between the proposed multi-family residential building and existing single-family residences. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 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. 2 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 7 The subject site has a split land use designation of Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies service commercial land use as a land use with facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. The Comprehensive Plan further notes that the purpose of mixed-use is to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high-quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. The proposed mixed-use development in the CS district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the type of use (retail/residential) proposed. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that the permitted number of housing units for Multi-Family Residential land use will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from eight to 40 units. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. The proposed project includes 20 units at a density equivalent to 28 units per acre, and is therefore consistent with the density allowances for this land use designation. Allowed uses in the Single Family Residential land use designation include horticulture and gardening. The portion of the parcel designated single-family residential would be used for vegetation screening/open space and would be consistent with similar allowed uses within this land use designation. A consistency analysis with specific goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment C. Based on the proposed uses within each land use designation, consistency with the housing element, and consistency with other policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds that on balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element The proposed development includes both a mixed-use building along El Camino Real and an exclusively multi-family residential building at the rear of the lot. This use is consistent with Housing Element Policy H2.1 as outlined in Attachment C. The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably commanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. Moreover, the proposed project is located on a Housing Inventory Site (HIS) which is currently allocated to provide a maximum yield of 9 units and realistic yield of seven units to the City’s housing inventory. However, because of the proposed consolidation of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 three parcels (only one of which was listed as a HIS), the project proposes 50 units, more than seven times the allotment outlined in the Housing Element. El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines) due to its location within the California-Ventura corridor area and is also identified as a Cal- Ventura strategic site. The guidelines note that development of mixed uses in this area along the eastern El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. Development within the Cal-Ventura strategic site should anticipate future public transit in the area, providing amenities such as plazas and seating areas. The proposed project includes entrances to retail and residential areas from both the El Camino Real frontage as well as parking areas, consistent with the South ECR Design Guidelines. Although it would be more desirable for these entrances to be set at grade and along the build- to-line, the existing grade changes at the site create a significant site constraint. Specifically, the grade at the approximate center line of the property along El Camino Real is notably higher than the grade at the Olive and Acacia corners. In addition, the grade of the site transitions from a high point along El Camino Real to a lower grade at the rear of the property (closer to the RM-30 zone). The applicant has explored multiple options for improving the pedestrian environment along El Camino Real to better comply with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as well as other design criteria (e.g. performance criteria and context-based design criteria) that encourage pedestrian-oriented development. The proposed design ensures that the existing, mature landscaping along the El Camino Real frontage is preserved, that entrances to both residential and retails uses are provided along the frontage, incorporates usable amenities into landscape and hardscape features, provides small plazas/seating areas on each corner for gathering, maintains transparency along the entire frontage, and ensures that the below-grade parking garage does not daylight toward the rear of the CS Zone. Therefore, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project is also subject to the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines) guidelines with respect to trees, signage, architecture and building colors. Because the occupant(s) for the proposed retail space is/are yet to be determined, specific signage is not currently proposed. The planned location for future signage is consistent with the guidelines and future proposed signage would require architectural review. The existing mature City street trees along El Camino Real are proposed to remain, consistent with the guidelines. Landscaping is also planned throughout the site, consistent with the guidelines. In accordance with suggestions from members of the architectural review board, the colors/materials of the development have been revised to provide more articulation along the frontage and side streets as well as to better accentuate natural features adjacent the site, specifically the large redwoods across the street at Palo Alto Square. Therefore, staff finds that the project is City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The ARB will also evaluate project consistency with these guidelines. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Summary tables comparing the proposed project to their respective zoning requirements for the CS and RM-30 zoning districts are provided in Attachments D and E, respectively. The proposed project complies with most applicable codes, or is seeking, through the requested permits, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. There are a couple of outstanding code compliance issues that are anticipated to be resolved prior to a Council decision. These are summarized below. Although a portion of the proposed site is zoned R-1, no buildings are proposed within this site area; therefore, no summary table is provided for this zoning. Landscaping and landscape features are allowed within required setbacks and are consistent with zoning code requirements. Setbacks The proposed building in the CS zone is set back substantially (between 75 to 90 feet) from the rear lot line and areas of the site within a different zone district. However, the below grade parking garage and associated ramp is located five feet from a lot line where a 10-foot setback is required. The encroachment allows for better circulation and reduced traffic adjacent single- family residences. Approval of this encroachment requires that the findings for a DEE be made. The draft findings for approval of this DEE are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. FAR In the RM-30 portion of the lot, the project exceeds the permitted floor area ratio of 0.6:1 because the plans inaccurately include lot area dedicated to the R-1 District. Development standards (e.g. density, FAR, setbacks) for each respective zone district cannot be transferred to another portion of the lot for development (PAMC 18.08.070). Accordingly, it is anticipated that the applicant will revise the project, removing approximately 1,000 square feet of building area, to comply with this standard. Loading and Trash The Site Plan currently shows a loading space and trash pick-up location that is shared with proposed parking and would therefore create restrictions on up to 6 parking spaces during specified time periods. An on-street loading space is also shown on the plans along Acacia Avenue. On-street loading requires that the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.52.050 for modifications to off-street loading requirements be made; staff is not yet clear that these findings can be made. Staff believes that further consideration of options for the off-street loading space and trash pick-up is needed prior to a decision on the proposed project. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Context-Based Design Criteria The proposed development requires that the City make the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context-Based Design Criteria. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria has been performed. A summary table comparing the proposed project to these criteria is provided in Attachment F. Performance Criteria Because the proposed mixed-used development would be located within a CS zone, this portion of the development would be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Section 18.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). An analysis of the project’s consistency with the performance criteria is included in Attachment G. PAMC Section 18.23.050(B)(vi) requires that a minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip be provided abutting a low density residential district. Placement of the parking garage ramp within the required setback allows for only a 5-foot planting and screening strip along a portion of the site between the CS and R-1 zone districts. The location/design of the roundabout allows cars to enter from Olive Avenue but does not allow cars exiting below-grade parking to exit toward Olive Avenue. Only a car parked in one of the 28 surface parking spaces adjacent Olive Avenue would be allowed to exit onto that street. This parking lot circulation design reduces traffic on Olive Avenue, adjacent to single-family residences and also allows for underground parking to reduce visual impacts of surface parking along El Camino Real. Therefore, the applicant requests a Design Enhancement Exception to allow for the a 5-foot planting strip and setback where PAMC Sections 18.23.050(B)(vi) requires a 10-foot planting strip. Staff notes that evergreen trees are still provided along the property line; therefore screening is still provided. With the granting of the Design Enhancement Exception to allow for this reduced setback, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the performance criteria. Below Market Rate Housing Although affordable housing is not required or proposed for this site because the proposed units are for rent, the City’s new below market rate housing ordinance went into effect on June 19, 2017. Under this ordinance, the project is required to pay development impact fees for both the retail/commercial space and the rental unit space. Retail Preservation Ordinance The project is subject to the retail preservation ordinance, which prohibits the conversion of ground-floor retail or retail like uses to office uses. The proposed project does not include office use. The existing 9,100 sf of retail currently occupied by Mike’s Bikes would be replaced with approximately 19,800 sf of retail/commercial space on the ground floor and is therefore in compliance with this ordinance. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The location, use, and required off-site improvements associated with the proposed project are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15% and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Mixed-use development located near transit (0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops including VTA Route 22, 101, 102, 103 and the Dumbarton Express line DB-1) and housing allows persons to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided to both commercial and residential uses, promoting increased bicycle and pedestrian both from residents and those accessing the site from surrounding areas. Parking One additional parking space is provided in the RM-30 zoned area and five fewer spaces are provided in the CS zoned area than the requisite number to meet residential guest parking requirements (parking, however, is still provided within the single development site). A Director’s adjustment has been requested to allow for joint used (shared) parking facilities for the total requested four space reduction. This Director’s adjustment requires a Parking Management Plan to assure parking reductions are achieved. The applicant is still finalizing the Parking Management Plan for shared parking, which will need to show that based on parking demand throughout the day for each use, the total number of spaces provided will be effective in providing sufficient parking. The Parking Management Plan would be reviewed and revised to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division and the Director but would be forwarded to Council for decision as part of the project in accordance with PAMC 18.40.170. The existing surface parking along El Camino Real is roped off and is not currently used. The surface parking lot adjacent to the Fry’s site is not required parking for any adjacent development. However, this lot is often used by adjacent commercial and retail uses, and has signs that restrict its use to parking for Fry’s customers. The applicant has indicated that, with revisions to the existing Fry’s parking lot, many of these 66 spaces that would be removed could be replaced within the existing Fry’s parking lot area. However, revisions at this adjacent parcel are not included as part of the proposed project and the parking lot on the Fry’s site already meets the standards outlined in PAMC 18.52 based on the existing use. Circulation Overall, parking area circulation eliminates existing entrances to the site from El Camino Real; creating entrances on Acacia Avenue and Olive Avenue; which is more consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. The proposed parking lot would allow for entrance from Olive and Acacia Avenue but the garage ramp location for the mixed use building would encourage exit onto Acacia Avenue, away from nearby single-family residences. However, the placement of the ramp within the required setback requires that the City make the findings for a DEE. The draft DEE findings for approval of the DEE are included in Attachment B. Consistency with Application Findings The Draft findings for Site and Design approval are included in Section 3 of the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Although other entitlement/approvals are not subject to PTC’s purview, the findings for these other requested entitlements/approvals are also included to help inform the PTC’s review. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 The necessary findings for approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map are contained in California Government Code Section 66474 and incorporated into Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the City must make a series of “reverse” findings to justify approval. If the findings cannot be made, the subdivision must be approved. The findings for denial of a Preliminary Parcel Map cannot be made as outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action; therefore, staff is recommending approval of the preliminary parcel map. The proposed project is consistent with the Architectural Review and Site and Design objective findings. Specifically, mixed-use buildings are encouraged within this specific area of the site along El Camino Real and housing is also highly encouraged within this area due to the project’s proximity to public transit. The project site is identified in the adopted Housing Element as a Housing Inventory Site and the project not only meets, but with the lot merger, exceeds the housing allocation for this site. The proposed uses are permitted uses in their respective zoning for this split-zoned lot. The proposed development is compatible with adjacent uses and places housing in close proximity to office, commercial recreation, and retail uses as well as extensive public transit such as Caltrain and several bus stops. The site is located in a developed area and is not environmentally sensitive. All existing mature trees along the El Camino Real frontage would be retained. The project’s split zoning creates unique site constraint for development of the lot; however, with the Design Enhancement Exception, the project is able to reduce curb cuts and parking areas on/visible from El Camino Real and make that area more pedestrian-oriented, reduce traffic adjacent single-family residential uses, and to still maintain extensive landscaping across the site and between the single-family residential uses and the site. The findings for approval of the DEE are included in Attachment B. 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, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on July 3, 2017 and is available for public review. A link to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment H. The PTC must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may comment on the draft. Following completion of the public review period and the ARB hearing, a Final Draft MND and MMRP would be prepared for the City Council. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to address construction noise, to address construction in the plume, and to address pedestrian circulation. Construction, or payment toward construction, of a crosswalk across El Camino Real would be required. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 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 June 30, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 28, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments During the first formal hearing with the ARB, one member of the public commented on the proposed project. These comments primarily focused on concerns regarding the displacement of parking from the existing at grade parking lot and concerns regarding massing along the El Camino Real façade. The commenter asked that more attention be made to the façade to make it more attractive and break up the vertical facade. A transcript of the hearing is included in Attachment I and includes these comments. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning & Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend approval of the Site & Design application based on specific modifications to the draft 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 PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment D: CS Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: RM-30 Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance Summary (DOCX)  Attachment G: Performance Criteria Compliance Summary (DOCX)  Attachment H: Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP (DOCX)  Attachment I: November 3, 2016 ARB Preliminary Hearing Transcript (PDF)  Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 35 20 4 18 20 10 35 10 35 50 110.0'110.0' 150.0'191.7' 95.8' 109.9' 47.9' 705.1' 47.9' 150.0' 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 49.9' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 200 50.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 105.3' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 705.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 200 50.0' 200.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 109.9' 754.2' 570.4' 7 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 136.1' 50.0' 138.1' 50.0' 18.5' 100.0' 19.8' 100.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 134.7' 65.7' 134.7' 65.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8'109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.6' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 127.3' 50.3' 132.6' 50.0' 119.6' 50.6' 127.3' 50.0' 132.6' 50.1' 136.1' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 142.5' 300.0'112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 235.0' 31.4' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 142.5' 100.0' 142.6' 99.3' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10.0'10.0' 118.6' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 129.8' 129.8' 51.2' 50.0' 129.8' 129.8' 129.8' 51.4' 50.0' 308.6' 308.5' 206.0' 206.5' 95.8' 110.0' 40.0' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 199.7' 199.7'100.0' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0'275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 605.7' 605.7' 78.5' 53.4' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 370.9' 427.3' 95.8' 164.9 199.7 6 5 1 2 3 Day Care 3 4 Fry's Electronics A B Palo Alto Square 2 PARKING GARAGE PF CN M-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-4637 PC-2952 RM-30 R-1 GM CS CS ROLM CS RP GM C-4831 CS(D) 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 3150 3170 3200 3300 447 3375 3345 417 429 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 400 425 32753261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 400 402 404 408 411 423 433 420 441 430 440 450 460 471 461 451 4702805 2865 2875 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 2951 2905 461 2755 3000 3017 3001 412 410 2701 404 345 3128 755 406 3127 600 3111 473 435 3225 440 31802700 620 630 360 200 429 660 445 481 3215 3275 3327 3399 601 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 2790 2705 3260 419 2825 3265 LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL SHERIDAN AVENUE SHERIDAN ASH STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUEPEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAGE MILL ROAD E MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REA L EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone District Boundaries 3001 El Camino Real (Project Site) abc Zone District Labels 0'250' 3001 El Camino Real Proposed Site Parcel with Zoning Districts Area Map 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 RRivera, 2016-10-05 14:08:323001 ECR CH (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Attachment A Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2017-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3001 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [FILE NOs. 16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220] On ________, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Preliminary Parcel Map for the merger of three lots, the Site and Design Review to allow demolition of two existing structures total 9,100 sf and construction of two buildings totaling 49,494 square feet (sf) of multi-family residential housing and 19,800 sf of retail space with both below and at-grade parking located at 3001 El Camino Real, the Design Enhancement Exception, and a shared parking adjustment 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. On June 21, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map [16PLN- 00220] for the development of a 1.97 acre parcel. B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN Nos. 132-37-055; 13-37-056; and 132-38- 072) that are 0.32 acres, 0.33 acres, and 1.32 acres, respectively. The site contains two structures currently used for retail. Single family residential land uses are located to the northeast. Other surrounding uses include office, retail, and commercial recreation uses. C. On March 15, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Site and Design Review [16PLN- 00097] to allow demolition of two existing structures totaling 9,100 square feet and to construct one new three story, 20 unit multi-family residential building with partially below-grade parking and one new four-story mixed use building with 30 residential units totaling 19,800 square feet of floor area with below and at-grade parking and other site improvements. D. Staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable CS, RM- 30, and R-1 development standards, as applicable to each portion of the site. E. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on July 12, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. F. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design and Design Enhancement Exception on _______, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. G. On ________, 2017, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design, Preliminary Parcel Map, Design Enhancement Exception, and Shared Parking Adjustment subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on ________, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project(s) would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review on the City’s web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3729. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined 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. The proposed project is consistent with Objective A because the proposed use of the site is consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for this particular area of the City and the proposed uses are consistent with permitted uses within each of their respective zone districts on this split-zoned site. The proposed project eliminates light spillover to adjacent residences; screens mechanical equipment, trash, etc., placing it away from adjacent residences; and places most parking underground. It provides ample open space and screening between adjacent uses and the El Camino Real frontage encourages pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The frontage of both sites is articulated with setbacks, changes in height, and changes in material in order to reduce massing, incorporate and highlight natural elements from nearby sites, and to provide appropriate transitions both along the frontage and between the site and adjacent single family residential uses. 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. The proposed project is consistent with Objective B because it includes retail uses on the ground floor close to adjacent office uses and also provides housing, placing residents in close proximity to office uses, commercial recreation uses, and retail both on and off-site. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project use encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, and situates both housing and additional retail in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle trips. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen plus Tier 2 requirements and all plants will be drought resistant. The project will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, these would be replaced in kind in a manner that creates functional open space area for retail users and residents. More than three times the existing number of trees will be added. None of the trees planned for removal are protected. Existing mature street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue would be retained and protected during construction. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal- Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. As outlined in Attachment C of the staff report, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval the project would be consistent with Policy N-29. Therefore, the proposed use of eh site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed use of each building is consistent with the permitted uses for each respectively zoned area of the site. With the exception of the Design Enhancement Exception and Director’s shared parking adjustment requested in accordance with the municipal code allowances, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards for each zone district. There are no applicable coordinated area plans that have been adopted that would apply to the subject property. The project is consistent with applicable design guides, including the Context-Based Design Criteria as well as the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The map and proposed improvements are consistent with several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies outlined in the Housing Element, Land Use and Design Element, Transportation Element, and Natural Element as shown in Attachment C of the staff report. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit (bus and Caltrain). The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi- family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The project proposes merging three parcels into a single parcel and redevelopment of that parcel with a mixed- use retail/residential building as well as a multi-family residence. The frontage along El Camino Real incorporates pedestrian amenities including benches built into planters and open gathering areas at entrances to the retail and residential use that are desirable for occupants and visitors. The project materials incorporate inspiration from the large redwood trees on neighboring properties by highlighting wood as a material throughout the buildings. It preserves all mature trees along the main El Camino Real frontage, which helps reduce massing of the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with the context-based design criteria, performance criteria, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which are all applicable to the proposed project, as outlined in the body of the staff report and Attachments E and F of the staff report. The project has substantial setbacks between the main building and the single-family residential uses and the design takes into account the unique three-way split zoning of the site by providing appropriate uses and applying applicable development requirements within each respectively zoned area of the project site. The project enhances living conditions on the site by providing appropriate and usable open space areas for both developments and connects the two buildings to provide shared open space areas across the site. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is of high aesthetic quality, providing pedestrian amenities and gathering areas across the site. It integrates natural materials inspired by adjacent natural features (i.e. mature redwood trees). The materials are of a high quality and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The design is setback substantially to provide space between the proposed buildings and nearby single-family residential uses and both buildings are designed appropriately based on their use and surrounding context, specifically nearby single-family residential uses and El Camino Real. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce the pedestrian scale. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The proposed project eliminates at grade parking and curb cuts along El Camino Real and provides parking below-grade or at grade but not visible from El Camino Real, which is consistent with City goals. Vehicular access to the property and circulation are respectful of these goals and also reduces traffic adjacent single-family residences. Pedestrian oriented features have been incorporated into the frontage of both buildings and access to both retail and residential uses has been provided from El Camino Real. Access for pedestrians and cyclists is convenient and safe. The project would not impact the existing bike path along El Camino Real but would provide, in accordance with the Mitigation Measure (MM) T-1, improved pedestrian access from the new residential and retail uses to other retail, commercial recreation, and office uses across El Camino Real along this block. The project is designed to provide shared open space to residents across the site but provides sufficient open space to meet all code requirements for each respectively zoned area of the site. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue consists of mature trees. This site asset will be preserved in the new design. Additional landscaping will be provided throughout the site and particularly along shared property lines with adjacent single-family residential uses to provide appropriate screening. The building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. Exterior pathways connect one building to another and provide outdoor areas throughout the site that are functional and serve as gathering places for residents and retail users. These outdoor areas are compatible with the buildings and natural features of the site. Although most of the plants are not indigenous, plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. More specifically, the plant material is appropriate for the unique planting spaces over podium and in perimeter landscape areas. The many proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed further below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map and proposed improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no specific plans are applicable to the project site. Merging the three parcels allows for use of the site for a development that increases the City’s housing inventory on a site that was identified as a Housing Inventory Site. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas within the 0.5 miles of the Caltrain station. The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and. Vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies and goals with which the project would be consistent are included in Section 4. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The siting of the new mixed use and multi-family residential buildings is consistent with uses encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan for this area and are permitted uses within their respectively zoned portion of the site. The subject property is located within the Cal-Ventura area. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the California Avenue/Ventura Area (Cal-Ventura) has an established pattern of mixed use, with service commercial, light industrial and housing. Continued mixing of land uses is encouraged. The Comprehensive Plan also states that the proximity of this area to transit and services makes it an excellent location for both housing and commercial uses. In addition, the project site is a housing inventory site as identified in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The lot merger would allow for the development to not only meet but exceed the housing inventory allocation for this site, contributing positively to a reduction in the jobs/housing imbalance in the City. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The proposed density is consistent with densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that the permitted number of housing units for Multi-Family Residential land use will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from 8 to 40 units. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. The proposed project, at a density equivalent to 28 units per acre, is consistent with the density allowances for this land use designation. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This merger will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located within a developed area. The nearest water feature is Matadero Creek, located over 750 feet west of the project site. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat on the project site or in the immediate project vicinity. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The merging of three parcels to create one combined parcel for a mixed-use and multi-family development will not cause serious public health problems, because the site is designated for such permitted uses. The site is located within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume; however, implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as well as the conditions of approval outlined in Section 7 would ensure that, potential impacts associated with earth disturbing activities in the plume would not result in health impacts to existing or future residents within the area. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There is a City of Palo public utility easement along the property line between the CS portion of the site and the adjacent single family residence. The ramp would be partially located within this easement. This easement currently provides power to the existing retail at the project site. However, as a condition of approval of the preliminary parcel map this easement would be vacated. A new easement from Acacia Avenue to a preferred central location would provide power to the resulting parcel. Therefore, the proposed preliminary parcel map would not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. SECTION 6. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS. In order for Council to approve a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; The proposed project site is extraordinary in that it has three-way split zoning and three-way split land use designation on the site, which results in the need to develop the site consistent with the zoning and land use requirements of each respective portion of the site (e.g. meeting development standards such as setbacks as well as ensuring that the use of each portion is consistent with permitted uses within that specific zone district as well as consistent with the land use designation) despite the fact that the preliminary parcel map results in a single parcel. Although two-way split zoning does occur in some areas of the City it is not very common and three-way split zoning is extremely rare. This, combined with the project’s location on El Camino Real, which makes it subject to the South El Camino Real design guidelines, as well as its proximity to nearby residential uses and therefore associated development standards for areas within 150 feet of these uses, creates restraints with respect to where the buildings and parking can be located. The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as well as development standards require that buildings along El Camino Real be built up to the build-to-line and encourage parking to be located in areas that are not visible from the street frontage. In addition, height restrictions and attention to privacy limit where the buildings can be located with respect to the adjacent residences. The location of the ramp is designed to meet all applicable requirements and guidelines and is also located as to reduce overall trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue where they could be more impactful to single-family residents in the area. Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The location of the ramp five feet into the required ten foot setback/landscaping strip is critical to the proposed site circulation, which is designed to reduce impacts on adjacent single-family residential uses by reducing traffic on Olive Street. In addition, the circulation design eliminates curb cuts and parking on/visible from El Camino Real by providing it at the rear of the property and underground, which is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and Caltrans. It enhances views from El Camino Real by eliminating parking visible along the corridor and enhances views from single-family residences by providing most parking underground. The ramp only encroaches on a portion of the setback and still allows room for landscaping to be provided along the length of the property line. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The exception relates to an encroachment of the garage ramp five feet closer to the property line than would typically be allowed in accordance with PAMC Sections 18.16.060(B) and 18.23.050(B)(vi). The proposed exception would reduce vehicle trips leaving toward Olive Avenue, reducing traffic adjacent single-family residential uses. A 5- foot landscaping strip would still be provided. A sound wall would be provided along the entire project site adjacent single-family residential uses to ensure that operational noise would not be impactful to existing single-family residents. Therefore, the proposed exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements. SECTION 7. Site and Design Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3001 El Camino Real Site Development Permit-Resubmittal 2,” stamped as received by the City on May 22, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. Toxic Air Contaminants Emissions Reductions. To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-29 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph) f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 7. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 8. 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. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $_______ plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 10. 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. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 11. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 12. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 13. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. 14. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 15. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 16. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 17. MAPPING: The proposed project appears to be located within 4 or 5 parcel. In addition it’s not clear from the plans how many parcels (at grade and air space parcels) the applicant intends to create as part of the new development. The parcels shall be merged and subdivided recorded prior to issuance of a building and/or grading and excavation permit. This project may trigger either a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Please clarify the total number of proposed parcels associated with this project. If retail, commercial or residential units intend to be sold then new parcels would be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 18. STREET LIGHTING: The applicant is required to install decorative street lights along the El Camino Real sidewalk frontage. New pedestrian-scale luminaires, poles and bases shall be centered between the roadway lighting to provide a combined spacing of roughly 60-ft O.C. Decorative roadway and pedestrian scale lighting standards are available from Public Works staff. Plot and label the new lights on the proposed Site Plan and/or Utility Plan. 19. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 20. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 21. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan: “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 22. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. 23. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 24. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 25. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10- feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 26. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329- 2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 27. STAIRWELLS AND LIGHTWELLS: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A separate drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 28. STORM WATER TREATMENT: Provide a note on the plans to indicate that at the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 29. Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. Plot and label these on the Utility plan. 30. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and/or Caltrans standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center and from Caltrans. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 31. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. Submit a permit from Caltrans to perform the proposed work. 32. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 33. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 34. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work (at a minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage) The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include the 12-foot wide dimension on the plans and verify that the sidewalk is unobstructed. 35. PAVEMENT: Contractor shall be aware that Olive Avenue was resurfaced in 2015, any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor may be responsible for resurfacing portions of the three project frontages based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 36. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 37. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains within covered levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. Plot and label the proposed location of oil/water separator. 38. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 39. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 40. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement, provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties 41. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the grading or building permits. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 42. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 43. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 44. It’s unclear what the double dashed line surrounding the building represents on C2.0 as there is no Civil legend, but underground structures are not allowed to have perforated pipe drainage systems that pump groundwater. Please clarify what that represents and revise design accordingly. 45. Material of storm drain in ROW needs to be called out and propose materials per Engineering Design Guidelines. 46. Please include any applicable City standard details in the plan set and call them out on plans. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 47. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public tree #2 and neighbor trees #3 and 5; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. Specifically address new sidewalk replacement over El Camino Real trees. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 48. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, (John McLenahan, dated June 2, 2016) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 49. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-321-0202"; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 50. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as structural grid (Silva Cell). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Each parking lot tree in small islands and all public trees shall be provided adequate rootable soil commensurate to mature tree size. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). c. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. DURING CONSTRUCTION 51. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 52. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 53. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (John McLenahan of McLenahan Consulting, LCC, 650-326- 8781), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 54. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 55. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 56. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 57. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 58. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. POST CONSTRUCTION 59. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division 60. Spiral stairs can be utilized to access residential areas no more than 250 square feet in size. 61. Separate reviews and permits are required for PV (solar) and EVSE (vehicle charging stations. Please show this on the plans in some way. 62. Common areas outdoors shall be made accessible for all elements. 63. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 64. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 65. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 66. COVERED PARKING: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]) 67. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 68. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 69. LOADING DOCKS: Per PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 70. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 71. COOLING TOWERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205 No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 72. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 73. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 74. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 75. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 76. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 77. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 78. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 79. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 80. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 81. The utility plan (C3.0) show 1.5” irrigation, 4” domestic, and 8” fire water on Olive Ave. The water main on this street is only 6”PVC. The maximum water service connection to this water main is 6”. The propose sewer lateral is 8” (existing 4” lateral), sewer flow studies may require. The plan also show propose 8” sewer lateral on Acacia Ave. (existing 6” sewer main). See current WGW engineering standards in CPAU website. A meeting with WGW and Electrical engineering is recommending prior to building department permit application. 82. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 83. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 84. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 85. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 86. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities or building inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 87. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 88. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 89. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 90. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 91. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 92. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 93. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 94. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 95. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 96. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 97. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 98. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 99. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 100. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 101. Due to high demands outside City’s control, a three to six month wait time for water and gas meters are expected. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide the application load sheet demands as early in the design process as possible to the WGW utilities engineering department. Once payment is made, anticipate service installations completed within said time frame (3 – 6 months). GREEN BUILDING 102. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. EVSE Transformer Location: 103. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects 104. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi- family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects 105. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 106. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the new residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 107. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 108. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 109. Construction & Demolition: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 110. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 111. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, with attached parking, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each newly constructed residence in a multi-family residential structure featuring (1) a parking space attached to the residence and (2) a shared electrical panel between the residence and parking space (e.g. a multi-family structure with tuck-under garages). See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 112. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. SECTION 8. Preliminary Parcel Map Conditions of Approval PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL 1. Proposed S.W.E. along El Camino Real should be changed and labeled as Public Access Easement. 2. Any proposed transformer is to be shown and kept on private property. 3. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. 4. The utility easement from Olive Avenue between the property line and the adjacent single family residence must be vacated prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 5. The new utility easement from Acacia must be shown on the Parcel Map. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. 4. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 5. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exception, and Parking Adjustment Approval. 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), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. SECTION 10. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record. Approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real May, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged into one lot, dated May 17, 2017, is strictly limited to those features required to be included on a preliminary parcel map under PAMC Section 21.12.040. No development rights shall vest under PAMC Chapter 21.13 or the Subdivision Map Act as a result of this approval. SECTION 11. Parcel Map Conformance. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real May, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged, dated May 17, 2017, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 8. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3001 El Camino Real / File No. 16PLN-00097 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is split between Service Commercial, Multi-family Residential, and Single-Family Residential The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing mixed use development and multi-family housing in a transit-oriented area and providing high quality design and public amenities that improve the aesthetic quality and vitality of the area, as discussed in further detail below. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The proposed development includes both a mixed- use building along El Camino Real and an exclusively multi-family residential building at the rear of the lot. The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably commanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project maintains the appropriate scale and character based on the respective zoning for each building. It has appropriate density for each site and includes mixed use along the El Camino Real corridor and multi-family development along Acacia in close proximity to Caltrain. The Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The retail tenants are within walking distance to nearby residential neighborhoods and office locations. The proposed project has been designed to creatively make use of the existing site and existing Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. buildings. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. The project improves street trees and provides improved sidewalks and bulb outs. It would be required to provide a crosswalk across El Camino Real. Attractive and inviting small plazas that are open to the public are included at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan policies Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. The project provides for all of its auto parking needs with the approval of shared parking, is located next to transit, supports walking due to having a mix of local and regional serving retail tenants near residential neighborhoods. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Local serving retail immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods can increase walking and bicycling by its proximity and easy access. Bicycle parking is also required as part of the project. Provision of bicycle parking spaces supports increasing bicycle trip mode share. In addition, a Policy 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-modal transit stations. Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. space for the future bike share location is provided. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None Currently 3 parcels 1.97 acres (49,927 sf in CS Zone) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 11 feet to create a 19’ sidewalk 4’ setback to provide 12’ wide effective sidewalk Rear Yard 10’ 70’ 5 feet for ramp; 75 feet for building (Design Enhancement Exception requested) Interior Side Yard 10’ N/A N/A Street Side Yard (Acacia Avenue) 5’ N/A (surface parking lot) 5’ Street Side Yard (Olive Avenue) 5’ 0’ 5’ Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 70’ 5’ for ramp; 75 feet for building (See above: DEE requested) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real(7) (total frontage 239’7”) 33% of side street built to setback on Acacia Avenue (total side street 189’11”) 33% of side street built to setback on Olive Avenue (189’11”) 0% N/A (surface parking lot) 113’ (56.5%) 137’10” (57%) 63’10” (33%) 79’6” (42%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps N/A N/A Permitted Setback Encroachment Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6' into the setback. N/A Balconies extend up to 4’ into the 12’ front setback. Max. Site Coverage 50% (24,963 sf) APN 132-37-056: 42% APN 132-37-055: 37% APN 132-38-072: N/A (surface parking lot) 47% (23,310 sf) Minimum Landscape Open Space 30% (8,989 sf) Not provided (all surface parking lot) 42% (21,212 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Two buildings 14 feet and 18 feet in height 50 feet; steps down to 35’ Residential density (net) 30 None 30 Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Residential 0.6:1 (29,956 sf) Retail 0.4:1(19,971 sf) Residential: None Retail: APN 132-37-056: 0.42 APN 132-37-055: 0.37 Residential 0.6:1 (29,952 sf) Retail 0.4:1 (19,798 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone (6) Appears to comply with 16 feet at 60 degrees Complies with 16 feet at 60 degrees (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.. (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 18.16.080 Performance Standards. As further described in a separate attachment, all development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail and Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Retail: 1 space/200 sf= 99 Studio Units (12): 1.25 spaces/unit= 15 One bedroom Units (6): 1.5 spaces/unit= 9 Two+ Bedroom Units (12): 2 spaces/unit= 24 Residential guest parking: 33% of units= 10 Total of 157 parking spaces required 11 spaces (additional surface parking lot roped off) 152 spaces (shared parking adjustment requested) Bicycle Parking Retail: 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 LT and 8 short term spaces; Guest: 3 ST Residential: Studio: 12 LT One bedroom: 6 LT Two+ bedroom units: 12 LT None 43 spaces (32 long term, 11 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces 5,000 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 on street and one part-time loading (required further resolution) ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth Complies (currently 3 lots) 30,738 sf (0.7 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 28’3” above and below grade Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 20’6” and 70’ above and below grade Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 33’ Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (12,295.2 sf) Parking lot 38% (11,710 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (18,443 sf) Parking lot 0.63 (19,535 sf) Does not comply; requires revision prior to decision Minimum Site Open Space 30% (9,221.5 sf) Not Applicable 41.5% (12,738 sf without R-1 portion) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (3,000 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (1,500 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (sf) Not Applicable 90-230 sf per unit Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 29 spaces required Guest Parking: 33% of total number of units. 7 required 29 spaces 8 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) plus 1 short term space per 10 units 20 LT and 2 ST Attachment F: Context-Based Design Criteria 3001 El Camino Real 16PLN-00097 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. The street facades provide canopy coverage along the sidewalks and provide pedestrian shelter, which supports street activity. The site circulation with a central plaza and walkway provides an easy connection for pedestrians to travel within the site. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project provides substantial sidewalks to allow for pedestrian ease of use and includes canopies for shelter; the street facades are primarily storefront windows that supports an interior connection with the street and pedestrians; and the placement of an open plaza along the El Camino Real frontage provides a strong connection with the street and supports accessory outdoor activities on the site. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zone setback requirements while also meeting the build-to line requirements in accordance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the design incorporates appropriate articulation and materials as well balconies that help break-up the mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The proposed buildings are both set back substantially further than required from the property lines and the project is consistent with height requirements within the 150 foot radius of single-family residential uses. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for the residents and an at-grade plaza and walkways for all to use. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located and accessed from side streets and the project eliminates parking lots and curb cuts along El Camino Real. Also, the majority of parking spaces are located within a below-grade garage. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood Although the proposed street façade along El Camino Real may seem tall in comparison to adjacent buildings, the façade built up to the build-to-line, is encouraged in accordance with design criteria for El Camino Real, which notes that buildings should be a minimum 25 feet in height to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. Gathering spaces clearly define entrance areas along the frontage. Project elements such as balconies are provided along the frontage to signal habitation and entrances to both retail and residential uses are provided along the frontage. The proposed building along El Camino Real includes ground floor retail with extensive windows that provide visibility into the retail stores as well as an outdoor seating area on the corner of Acacia and El Camino Real. These design features contribute positively to the pedestrian experience. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will utilize low-water use plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirments. Attachment G Performance Criteria 18.23 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes trash enclosure facilities at the rear of each building. The facilities are fully enclosed and not in clear sight of any public right-of-way or neighbors. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents as well as adjacent residents. The photometric studies show that there is no light spillover. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. Current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses and provides landscape screening across the parking lot and along the property boundaries between residential uses and the project. The buildings are set back substantially further than the required distance providing extra space and daylight plane to ensure light, air, and privacy. Mechanical equipment and service areas are screened. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Loading, refuse storage, and all mechanical equipment is set back substantially from adjacent single-family residential uses. Although the proposed ramp to the parking garage is located in close proximity to an adjacent residence, landscaping and a sound wall are provided to limit noise. Also, by constructing the ramp in this location the circulation reduces car trips toward Olive Avenue, reducing noise from cars leaving the site as well as traffic on Olive Avenue adjacent these single family residential uses. The project would comply with PAMC 9.10. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is primarily located below grade and is designed to be focused away from the street frontages where they are more visible. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project eliminates a curb cut along El Camino Real and provides a pedestrian hybrid beacon crosswalk across El Camino Real, which would make a safer pedestrian experience. The proposed circulation design also significantly reduces trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue, reducing impacts on adjacent single-family residences along Olive Avenue. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No uses on the site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that air quality would not result in impacts to future residents at the site. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Attachment H Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Commissioners. These documents are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3001 El Camino Real” 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 “Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3001 El Camino Real” 6. Open the attachment named “Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” 1 1 Architectural Review Board Meeting 2 Excerpt Minutes of November 3, 2016 3 4 5 6 7 Boardmembers: Staff: 8 Robert Gooyer- Chair Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director 9 Alexander Lew– V-Chair Cara Silver, Senior Deputy City Attorney 10 Wynne Furth Jonathan Lait, Assist. Director 11 Peter Baltay Claire Hodgkins, Planner 12 Kyu Kim Alicia Spotwood, Administrative Assistant 13 Molly Stump, City Attorney 14 15 16 QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER/PUBLIC HEARING. 3001 El Camino Real (16PLN-00097): Review and Comment 17 on a Requested Architectural Review Application for a Proposed Mixed-Use Development That Includes 18 50 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 20,000 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail/Commercial 19 Space. No Recommendation or Action Will be Taken at This Meeting. This Project is Being Evaluated in 20 Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. It is 21 Anticipated That the Project Will Require a Mitigated Negative Declaration. For additional information 22 contact Claire Hodgekins at Claire.hodgekins@cityofpaloalto.org. 23 24 Chair Gooyer: We'll go on to Item 4 at 3001 El Camino Real. Review and comment of a requested 25 Architectural Review application for the proposed mixed-use development that includes 50 26 residential rental units and approximately 20,000 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space. 27 No recommendation or action will be taken at this meeting. This project is being evaluated in 28 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines. It is 29 anticipated that the project will require a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 30 31 Claire Hodgekins: Good morning, Board Members. I'm Claire Hodgekins, the project planner for this 32 project. This morning you're being requested to consider the applicant's proposal for development of a 33 mixed-use project located at 3001 El Camino Real. The project site is currently three parcels that would 34 be merged into one as part of a separate application for a preliminary parcel map. The site includes split 35 zoning, Service Commercial, medium density, multifamily residential and single-family residential. This 36 was not included in the Staff Report, but staff wanted to also note that one of the three parcels is located 37 on the housing inventory. Currently developed with 9,100 square feet commercial building, Mike's Bikes, 38 that's surrounded by surface parking. A proposed mixed-use project has 19,917 square feet of 39 commercial area and 50 residential units. This shows the zoning of the proposed parcel. As you can see 40 there is CS zoning along El Camino Real. The RM-30 zone is along Acacia, and there's a strip parallel to 41 42 Acacia Avenue and adjacent to the single-family residences that is zoned R-1. This was part of the 43 former railroad right-of-way. The project includes two separate buildings. A four-story building proposed 44 in the area zoned CS includes ground-floor retail/commercial, 30 residential units and one level of 45 underground parking. The second building is a three-story building located in the area zoned RM-30. It 46 includes parking on the ground level and two stories with 20 residential units above. Parking adjustment 47 2 request of 1 percent is requested to provide 192 spaces instead of 194. An additional adjustment may be 1 required for the proposed location of eight parking spaces. As designed, the project requires a Design 2 Enhancement Exception for a 5-foot encroachment into a 10-foot required setback and 3 vegetation screening buffer. Key issues are highlighted in the Staff Report and include consistency with 4 the Zoning Code, consistency with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, consistency with the 5 performance criteria, and consistency with the Context Based Design Criteria. Staff is seeking ARB 6 input on the project's overall design and consistency with the design criteria and the project's 7 overall design. Next steps include a review and incorporation, as appropriate, of ARB comments; 8 finalization of studies and the draft CEQA document; and then the site and design process requires 9 review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. It would come back to the Architectural 10 Review Board for a recommendation and then City Council. Staff recommends the ARB provide 11 direction regarding the proposed project's overall design and its consistency with applicable design 12 guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain. No recommendation or action is requested. 13 14 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Any comments or questions of staff? 15 Jonathan Lait: I'm sorry. Chair, just if I may? 16 Chair Gooyer: Sure. 17 18 Mr. Lait: Because this is a quasi-judicial matter, we just want to make sure that Commissioners have an 19 opportunity to express any ex parte communications before we commence further with the 20 dialog. Thank you. 21 22 Board Member Furth: I've spoken with staff to ask them for the history of the strip of R-1 designated 23 property, to which I now have a partial answer. 24 25 Ms. Hodgekins: It's adjacent to all of the single-family residences on Olive Avenue. 26 Board Member Furth: (inaudible) 27 Ms. Hodgekins: No, that was part of one of the existing parcels in the CS zone. It's not part of the 28 railroad right-of-way. 29 30 Board Member Furth: (inaudible) 31 32 Jodie Gerhardt: Our understanding is that this R-1 piece that you're seeing here is part of the old 33 railroad. In this case, this property owner picked up that property. It seems like in this case the 34 homeowner picked up the property from the railroad. 35 36 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? 37 38 Board Member Baltay: Yes. I guess I had three questions. I'm still not clear. The Design Enhancement 39 Exception is to allow the ramp for the parking to be closer to the neighbor's property. What is it for? 40 41 Ms. Hodgekins: It's an encroachment into the 10-foot required setback from ... 42 Board Member Baltay: What is encroaching? 43 Ms. Hodgekins: The ramp is encroaching. 44 Board Member Baltay: The ramp is encroaching. 45 46 Ms. Hodgekins: Yes. It's also a 10-foot required vegetation screening under the performance criteria. 47 48 3 Board Member Baltay: The second thing. I noticed in this letter that came to us recently from 1 Transportation, Item Number 2, after evaluating the topographic survey with the plans, it appears the 2 sudden grade change and high point about the railroad stuff. Could you just explain to me what's going 3 on? Where is the grade changing? I walked around the site. I didn't see big grade changes. 4 5 Ms. Hodgekins: There's ... 6 7 Board Member Baltay: Just put it out for the record. What is it that we're talking about here? 8 9 Ms. Hodgekins: If you watch the pointer on the screen, there's a grade change along El Camino Real. 10 It's a little bit higher here versus here and here. Basically the railroad right-of-way comes through here. 11 It's slightly higher where that former railroad was. 12 13 Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry. On the ... 14 15 Ms. Hodgekins: The center of the site, of the frontage. 16 17 Board Member Baltay: The El Camino frontage has a bump in it? 18 Ms. Hodgekins: Yes. 19 Board Member Baltay: I didn't notice it when I spent about half an hour there. I guess I'm just kind of 20 blind. Lastly, through the Chair, Robert, there was a number of back-and-forths about the 21 appropriateness of this whole hearing to begin with. Could we get staff just to put on the record what's 22 going on and why we should be hearing this? Through the Chair, it's your call. 23 24 Chair Gooyer: You're talking about the email we got last night? 25 Board Member Baltay: And then staff's response to it, yes. 26 Ms. Gerhardt: Staff did respond to Mr. Borock's comments about this hearing. The applicant did not 27 apply for a preliminary review. They just applied for a formal application. That's what we're here with 28 today. We are considering this to be the first of three hearings that we would normally do with a formal 29 application. As far as fees are concerned, we take deposits on these major ARB applications. All of our 30 hours are recovered through that deposit process. 31 32 Chair Gooyer: I felt comfortable when it was sort of a fee-based type situation, where they just draw 33 from an account. 34 35 Board Member Baltay: I found everything to be reasonable. I just wanted to have it put out on the 36 record. 37 38 Chair Gooyer: If there are no other questions—yes? 39 40 Board Member Furth: I agree that this seems to be a no harm, no foul situation even if somewhat 41 unusual. I will say that since I don't have the benefit of sound studies and other data that CEQA 42 documents would give me, I may object if you tell us we've hit our three including this one, should we 43 ever get to that point 44 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. That three is at the Director's discretion. We have the ability to have additional 45 hearings if needed. 46 47 Board Member Furth: I'm happy to ... 48 4 1 Ms. Gerhardt: Because we don't have the CEQA documents and we're a little bit out of order here too is 2 why we're not asking for a recommendation. We're just asking for some guidance to help this project 3 along. 4 5 Chair Gooyer: At this point, I'll open it up to the public. I have one speaker slip at the moment, Jeff 6 Levinsky. Why don't we start with that? Jeff, you have 3 minutes. I'm sorry. You're right. Jeff, hang on. 7 You're right I haven't even done the applicant's presentation yet. Why don't we start with that? I'm 8 sorry. You've got 10 minutes then. 9 10 Tim Steele: Good morning. Tim Steele, I'm with the Sobrato Organization representing the applicant. I 11 also have with me the architect, Jeff Berg, from Steinberg. In the audience I have Nick Samuelson from 12 Guzzardo Partnership, who is our landscape architect, and Nick Torres Mathew [phonetic], who is our 13 civil engineer, with Kier & Wright. If you have any questions associated with those, they're available to 14 answer those as well. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, to introduce to you 3001 El Camino, a 15 mixed-use project. We had a few design challenges with three different parcels and two different 16 zonings. Our goal of this team in approaching the project was to make each parcel and each zoning area 17 conforming relative to the Zoning Ordinance and is partially why the decision to come directly to 18 you instead of going through the preliminary review. We've had plenty of opportunities over the years to 19 talk with staff about this and the adjacent Fry's site, which we also own, and getting feedback and 20 context for that. We were hoping we could build on some of that. We looked to the neighborhood for 21 cues. You, a few years ago, had approved the project across Acacia on El Camino, on the Equinox site. 22 We looked to that for a lot of cues on materials and finishes and design features. We tried to pick up 23 on those cues and integrate them here. With that, I don't want to get into all the details. I'll let the 24 architect make his presentation, and hopefully he can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 25 26 Jeff Berg: Good morning, members of the Board and staff. We're very excited to be here. Again, my 27 name is Jeff Berg. I'm an architect and principal with Steinberg. We're excited to bring this first project 28 to you here on El Camino, in this portion of the Fry's site. As Tim said, there is challenges in terms of— 29 there are some wonderful opportunities, but there are some challenges. We had to start kind of 30 somewhere in terms of making some assumptions on how to design our building. I will start off by 31 saying that the project really has three frontages. There's the El Camino frontage, the Olive frontage, 32 and the Acacia frontage. I think we can make a case on any of those as to what we would call the front 33 or side. I think that will come up a little bit later when we talk about the ramp. We saw that as a 34 challenge but also an opportunity. The split zoning also presents somewhat of a challenge. The 35 buildings that were presented to you and drawn here—we've approached this that each building 36 essentially stands alone on itself. The CS building works with the CS zoning, and the RM-30 building 37 works with the RM. We are truly thinking of this as a mixed-use site, and that's what we're bringing forth 38 to you today. We think that there's some very nice solutions that we'll get into on how we believe this 39 works in a mixed-use way. The Board has picked up on the topography; although, you don't necessarily 40 see it. El Camino does have about a 20-inch rise across its frontage. In the world of ADA and flatness, 41 that does present a design challenge for us, especially in terms of consistent retail entries across that 42 frontage and having a flat building and not stepping inside. There's also a number of mature trees that 43 we very much want to keep. The City has a heritage of keeping trees, especially mature street trees. A 44 proposal of lowering the sidewalk or what that impact would be all the way out into El Camino is 45 not considered in this application. We're working with the existing trees. Another item, I think, for 46 consideration is in the El Camino Design Guidelines in terms of how we planned the transportation entry. 47 We're keeping the El Camino frontage very much vehicle-centric. There's no mid-block curb cut. Cars 48 5 are funneled around and to the sides on Acacia, primarily on Acacia. There's also working within the 1 height restrictions and so forth. I think the project that we'll go through now really responds quite nicely 2 to a lot of those guidelines and have come up with some nice design solutions. If you see these on your 3 screen here, we'll just go through a number of these slides. You're familiar here with the Mike's Bikes 4 parcel. That sits squarely in the CS zone. What we call the tail or the RM-30 piece runs to the north 5 along Acacia. We did do and put together and stitched a street frontage for you for your reference. I 6 think you've all visited the site probably and are familiar with here. These are for reference. We took a 7 number of our design cues from projects in and around the area and also the project on the Equinox site 8 that was approved several years ago, used that as some cues in terms of what the ARB and City was 9 looking for at that point. Here's the data. We'll talk, I'm sure, about parking. This is pretty 10 straightforward calculations in terms of the floor areas and parking required. I think staff has shown that 11 we're complying with the numbers in terms of floor areas and heights. There is a discussion we'll have 12 about parking and shared use. This slide, again, demonstrates some of those challenges in terms of the 13 topography. What I will say is in terms of the parking and entry here for mixed use, the vehicular traffic 14 is off of El Camino, pointed to Acacia. The main, what we call the vehicular entrance, is right here. 15 We've taken the vehicles and the transportation coming in for all of the residential uses and really 16 the bulk of the retail use and directed that to a mid-block situation here. The turn here and the 17 circle prevents cut-through traffic to Olive. It also directs them to the ramp to the subterranean parking. 18 Note that the ramp starts at the very back—this was intentional—of the adjacent R-1 parcel to get those 19 cars ducking down and below grade before we're next to a home. We think that is a very nice design 20 solution there. Really the other surface parking that would serve the retail use, there's only 30 spaces, 21 and that is accessible off of Olive right here. We've provided really—there is a minimum kind of 22 amount for retail that works well for that quick pick-up, drop-off or jump-in on a trip. That really is 23 limited to the 30 cars right here on Olive. We see this also working well. There's an entry on the 24 building on Olive, and that would focus pedestrians or residents north towards the Caltrain station and 25 that kind of pedestrian and mass transit situation. A couple of cross-sections. There's the 26 architectural site plan; we'll get to the sections. We've put a lot of effort into the landscaping 27 around the perimeter as well as the amenity spaces. We have some very nice buffers on the point 28 that's called out as the R-1 leftover zoning area here, with nice landscaping and features across the 29 back, heavily planted to meet our storm water retention guidelines. Also there's an amenity space 30 for the building on the second floor of the CS building. This place, again, located far away from our 31 R-1 zones. I think this was about 75 feet—no, it was more than that, I think over 100 feet to the back 32 here. Cross-sections, you can see how we're handling our heights here. The 50-foot-high portion of the 33 building is pushed out to El Camino, and then we respect that 150-foot circle and drop the building 34 heights down as we approach and get closer to the R-1 zones. The cross-section here shows this 35 adjacency with the single-family home, which on this drawing is shown there, but it's pushed very 36 much to the front of their parcel. You can see the setback in question and then the ramp diving down 37 to the garage below. We did put in the building that was approved here, so you could see some 38 context in terms of what was approved. We've taken that also in terms of our mass and bulk, materials 39 and colors and used that as cues for our design. We feel very good about the design use of materials. I 40 think this would be a nice addition on El Camino and picks up on other buildings that have been 41 approved closer down to Page Mill, I think, with that variation of plane, color use and then some higher-42 quality materials at the corners. There's a sample here. This was also included in the submittal package. 43 There are a few renderings here to illustrate the overall architectural design. Thank you very much. Be 44 excited to answer your questions. 45 46 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? 47 48 6 Board Member Kim: I have a quick question. I was looking at the building section on A4.1. I don't think it 1 was actually in your presentation. In our packets, if you look at the left portion of that building section, it 2 looks like there's a parking stacker. 3 4 Mr. Berg: Yes. We're proposing in the basement—along the Acacia frontage, we have provisions in the 5 plans to allow for mechanical parking on that wall, on that side. 6 7 Board Member Kim: Do your parking calculations take into account the stacked spots as well? 8 9 Mr. Berg: They include the stacked spots. The most intensive use we saw on the retail side would be a 10 restaurant. The plan was to build—we conform without putting the stackers in, if it's not a restaurant. 11 We would put in the pit, and you can cover the way those are designed and manufactured. We build the 12 pit with the basement, and then there's a series of metal plates that cap that off. If there was a 13 conversion or a time when parking was needed, they can go ahead and install the system. The physical 14 bones to do the stacker is in place and built from the outset. 15 16 Board Member Kim: The stacker would really be to provide enough parking for a restaurant if it were 17 (crosstalk). 18 19 Mr. Berg: (crosstalk) intense parking situation, yes. 20 Board Member Kim: Thank you. 21 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? 22 23 Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for you. I guess we are calling it the RM-30 building on Acacia. You have 24 the parking at grade. I was wondering if you had considered doing subterranean parking or a half level 25 down parking. 26 27 Mr. Berg: We had considered that. Noting that the heights were at 35 feet we could accommodate all 28 the parking without going through a subterranean situation, we chose to keep that at grade for this 29 exercise. 30 31 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. 32 33 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? In that case, now I'll open it up to the public. Like I said, I have one 34 speaker slip at the moment, Jeff Levinsky. Jeff, you've got 3 minutes. 35 36 Jeff Levinsky: With all due respect, I think it's 5 minutes for a hearing like this. That's what it says on 37 the agenda. I won't need it. Two points. First of all, thank you all for hearing this item. The concern I 38 have is about the present parking situation. The Staff Report doesn't really mention this, but the lot that 39 it talks about of 66 undesignated spaces is currently in use. It didn't take long to figure out how. I went 40 over there a couple of days ago and people are parking there all throughout the morning and then 41 walking over to 380 Portage Road, a separate property where there's a company called Playground 42 Global. They were going in there. Those people are all going to be displaced when this project goes up. 43 The question is where are they then going to park. I realize that the buildings are owned by the same 44 owner and there's been an agreement to handle this in the past. I think it would be appropriate for the 45 staff to go through and explain whether the remaining parking spaces are going to be adequate for the 46 parking that's going to be displaced. Acacia is completely parked bumper-to-bumper when I was there. 47 That couldn't absorb these people either. This is actually a pretty tricky issue because we also have seen 48 7 this over at Foot Locker, which is going to be torn down and rebuilt. Cars are parking in the back of Foot 1 Locker for another property. There are these agreements, informal or formal worked out, where cars 2 aren't parking in spaces that are going to survive. The question is what's going to happen. I've spoken 3 with Becky Sanders, who is the president of the neighborhood association. There's already concern 4 about overflow parking from other projects and such. I think simply counting up the parking spots at 5 Fry's and saying there's enough for all the tenants at Fry's may not itself be adequate. We'd like to know 6 whether or not Fry's store, for example, has the rights to park so many cars for customers and whether 7 that is going to be in—that has to be maintained so that you can't just move the people for Playground 8 Global over to the other side where Fry's customers park. I think that all has to be sort of very carefully 9 explained so that the public can understand what's going to happen. The other concern that Becky and 10 her community are concerned about is sort of the canyonization of El Camino. This building, while it does 11 an interesting job of moving the mass away from the R-1 homes as appropriate, creates along El Camino 12 what's going to be sort of a very vertical facade. We've seen that similar design in other buildings. It 13 would be great if you could find ways to make that more appealing and more attractive rather than 14 what you already have north of Oregon Expressway with the various projects that have gone up, which 15 have gotten quite a bit of public backlash about how unattractive it is now to have these tall buildings on 16 both sides and such. I hope you can give some attention to those issues. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address this Board? Seeing none, I'll close the 19 public portion and bring it back to the Board. Kyu, you want to start? 20 21 Board Member Kim: Thank you for your presentation. 22 23 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry, Chair. I'm the stickler on process here. Typically, we give the applicant an opportunity 24 for rebuttal. Since there was some public comments, there's an opportunity for an applicant to rebut 25 anything that was heard in the public process. I think your agenda (crosstalk). 26 27 Chair Gooyer: I was going to do that after we—that's fine. No problem. 28 29 Mr. Steele: Specific to the parking question, it's a good observation to see that that portion of the 30 parking is used on a fairly active basis. However, we've been monitoring the parking lot and actually 31 recently signed it because we're finding that that portion of the parking that is subject to this project 32 being displaced isn't used necessarily by our project. Predominately it's used by private parties going 33 across Acacia in the Equinox project. The gym primarily uses that parking lot a lot. For about a 2-month 34 period about 6 months ago, we had a security guard monitoring that portion of the parking lot and 35 checking where everybody is actually moving to when they park their car and walk to, and then asking 36 them if they're not part of the Fry's campus, if you will, that whole parking lot and the facilities that go 37 with that parking lot, the Fry's building, the Global Playground and such, that they not park in our parking 38 lot. We've recently signed it to say they're not allowed if you're not part of our tenancy. We also would 39 like to point out that the Fry's main building parking lot areas have kind of grown haphazardly over its 40 life. As it acquired the railroad easement through the property, they paved it. As they got other pieces, 41 they paved it. There was no rhyme or reason with the layouts of the parking and how efficient they drive 42 and such. We're in the process of actually having the parking lot looked at to make it more logical and 43 efficient. In that we get to add additional parking, which will help offset the displaced parking that would 44 be part of our project. 45 46 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Why don't we bring it back to the Board then? 47 48 8 Board Member Kim: Thanks again for your presentation. I think this is a very interesting site. I 1 remember when it was still a car dealership, and I remember when Verizon was Pizza Hut and so on and 2 so forth. One of the first things that kind of interested me was the fact that this was used as a part of 3 the railroad. I think it's interesting that across El Camino between the McDonald's and the Palo Alto 4 Square we still have that strip of land that used to be the railroad tracks. Just a very casual comment. I 5 think I was a little bit sad to see that there wasn't any kind of association made to that, which I think is 6 fine. Again, it's just an observation to start. As far as looking through your packet and drawings, thank 7 you for providing such a large set of drawings. I mean that in earnest, because it's really important to be 8 able to see a lot of the complexities that are going on. I think there are a lot of things to be applauded 9 with regards to the project. I particularly think that the ramp is a good decision and a good design 10 approach to give some respect to the single-family residence that is neighboring right next to that, and at 11 the same time provide somewhat of a buffer between the more high-density structure that's to be 12 proposed. I think that the elevations along Olive Avenue and even to a certain extent along Acacia have 13 been pretty well thought out. Especially on Olive, I like the breaking up of the elevation and not being so 14 repetitive. However, I do feel like there can be some additional studies along El Camino Real. I 15 understand that it's a certain unit type that's being repeated and mirrored, but I still feel that it's just a 16 little too bland and too repetitive. I think there are opportunities to kind of introduce some more 17 pedestrian scale and pedestrian interest and gathering spaces along El Camino that currently don't exist 18 there the way the site currently is and along with the proposed design. I think the decision to use the 19 roundabout in the center of the site to prevent people from cutting across is important. I know, as 20 somebody that's guilty myself of using Olive Avenue as kind of a shortcut from El Camino to Oregon 21 Expressway, it is a frequently used shortcut by many people in town. To have that linkage from Acacia 22 would only encourage people to do it more. I think that roundabout is being mindful of that and trying to 23 deter that. I like that decision. I'm a little bit concerned about the parking. I realize that we're not 24 making a decision today and that things may still be in flux, especially with Planning and the Department 25 of Transportation. To me it feels like a lot of those spots are super compact spots. I thought if this 26 becomes a development that's thriving and has a lot of people, I think it's going to be a real traffic jam 27 down there. I don't see how people are going to be encouraged to park down there. With regards to 28 the plans, I thought it would be nice in the future if you could show the outdoor amenity space for the El 29 Camino building on that second-floor plan. I didn't see it currently. I think this would be specifically on 30 Sheet A2.2CS. You do have a note that the podium amenities are there, but I thought it would be nice if 31 you could actually show those amenities and how they relate back to the residences. I was looking at 32 things such as trash and getting in and out of the site. I think those have been for the most part pretty 33 well thought through. I think those can work. I do have concerns if one of the retail spaces on the 34 ground floor of the CS building will be a restaurant. The thought that restaurant customers may have to 35 use the parking lift system is a concern that I have. I also have some issues with the bicycle parking. I 36 noticed that all of the long-term bicycle parking spots were in the Acacia building. The majority of those 37 long-term parking spots are actually for the CS building. I don't know if that's the best way to go about 38 the long-term bicycle parking. It almost felt like "we've got this long-term bicycle parking that we need 39 to address; let's just put it where we have the space to put it." I don't think that's the best solution for 40 that. I also do think that additional surface grade bicycle parking should be encouraged. I realize that 41 you do have some of those spots, but I think more of the people that need to use the long-term bicycle 42 parking spots, I think, will just kind of leave their bikes on surface grade, which will take up those bicycle 43 parking spots for the people that actually bike here for temporary uses. Those were the initial comments 44 that I had. I'm excited for the project. It's a site that can definitely use a more vibrant piece of 45 architecture and land use. There still needs to be some more thought put into the repetitiveness and the 46 use of materials and colors. As a start, I'm excited to see the project move forward. I think the initial 47 pieces are in there for you to clearly show us that you're thinking about some of the more complex issues 48 9 at hand. Thank you. 1 2 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. 3 4 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think this is a pretty exciting project. I very much 5 like the range of units that you've put in the project. We haven't really seen very many people propose 6 this kind of project in Palo Alto. I do like that. I do like what you're proposing in terms of the units, and I 7 do very much like that you have private balconies and large common open spaces for all of the units. I 8 think that's very important. I think my main questions on the project have to do with the repetitiveness, 9 which I think Kyu has mentioned. Also for me, when I was reviewing the El Camino Design Guidelines, I 10 think there are some things that you're missing. One is a prominent entrance for the residences facing 11 the street. Yours are kind of in a courtyard facing the back of the property. Our guidelines do actually 12 say that you should have entrances for the retail and also for the residences. It's a guideline, not a 13 zoning requirement. I do want to caution you that the Council has been deliberating whether or not to 14 make the guidelines part of the Code. That's out there. They haven't decided on that. I would just pay 15 attention to that, because that's come up before on other projects. It seems like the guidelines do allow 16 some wiggle room where it could be on a side street if there is a plaza or some sort of pedestrian 17 connector to El Camino. There are maybe some ways around that. The guidelines do specifically 18 mention that. On the repetitiveness and also to Mr. Levinsky's point about the walled canyons, it seems 19 to me the amount of frontage that you have on El Camino, that more variation is warranted. Don't make 20 every window on every building the same proportion. I've worked on projects like this. It's very easy for 21 the architect working on it just to try to make everything the same. That's actually the wrong thing to do 22 on a project of this size. If you carry that through into the materials and colors, again I think we want 23 real variation between the buildings. Don't use the same palette on both buildings on all facades and 24 whatnot. We want more distinction between them. You're starting to do that on the corners. I think the 25 corners are working really well. On balconies, if you have HVAC, like if you're using mini splits with wall- 26 mounted (inaudible)—you're not, good. One, I want them to be screened if you do. If you have Z vents, if 27 there's a way around that and not doing it—we've had some projects do ducting up to the roof so that 28 they're not visible on the El Camino facade—that would be great. On your retail frontage, things like 29 planters and recesses could go a long way to breaking the repetition. I think the Staff Report also 30 mentioned more prominent awnings. You do have awnings in the sections, but having more prominent 31 awnings and letting tenants—what do you call it? Incorporating a place for tenants to have signs is key. 32 On your RM-30 building on Acacia, I think my suggestion is to lower the building a half level if you can. 33 I've seen projects in San Jose where they actually add front steps to each of the units on the second 34 floor. Instead of just the balcony, it's actually more like a porch. In a way it's a little weird because you 35 have a unit with two front doors, one from the street and one into the corridor. It makes the street a lot 36 better. Right now you have a blank wall. If you guys don't do that, then I really want to see more of 37 what the blank wall looks like. I was looking in the elevations, but I couldn't really tell exactly what you 38 were doing on the garage wall facing Acacia. I do acknowledge that you're trying to do storm water in 39 that setback there. I'm a little concerned about your—what do you call it—your automobile 40 circulation. It seems to me that you're putting more of the access on Acacia versus Olive. The downside is 41 Acacia is narrower, and at least temporarily it doesn't connect to very much. You have to go through 42 that little alley to get to Portage or drive through a parking lot. I know that won't be permanent; 43 something else will happen in the future. The downside to me is that you can't turn, you can't go 44 southbound on El Camino from Acacia because there's a median. You're really kind of forcing people 45 to go through the alley to Portage because of the median. Olive, you can make a left turn or a right 46 turn, because that's also the Palo Alto Square intersection. Olive is 10 feet wider than Acacia. I 47 would imagine that the neighborhood is concerned about cut-through traffic and whatnot and 48 10 parking. Some of our other neighborhoods, like in Evergreen Park, have put barriers there. The mixed-1 use projects can access part of Olive, and then there's a barrier, and then the residents have access only 2 from the back side. That's one possible solution if that is an issue. On the grading of your first floor and 3 a lot of the ADA access, I've worked on projects like this. I know it's a challenge. I've worked on ones 4 where we've split the slab, stepped the slab. I know that causes all sorts of problems. It seems to me 5 that may be a better solution. You're saying no. I've gone through it. I've racked my brain over that too. 6 I would say on the Equinox project there, there was a Design Enhancement Exception for that project to 7 help with the ADA access. They tried to take up the grade on the side streets. To make up the difference, 8 they put ramps in there. I would say that at least I'm open to that kind of thing if that helps. I'm not 9 crazy about having the retail floor lower than the sidewalk. That just seems really odd to me. Whatever 10 you can do to get it higher, I think, is better. I think that's all that I have at the moment. Thank you. I look 11 forward to this project. 12 13 Chair Gooyer: Thank you, Alex. Wynne. 14 15 Board Member Furth: Thank you, and thank you for the large, readable, highly informative plans, as Kyu 16 said. It's a pleasure to be thinking about a project like this and the uses that you propose. It was good to 17 be reminded that when I see an asphalt parking lot as something vastly improved by having housing 18 built on it, there is a loss, namely those parking spaces. I will be interested in hearing how these things 19 work out in the larger neighborhood. I guess I've been hearing about how these parcels are about to 20 change to housing since 1998, when I first showed up to go to work in the Planning Department at least 21 as their legal advisor. I had a question for staff. In the South El Camino Design Guidelines, it talks about 22 the 3000 block, and it talks about a jitney and the old railroad right-of-way. Could you explain how that 23 relates to this project and site? Page 18. 24 25 Ms. Hodgekins: I've discussed this with Transportation, and they indicated that, although this notes that 26 there was an old railroad right-of-way here, there are no future plans even mentioned on a 27 potential basis from anyone at this point in time to actually develop that. They indicated that much of 28 the right-of- way already has been developed. There are no ... 29 30 Board Member Furth: Do we expect that to change in the Comp Plan revision? 31 Ms. Hodgekins: They don't expect that to change (crosstalk). 32 Board Member Furth: No, I mean they would change the Comp Plan, because this is a reference to a 33 Comp Plan note. 34 35 Ms. Hodgekins: Yeah. 36 37 Board Member Furth: Thank you. This was a question for the applicant. You mentioned that you 38 control other properties in the area. This line of single-family dwellings along Olive, are those also 39 controlled in part by you? No. Are those individually owned houses? 40 41 Mr. Steele: We bought the Fry's land that you know as the Fry's building as well as—not Mike's Bikes but 42 the railroad easement that came up was also owned by them. They own going along Olive just, I'd say, 43 about 60 percent of the individual single-family homes, and they kept those. Boyd Smith kept them 44 when they sold us our piece. I think out of all of them on our side of Olive there might be two privately 45 owned, then the bulk of the remainder is owned by a third investor that we're not related to. When Boyd 46 sold us his properties, the Fry's site, he indicated he would not oppose the redevelopment of our 47 parcels. The one parcel immediately adjacent to us is privately owned. We have been attempting to 48 11 contact them. It appears that they might be an absentee owner. We also looked at the title report, and it 1 looks like there might be some financial issues going on with the property, which is why we can't get a 2 hold of the person possibly. There's a pile of mail on the front porch. We're making an attempt to get a 3 sense of their reaction to this proposal, but we haven't had an opportunity to meet with them yet. 4 5 Board Member Furth: Thank you. I was asking these questions because a lot of our guidelines talk 6 about doing various things to be careful with and protect adjacent residential neighborhoods. This site 7 does not mostly adjoin residential neighborhoods. It's hard to tell; it all appears to be in flux. I know we 8 have to start somewhere. Thank you. Basically I was looking at the site. I was thinking ignoring the issue 9 of the R-1 strip which probably the owner would have a right to have re-designated since it's not 10 develop-able under R-1 standards, but it's not an easy process to get a zone change even a correcting 11 one like this. It's basically RM-30 throughout and then with the mixed-use, with the commercial. Just 12 sort of thinking about it. It's a single parcel with a big El Camino frontage, but it's two different zones. 13 When I look at the South El Camino Guidelines, I'm thinking do I apply the residential building only 14 standards to the CS building. I think they're important. I would ordinarily be looking for access from 15 residential units to the sidewalk, because that's one of the things that's encouraged in these guidelines 16 in a residential building. I don't know if that works effectively when what's across the street is not 17 residential uses. It does concern me that this design is so inwardly focused. I would prefer that it 18 address the street more directly and that it be more apparent that there's residential uses than I think 19 this design does. I know our El Camino guidelines—you've got two of them, two sets to think about—talk 20 about big, built-up corners. I actually think that really well designed, truly pedestrian-friendly uses on 21 corners can be more valuable than towers. I think what you have could work. My big concern will be is 22 it actually a place that will be pleasant to be. I suspect 10 years from now the traffic will not be as noisy 23 on that street, but it'll be interesting to see the sound studies and think about how it practically works. I 24 think we have a number of alleged public spaces along El Camino that don't work because they're too 25 noisy. I'm also concerned with having—I'm not supportive of having a block-long facade along El Camino 26 with no significant entry through it. I think it needs to be broken up. Our guidelines unconsciously don't 27 really anticipate block-long developments. We have to read them in that context. If you look at them, 28 they talk about cooperative developments with pedestrian amenities and passages between the 29 buildings. I think you own both those buildings, and I would be looking for that kind of approach. Also 30 generally, there's a lot of really attractive development in this part of the City, a lot of the new 31 buildings. A lot of them are back against Park or Birch, and they don't have to be as armored against 32 the street as your building will be on El Camino. They don't have to deal with as much noise, as 33 much dust, as much smoke. Generally the architecture there is lighter. It's lighter elements. I'm sure 34 my colleagues know how it's done. I am looking for lighter, less heavy architecture in this area. This 35 has always been the less developed, less intense part of the City. If you look across the street, you 36 have a very high urban forest. It's big. That's the tallest thing around. I would like to keep that aspect of 37 visibility and light and greenery. I think this site is under-landscaped as it's presently designed, 38 particularly for an area where the dominant use is residential. I think it needs a lot more greenery, 39 and I don't mean a bunch of horsetails, equisetum, whatever it's called. I very much like the use. I like 40 the mix of units you have. I like the fact that you have outdoor spaces which would be buffered from 41 intense noise. I'm not sure they're designed to really work yet socially. I think they need perhaps 42 more eyes on them, more to encourage interaction. My principle concern is this long, heavy El Camino 43 frontage and failing to tie that residential in both buildings more to the street. Thank you. 44 45 Chair Gooyer: Thank you, Wynne. Peter. 46 47 Board Member Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the comprehensive presentation. I'm very excited 48 12 about this project. I think the use is great. I find myself in agreement with and actually wanting to build 1 on a lot of the comments of my colleagues. Let me start by saying that I think this is increasingly a 2 pedestrian-friendly area. It doesn't seem so at first blush. It's not if you're not really familiar with the 3 area, but it's so rapidly changing into a higher-density microcosm of an urban area. It's kind of exciting 4 and neat. The scale and the kind of apartments you're proposing really fit into that. I think the 5 architecture needs to be considerably more pedestrian-friendly. I'll build on Wynne's comments right 6 away. I think the El Camino frontage is too much building. I'd love to see some sort of break between 7 the building with an entrance perhaps through some buildings or a large opening between them, 8 somehow to signify that it does front on El Camino. That's the address, 3001 El Camino. I'd really love to 9 see some sort of break in the building. That also responds to what Kyu was saying about the building 10 feeling too monotonous and regular. Again, break it up a little bit. That will help. I feel even more 11 strongly, I think, than Alex does about the residential units. When you lift them off the ground by the 12 height of a parking garage, you don't really have residential units on the street. That's out of context, 13 and I find I really won't be able to support this if those units are a full height above the street. I really 14 think you need to come down at least half a story. What Alex was painting a picture of is really quite 15 attractive houses with porches stepping off a little bit. Up in Redwood City, they just did that on some 16 new apartment buildings off of Veterans where the parking is pushed down a little bit. Each house has 17 this sort of brownstone stoop. Anything you can do to make these apartment homes part of the 18 community, because they are, will really help. Right now, when you look at some of your perspective 19 renderings, it's pretty horrific. On Sheet A3.1, you get a good view of the residential units off of Acacia. 20 That's really not attractive that way, and it's not making any kind of contextual connection to what is a 21 residential neighborhood. I think the same thing applies in the back. You have an outdoor space that 22 you really want, and the residents of these apartments will want to use. Yet, when you lift them up a full 23 floor above it, there's not a whole lot of mothers who are going to be comfortable with their 24 children playing when they can't easily get to them and see them. Being a full floor above it is 25 just not comfortable; it's not appropriate. Again, if you were to sink the parking down just half a 26 flight, just enough that you can still make it all work, you have room for the ramps and stuff. You could 27 then find a way to make more visual and architectural connections from those units to the street and to 28 the backyard open area, which would I believe just make it much more successful. Again, I'm building 29 on what Alex was saying, but I feel even more strongly than he does that it's essential to get that. When I 30 look at the parking situation, in general I think you're making it work. Certainly the 1 percent is not a 31 problem. I do support the Design Enhancement Exception for the ramp. We've done that before. 32 This is such a limiting factor. To pull it a full 10 feet from the property line really limits how you can 33 make the parking work. What you've done is quite nice, and I find I accept that. Again, building on what 34 Kyu was saying, the stacked parking works maybe for residential units. It really doesn't for any kind of 35 retail purpose. I just can't support that at all if you can't make the parking work without the stacked 36 units. I understand that they're not part of the project now, but I just want to put it on the record that I 37 don't think stacked units really work at all, but for residential units at best. 38 39 Mr. Steele: Is there a chance to clarify (inaudible)? 40 41 Board Member Baltay: No. The last thing about the parking. I've said this on many projects before. If 42 there's any way you can get some kind of a connection from the parking garage up. Right now, I come 43 home and I have to go out through either an elevator or a fire stair to get up to the main plaza and into 44 the houses somehow. If you had some kind of an opening, a staircase, a way to go back and forth 45 between the two levels, you'd just make it so much more friendly. For retail, people are so much more 46 likely to want to go to these shops when the parking is easy to get there. If you think of Kepler's book 47 store and Café Borrone up in Menlo Park, Bob Peterson's building, where they have these huge 48 13 lightwell-filled stair areas that you go up and down from. When you're in the garage, you 1 immediately know where to go. It's full of light. It's quite successful. It's a pleasant way to get out of a 2 parking garage. It just makes such a difference. Here it's just an absolute minimum parking garage, fit as 3 many cars in as you can. That comes around to me on the second floor common space for the CS 4 building open space on the outside. Again, if there was some way to connect that space to the 5 parking, to the area, to El Camino, a staircase going down, some level of just connection, visual 6 connection and a practical, physical way to get back and forth between all of this. As you refine the 7 designs, maybe you'll find an opportunity to do that. The more you can get—just a staircase going down 8 is just so much easier for somebody to have two or three ways to come home. It just makes it nicer 9 if you're walking over from the train station, you don't have to go inside some fire stair to get up. All 10 these small things really count. I do share everybody's comments about the buildings looking a little 11 too regular and monotonous. At first I had actually circled the corner thinking where is the corner 12 element. On thinking about it and listening to what my colleagues say, it may well be that the way you've 13 designed this corner will be quite successful. Having a sort of a recess and a strong entrance off of 14 that might well do the corner marking. I do caution you and remind everybody that in our El Camino 15 Design Guidelines we call for buildings to have a base, a middle and a top. Like it or not, that's what 16 we've all approved in our El Camino guidelines. We've talked about this at previous meetings. I 17 remind staff I don't see that mentioned anywhere in your report. My colleagues have all discussed this 18 before. It is in the guidelines, and we can't just ignore those things. It does force a more traditional 19 style of architecture, but that is what we've collectively agreed to do through our Codes and 20 guidelines. We should be enforcing that or at least mentioning it and letting us come back with 21 architectural solutions to it. Two final things. As I look at these elevations, I notice you're proposing 22 some sort of corrugated metal treatment on these taller, vertical elements on the CS building and 23 possibly on the residential one. I find that not to be a very comfortable or timeless element at all. I think 24 it's sort of a catchy, current architectural trend. I'd like to think of us looking for buildings that are more 25 timeless, to have more durable materials that 20 years from now will still be looking strong and solid. I 26 don't think a corrugated metal is one of those. I think we've had a couple of buildings in town where 27 we just go a little bit too far that way. It doesn't really work. Lastly, it really struck me standing on the 28 corner the other day that there's quite a few large redwood trees up and down El Camino, especially 29 looking north across the street. It strikes me as a real source of possible inspiration for your 30 landscape architect. The redwood, El Palo Alto really is the symbol of our City. Here's an opportunity 31 where from this building you're going to see quite a few of them, a whole density of them. Maybe 32 incorporate a few more of those into your design somehow. Just go out there, landscape 33 architects. You can't help but to miss—there's got to be a dozen 50-foot-tall redwoods within a couple 34 hundred feet of this place. It really struck me as a beautiful thing that I think of a lot when I think 35 about Palo Alto. I'd love to see if there's a way you could just get some inspiration from that. Thank 36 you. 37 38 Chair Gooyer: Thanks, Peter. I pretty much agree with everything Peter said and actually what most of 39 my other colleagues have said. The residential area in the back, I think, needs to be dropped a half—if 40 you don't want to drop it completely, but at least a half a story which would make it a lot more friendly to 41 the pedestrian sidewalk. It's been used in numerous areas around here. The first thing that comes to 42 mind is Bay Meadows used it very successfully in the same sort of format. The perspective you've got on 43 the front sheet, I really do not like the El Camino elevation. It is way too monotonous. Going back to 44 specifics, also some of the corrugated metal, the type of materials being used. Also the street-level 45 facade, basically other than the two ends, I see no doors, no nothing. If that's going to be retail, that 46 makes no sense to me at all. That needs to be changed. It's difficult and I guess it's become very 47 traditional because of the height limitations, but almost every new building that's being built these days 48 14 has a flat roof. It's getting very monotonous. When it gets to the point where my wife starts 1 commenting that every new building, then I know it's getting that way. Being in the business, you notice 2 things like that. When a person who's not begins to notice it, it seems to be trend-setting. I think there 3 needs to be some variety. Further down on El Camino, we've had some buildings of this scale approved 4 recently, that are being built. They've got some variety to them. This looks like one large complex, and 5 it doesn't need to be. I would have no problem if this looked like four or five different buildings. It still 6 gets you the type of units that you're looking for. I like the fact that you're creating some 550 plus or 7 minus square foot units. I think that's great, especially right near the train. I think that's all the right way 8 to do it. Right now the concept is great. Just the way it's being presented needs to be fixed. I'm not 9 happy with it at the moment. I could accept the ramp, the 5 feet instead of 10. I don't really have a 10 problem with that. Let's see. Basically I don't think there's anything I can say that hasn't already been 11 said. I do agree—I know you were raising your hand. I've never seen lifts work successfully with a 12 restaurant or whatever type situation. I've seen it done on a very large scale in Europe. I've seen it 13 done in some areas in San Francisco. The average person in Palo Alto isn't going to want to run into a 14 lift system to go to a restaurant for an hour. I just don't see it. 15 16 Mr. Steele: (inaudible) 17 18 Chair Gooyer: Like I said, right now this is a preliminary meeting. I don't need you to explain the whole 19 thing. If you want, that's fine. I'm getting the nod here. Come on up and you can explain to me your 20 end of it. 21 22 Mr. Steele: It's our fault for not going into that level of explanation. It's not intended for the retail to use 23 the lifts. The way the space is designed the residential is a secure parking space. It's also designed that if 24 we were to add the lifts, we shift the secure gate and fence further in to where the lifts would be 25 added. We're adding surface-level parking for the commercial when we put the lifts in. The lifts would 26 then service the residential only. We agree with your comments that were expressed, I think Kim, Peter 27 and yourself at least. I think this ... 28 29 Chair Gooyer: Like I said, we were just making a comment that I've never seen it work. If you agree, 30 then ... 31 32 Mr. Steele: It won't work, I agree. I do agree, yes. 33 34 Chair Gooyer: Having said that then, any other last comments from anyone? Go ahead. 35 36 Vice Chair Lew: I just wanted to respond to your comment about the flat roofs. I don't disagree with 37 you. Our guidelines encourage flat roofs and discourage pitched roofs or mansards or whatever. I think 38 there's an opportunity here. Your top-floor units have some double-height spaces. You could have 39 variation in there, because you've got lots of volume to play with. I don't want the guidelines to 40 discourage you from trying to do something different up on the top floor. You have room to play there. 41 I've seen that done in San Francisco in some south of Market projects, where the top floor has a sloped 42 ceiling up there on the upper units. It's actually really beautiful. 43 44 Chair Gooyer: In response to that, it's just like with so many other situations where regulations in some 45 cases are done to have a really good intent, and then all of a sudden it goes to the extreme. It becomes 46 excessive. 47 48 15 Vice Chair Lew: I did want to share that I looked at a mixed-use project down in Los Angeles, in 1 Glendale. It's kind of like their Santana Row. It's called the Americana. There is something there that 2 they did, which I haven't seen before. Instead of having the residential units and the retail all line up in 3 one flat facade, they pushed the units back. 4 5 Chair Gooyer: The residential stuff back, yeah. 6 7 Vice Chair Lew: The podium landscape that you have, which is facing the back, they have that on the 8 front. You can see it from the street. You see that there's this big garden up there. The public can't go 9 up there. It works. It's a taller building than what you're proposing. I'm not sure that it actually works on 10 the scale of your building. I think we should discuss—I don't know—somewhere offline that there are 11 ways of addressing the canyon aesthetic that some people in the public are concerned about. At the 12 moment, I think our guidelines sort of encourage the wall, so I will stick with the wall. I'll try to bring 13 images of that project sometime in the future. Chair Gooyer: I guess that's it then. Thank you. 14 Attachment J Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Commissioners. 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 “3001 El Camino Real” 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 “2017-0630 Project Plans” 6. Open the attachment named “Preliminary Parcel Map”