Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 346-06
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report a TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 346:06 SUBJECT:901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050|: REQUEST BY STEINBERG ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF BRIDGE URBAN INFILL LAND DEVELOPMENT (BUILD) FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REZONING TO A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT AND OF A PROPOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF 103 UNITS OF FOR-SALE TOWN HOME STYLE RESIDENCES AND 56 SENIOR AFFORDABLE RESIDENCES, A PARKING GARAGE AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROJECT REQUEST INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL AND CREATE CONDOMINIUM UNITS, AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE BUILD AND TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE (TKCJL) HAS BEEN PREPARED. ZONE DISTRICT: GM. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council review the BUILD Planned Community project and make the following determinations: That the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA, and certify the. FEIR (Attachment B); o Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use (Attachment C); 3. Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including the conditions of approval CMR: 346:06 Page 1 of 7 (Attachment D); 4.Approve the proposed Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan for 56 senior apartment units (Attachment E); Approve a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four acre site and create one multiple-family residential lot of approximately 0.5 acres containing 56 multi-family senior residential apartment units and one multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium townhome-style units (Attachment F). Staff has provided Council with all materials that would be necessary for Council to make a decision at this meeting. However, staff has reserved agenda placement on the September 25, 2006 Council meeting in the case that Council does not conclude the item at the September 11 meeting. BACKGROUND An application for a Planned Community (PC) district, including a Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendment, environmental impact analysis, and a Tentative Map has been filed for the redevelopment of a four acre parcel at the former Sun Microsystems site at 901 San Antonio Road. Attachment H provides more detail about the application processing and components of the project, including staff reports and verbatim minutes from previous Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission reviews. The request for a PC district includes BUILD’s specific site development plan for a 100% housing project containing two housing components: a senior affordable apartment community and a market-rate, for-sale townhouse community. An at-grade parking garage would provide automobile and bicycle parking for both communities. New landscaping, pedestrian access ways, and a private driveway would link the project with the adjacent TKCJL project. The number of units in each community and associated auto parking are outlined as follows: Summary Project Table- September 2006 Senior Housing- BRIDGE 56Housing Townhomes- BUILD 103Housing 52,931 0.30 0.94163,826 159Totalunits 216,757 1.24 37 215 54 Guest 303 spaces *For the entire four acre site The June 28, 2006 Commission staff report also includes discussion regarding tandem parking, architectural review, the tentative map, the project phasing and schedule, and development impact fees. CMR: 346:06 Page 2 of 7 DISCUSSION Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Prio~ to approving a request for a PC district, the City Council is to review the applicant’s Development Plan (the project plans), Development Statement, and Development Schedule (Attachment G). In order to approve a PC district, the City Council must make the following findings: (a)The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; (b)Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and (c)The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The PC District Ordinance (Attachment C) contains the findings for establishment of the PC district (Section 4, Page 2). Public Benefits Section 18.68.060 of the PC district regulations requires specific findings to be made in order to establish any new PC district. The required findings are described above in the Planned Community Zone Change section of this staff report. Finding #2 requires a determination that the development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general district or combining districts. The applicant has described the public benefits that would result with the PC zone change in the Development Program Statement, contained in Attachment G. The significant public benefits include: Development of a BUILDiBRIDGE/TKCJL shared plaza. Second mortgage program for public employees Payment of additional CharlestordArastradero Corridor Improvements impact fees. These public benefits are described in the June 28, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment H). CMR: 346:06 Page 3 of 7 Below Market Rate Plan The BMR agreement for the PC project for the development of 103 market-rate townhome-style units would allow BUILD to provide a one-half acre parcel on the site for the development of 56 senior rental apartments that would be affordable to extremely low and very low income households. The senior rental project would be built and managed by BRIDGE Housing Corporation. BUILD will in effect transfer its BMR obligation of 16 inclusionary townhomes (103 units times 15%) to Bridge by providing Bridge with $7.3 million in funding for the senior rentals and by selling the 0.5 acre parcel to Bridge. The $7.3 million is the estimated value of the BMR in-lieu fees for the required 16 BMR townhomes. Bridge will be responsible for securing the financing and permits to construct the senior housing. The City does not have housing funds available for senior housing and does not expect to provide any subsidies for the development of the 56 senior units. It is intended that Bridge will seek all financing from non-City sources. Due the uncertainties and competitiveness of financing affordable rental housing, Bridge would be allowed up to six years to begin construction. The BMR plan, including alternatives to the BMR plan, is described in the June 28, 2006 Commission staff report (Attachment H). The BMR agreement letter is contained in Attachment E. Traffic/Transportation Traffic and transportation impacts are addressed in Section III-B of the DEIR. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by the transportation firm of Korve Engineering, based on staff direction and an updated version (2005) of the City’s traffic model. This model estimates traffic conditions through 2015 and reflects local traffic growth associated with approved and known projects. The model’s forecasts also incorporate the regional land use data projected by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for municipalities throughout the County, including neighboring cities such as Mountain View, where projects may have an impact on traffic within Palo Alto. The DEIR found that there would be a potential significant impact to traffic volumes at the Charleston/Alma intersection at the peak P.M. hours. This would be mitigated by the implementation of a traffic adaptive signal program along the CharlestoniArastradero Corridor that would be implemented as part of the corridor improvement plan. The Director of Planning and Community Environment has directed staff to conduct traffic counts at Louis Road, Ross Road and Loma Verde Avenue in order to establish a baseline for future traffic impacts in the residential neighborhoods near the project site. The results of the traffic count exercise would not have an effect on the traffic and transportation determinations in the DEIR for this project, but would be used to assess impacts of future development within these neighborhoods. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On July 26, 2006 the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the FEIR and the project to the City Council. The Commission reviewed the project in conjunction with the review of the adjacent Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) project, in that a single EIR was prepared to encompass both projects. Prior to the July 26 meeting, the Commission heard the project on June 28, 2006 to accept public testimony and ask questions of staff and the applicant. Attachment H contains a detailed project description, staff reports and verbatim minutes from the June 28 and July 26, 2006 meetings. CMR: 346:06 Page 4 of 7 RESOURCE IMPACT This project will have an impact on fiscal and community resources in the City of Palo Alto. Discussion of these impacts is restricted to development of the project site on a go forward basis and its effect on the City’s revenues and expenses. This narrative does not discuss impacts on the Palo Alto Unified School District, the benefits received by project residents from the TKCJL site, nor the public benefits City residents will receive from the recreational facilities provided by TKCJL (Attachment C, Section 4). The construction of 103 town home style residences and 56 senior residences on the BUILD site will result in the addition of an estimated 328 residents; therefore, the City will provide incremental services and realize additional revenues. Staff concurs with the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report that the BUILD and TKCJL projects will not result in a "significant" impact on facilities and services such as the need for a new Library, Fire or police station or additional FTEs to service the site. The City can expect, however, incremental calls for paramedic, fire, police, public works and utility services as well as increased usage of City facilities and other services. As the EIR indicates, for example, the Fire department can expect an increase in calls from units with seniors and especially from assisted and congregate care units on the TKCJL site. This analysis assumes that the City’s costs for evaluating, monitoring, and implementing this project will be recouped through its fee structure. Planning, inspection, and utility connection fees, for example, will be levied to achieve cost recovery for these services. Likewise, it is expected that Utilities will recover its supply, operating, and capital costs through their rate structures. In addition, there will be significant impact fees. These one-time fees, by definition, are intended to fund development and capital improvement costs associated with the facilities (parks, community centers, libraries) and roadways (San Antonio, Charleston) that the BUILD community will eventually utilize. Total impact fees for this development are estimated at $904,000. Once this project is built and occupied sometime in 2009-10 and based on the currently anticipated sale prices for the homes, the City’s General Fund can expect approximately $237,000 in one-time documentary transfer tax revenue. This estimate is based on the sale of the town homes. On an annual basis, the City can expect ongoing, estimated General Fund property, sales and Utilities User Tax revenues of $115,000 from the BUILD development. In summary, the City can expect that the BUILD and TKCJL projects will result in incremental City services and revenues. While these projects, which add approximately 600 new residents in total, will not result in the immediate need for new City staff or facilities, it is possible that when combined with other new, large residential projects such as Hyatt Rickey’s, there may be a need for additional staffing in the future. The ongoing General Fund revenues cited above will mitigate these costs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project, including the permitted uses and the and the site development regulations applicable within the District, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The site is a designated Housing Opportunity site in the City’s adopted Housing Element. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is detailed in Attachment C, Section 4(d), Page 3. CMR: 346:06 Page 5 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site encompassing both the BUILD and CJL projects. The FEIR is comprised of the Draft EIR (DEIR, under separate cover), Responses to Comments on the DEIR, and text revisions to the DEIR. The DEIR addressed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR" and the BUILD and CJL projects as a "Project EIR." The Program EIR component of the DEIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project- specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the DEIR addresses project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. Prior to approving the proposed project(s), the Lead Agency (City of Palo Alto) is required to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the decision-making body (in this case the City Council) has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to project approval, and the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs f CEQA (Section 21081) requires that when an EIR for a project identifies one or more significan!! environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt findings for each impact, indicating that 1) changes or alterations (mitigation measures) have been required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR; or 2) such changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of another public agency and that the required measure has been or can and should be adopted by that agency; or 3) mitigation measures or alternatives are not feasible due to economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations. Attachment B includes a resolution of the Commission recommending adoption of Findings for the proposed projects, indicating that all mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels. CEQA (Section 21081.6) further requires that, upon adoption of such findings, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), outlining responsibility for implementation of all mitigation measures. The measures must be enforceable through project conditions of approval or other means. Attachment B includes as an appendix the MMRP for this project. The MMRP specifies the proposed mitigation measures, the timing of implementation of each measure, and the responsible parties for implementation (usually the applicant) and enforcement (the City of Palo Alto). The conditions of approval include Condition #4 to require that all mitigation measures be complied with at the appropriate stages of development. Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review on February 17, 2006. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR was available for a minimum 45-day public review period and the comment period closed on April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on March 29, 2006, to accept comments from the public. Attachment K contains the staff report and verbatim minutes from the meeting. The FEIR provides an index to identify each written or oral comment, and outlines responses to all of the comments. A copy of the entire FEIR was made available to all CMR: 346:06 Page 6 of 7 persons who submitted written comments, including public agencies, which must receive such responses a minimum of 10 days prior to certification of the FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) includes the Responses to Comments and, where appropriate, revisions to the Draft EIR language to reflect the response. The revised text includes substantial changes to the Project Description to reflect the reduced scope of the BUILD project and minor modifications to the CJL project, and to the description of Risk Management Plan (RMP) components of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation for CJL. Responses to several substantive comments and related revisions in the FEIR are discussed in the June 28, 2006 Commission staff report, particularly relative to transportation, hazards and hazardous materials, visual resources and aesthetics, and public facilities. PREPARED BY: ~ DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STEVEN TURNER Senior Planner ~:~(~ STEVE EMSLIE ~ P~~unity Environment EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS A.Location map B.CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan C.Planned Community Ordinance D.Architectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval E.BMR Program Letter F.Record of Land Use Action: Tentative Map Approval G.Development Program Statement and Development Schedule H.Project Background and Description, Staff Reports, and Verbatim minutes (separate document) I.Correspondence (separate document - Council only) J.Development Plan (Council only) K.Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report and Verbatim Minutes, DEIR Meeting, March 29, 2006 L. Final Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed) COURTESY COPES Interested Parties List CMR: 346:06 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT A ]! ATTACHMENT B NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR TWO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AT 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the development of 901 San Antonio proposed jointly by the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life ("TKCJL") and BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development, LLC ("BRIDGE"); and WHEREAS, 901 San Antonio Road consists of two properties totaling approximately 12.5 acres in the City of Palo Alto ("Project Area"). The northern 4-acre property of the Project Area ("BUILD site") is owned by BRIDGE and is proposed for development of 159 ~ residential units of which 56 ~ will be below market rate rental apartments for seniors ("BUILD Project’). The southern 8.5-acre property of the Project Area ("TKCJL Site") is owned by TKCJL and is proposed for development of a recreation/community center, preschool/day care, and 193 ~-84} senior assisted living and congregate care units ("TKCJL Project"). The BUILD Project and the TKCJL Project are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and FEIR and deems the FEIR to be complete in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and state and local regulations; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that certain Findings be made regarding the significant environmental effects identified in connection with the approval of a Project for which an EIR has 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED been prepared and that identifies one or more significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all staff reports and all other information in the record andhas considered the information contained therein, includingthe written and oral comments received at public hearings onthe Project, and makes the Findings contained in this Resolution. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Certification. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council hereby finds that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, has been presented to the City Council for its review and consideration and reflects the independent judgment of the City, and therefore recommends certification of the FEIR. SECTION 2. Mitigation Monitorinq and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") prepared for the BUILD Site and the MMRP prepared for the TKCJL Site, both of which the Commission reviewed and which are on file with the City Clerk, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The MMRP for the BUILD Site identifies impacts of the Project on the BUILD Site, corresponding mitigations, designation of responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action. The MMRP for the TKCJL Site identifies impacts of the Project on the TKCJL Site, corresponding mitigations, designation of responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action. SECTION 3. Recommendation. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with respect to the significant effects on the environment of the Project, as identified in the FEIR, with the stipulation that all information in these Findings is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the Project, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these Findings, and that any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by a commenter to the DEIR and were not adopted as part of the FEIR are hereby 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to the comments set forth in the FEIR and elsewhere in the record. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environmen~ 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED EXHIBIT A FINDINGS & MITIGATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD PROJECT I. PROJECT IMPACTS. The following impacts were determined by the City of Palo Alto and identified in the FEIR to be impacts directly resulting from the Project. The letters and numbers assigned to each impact below correspond to the letters and numbers assigned to each impact in the FEIR itself. A. Transportation. Impact B.I: The Project will .result in a significant adverse level of service impact (critical movement delay and demand-to-capacity ratio) to the intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure B.I-I: Intersection LOS Impacts. The City of Palo Alto is planning to implement traffic-adaptive signal technology at a series of intersections, including the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection, as recommended in the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Study. The City of Palo Alto has adopted a fee program and included funding in its budget for this program. Mitigation Measure B.I-2: Transportation Demand Management. The TKCJL Project shall implement a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan for employees, designedto achieve a 15 percent alternative mode-use for employeesto address local traffic concerns. The Plan shall include,at minimum: []a guaranteed ride home program []carpool parking m bicycle lockers "showers "a transportation information kiosk 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED []on-site transportation coordinators []on-site supporting amenities to eliminate the need for midday trips, including a cafeteria, childcare/preschool,recreational and athletic facilities, automatic teller machines,postage and mailing outlet, and on-site sundry shop. An annual survey of employees shall be conducted to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. A summary report of the annual employee commute survey shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto. Impact B.2: Without specific improvements to an existing mid-block crosswalk on Fabian Way, a significant operational safety hazard from increased pedestrian traffic would occur. Mitigation Measure B.2-1: Off-Site Pedestrian Facility. Markings and other improvements to the existing mid-block crosswalk across Fabian Way at the northern edge of the BUILD Site shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Environment prior to occupancy of the BUILD and/or TKCJL Projects. These improvements include: []Removal of several on-street parking spaces and installation of a raised median to provide an.American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Compatible pedestrian refuge area []Marking of the crosswalk with white diagonal lines or longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow to increase the visibility of the crosswalk [] Advance warning signs, alerting motorists of the crosswalk ahead []Modification of the existing curbs on each side of the crosswalk to be ADA compatible Impact B.3: Left turn access into the TKCJL Site from Charleston Road would create an adverse queuing condition and/or unsafe turning movements. Mitigation Measure B.3-1: Site Access Impacts and Queuing on Charleston Road. Allowed turning movements at the two access driveways on Charleston Road shall be modified to avoid identified queuing impacts on southbound Charleston Road to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division of the Department of 060623 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED Planning and Community Environment. Left turn access to the site from Charleston Road shall be prohibited. Signage and channelization improvements to preclude such movements shall be designed and submitted to the Public Works Department and the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment for review and approval prior to approval of the Final Map for the Project. Impact B.4: Operation of a loading space on the TKCJL Site adjacent to San Antonio Road could result in a traffic safety impact. Mitigation Measure B.4-1: Loading Area. The proposed loading area on San Antonio Road shall be designed to avoid traffic safety impacts. The loading area will only receive trucks between the hours of i0 AM and 3 PM. Trucks using the loading area shall be limited to right turns out to the dedicated right turn lane onto East Charleston Road, a City truck route. Plans for the loading area and adjacent sidewalk and traffic lane shall include signage, striping, materials, dimensions, sidewalks, and landscaping and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment, prior~ to approval of the Final Map. Standard City sidewalk configurations shall be followed along the San Antonio Road frontage consistent with the current sidewalk configuration along the San Antonio Road frontage. Signage shall indicate that the loading zone is to be maintained by the property owner and a maintenance agreement with the City shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. Impact B.5: The demand for parking during occasional special events on weekday evenings could exceed on-site parking supply resulting in parking spill .over onto adjacent streets where there is limited allowed parking. Parked cars could block driveways and affect vehicle circulation in these areas. Mitigation Measure B.5-1: Special Event Parking. For special events on weekday evenings or other events that could exceed parking supply on the TKCJL Site, notice of the location of off-site special event parking shall be provided to the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment at least two weeks prior to the special 060623 syn 0120131 3 NOT YET APPROVED event. The notice shall include the date of the special event, the parking lot location, number of spaces available, and whether shuttles will be used. If an agreement is made between TKCJL and an off-site facility that covers several events or a specific time period, notification for individual special events may be waived.Documentation of any agreements and their time limits shall be provided ~ to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. If parking is provided on a nearby site, attendees can reach the TKCJL Site on foot. For any off-site parking that is located at a distance from the site, van shuttles shall be used to transport attendees to the event. Other measures to minimize parking impacts to nearby neighborhoods may include using temporary signage for events or TKCJL personnel to direct attendees to off-site or alternate parking sites. FINDING:Implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and would avoid or reduce level of service, queuing, traffic safety and overflow parking impacts from the Project to less than significant levels. B. Noise. Impact C.I:Proposed residential uses on the BUILD Site would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of the levels identified as acceptable in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Noise Ordinance, and the State Building Code. Mitigation Measure C.I,I: Exterior noise levels. Final building plans shall demonstrate how building massing will be used to shield outdoor activity areas from traffic noise and industrial noise sources surrounding the Project’s perimeter wherever possible. Common outdoor activity areas shall be designated within the acoustically sheltered portions of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Mitigation Measure C.I-2: Interior noise levels. Prior to the issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses, 060623 syn 0120131 4 NOT YET APPROVED in conformance with Section 1208 of the 1998 California Building Code, shall be conducted as part of final design for the proposed multi-family residential uses. The Project shall incorporate sound insulation treatments into the buildings so as to achieve an interior Ldn of 45 dBA or less with the windows closed. Such treatments may include, but would not be limited to acoustically rated windows and doors, acoustical caulking at all exterior wall penetrations and noise control treatments for all air transmission paths associated with mechanical ventilation systems.Forced-air mechanical ventilation, or air- conditioning, shall be incorporated as necessary to provide habitable interior environments with the windows closed, satisfactory to the City Building Official. Impact C.2: Proposed residential development and community and recreational facilities on the TKCJL Site would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the levels identified as acceptable in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the State Building Code. Mitigation Measure C.2-I: Exterior noise levels. Final building plans shall demonstrate how building massing and a six foot sound wall adjacent to the proposed preschool areas will be used to shield outdoor activity and gathering areas from traffic noise at the Project’s perimeter to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Mitigation Measure C.2-2: Interior noise levels. Prior to the issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses, in conformance with Section 1208 of the 1998 California Building Code, shall be conducted as part of final design for the proposed residential and preschool uses. The Project shall incorporate sound insulation treatments into the buildings so as to achieve an interior Ldn of 45 dBA or less with the windows closed. Such treatments may include, but would not be limited to acoustically rated windows and doors, acoustical caulking at all exterior wall penetrations, and noise contro! treatments for all air transmission paths associated with mechanical ventilation systems.Incorporate forced-air mechanical ventilation, or air-conditioning, as necessary to provide habitable interior environments with the windows closed, satisfactory to the City Building Official. 060623 syn 0120131 5 NOT YET APPROVED Impact C.3: The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial temporary increases in noise levels during construction. Mitigation Measure C.3-I: Construction Noise. Allowable hours and construction noise levels for construction shall be consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance and construction equipment will be operated and maintained in accordance with requirements outlined in Section III. C. (3) Noise Mitigation and Avoidance~Measures. Impact C.4: Demolition of the existing building ~on the BUILD Site could potentially generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels at the adjacent Space Systems/Loral facility. Mitigation Measure C.4-I: Demolition Vibration Coordination. The BUILD Project will coordinate the timing of use of hoe-rams and any other large impact tools (such as a demolition ball) with Space Systems/Loral. A Vibration Coordinator, and/or the Construction Manager, will inform Space Systems/Loral of the timing of planned demolition activities and coordinate with Space Systems/Loral on a routine basis. Initially, the use of large impact tools would be started at a location on the property as far as possible from Space Systems/Loral and monitored. If vibration levels are found to substantially effect operations at Space Systems/Loral, a detailed coordination plan to avoid impacts on sensitive Space Systems/Loral activities shall be developed. Coordination with Space Systems/Loral shall continue as the impact generating activity moves closer to adjacent facilities. In the event large impact tools cause vibration that is deemed excessive by Space Systems/Loral, alternative demolition methods that generate acceptable ground vibration levels shall be evaluated and may be required by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Building Official. FINDING: Implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above is feasible and would avoid or reduce the noise impacts to future residents and construction noise and vibration impacts to a less than significant level. C. Air Quality Impacts. 060623 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED Impact D.I: Construction activities related to the proposed Project, particularly generation of construction dust, could result in significant short-term air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure D.I-I: Demolition Impacts. The BAAQMD has prepared a list of feasible construction dust control measures that can reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. The following dust control measures shall be implementation by Project contractors during demolition and shall be reflected as notes on the Project plans prior to issuance of demolition permits: ¯Water to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. Concrete crusher should add water to material at point(s) of entry and whenever material will be dropped or dumped []Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site []Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible Mitigation Measure D.I-2: Construction Impacts. The following construction practices shall be implemented during all~ phases of construction on the Project site and shall be reflected as notes on the Project plans prior to issuance of grading or building permits: []Water all active construction areas at least twice daily []Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind []Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard []Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites []Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets []Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas []Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc. 060623 syn 0120131 7 NOT YET APPROVED Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour Install erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways Replant vegetation in disturbed~ areas as quickly as possible FINDING: The proposed Project will not result in significant long-term regional or local air quality impacts. Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid or reduce short-term construction relatedair quality impacts to a less than significant level. D. Hazards AndHazardous Materials. Impact E.I: Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change and specific development proposed on the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would allow residential and community center development adjacent to or on properties where releases of volatile organic compounds have impacted soil and groundwater. In the event volatile organic compounds from these releases were allowed to build up under and enter residential or community center structures this could result in health hazards to future residents on both sites or to users of the TKCJL Site. Mitigation Measures E.I-I (BUILD Site) and E.I-2 (TKCJL Site): On-Site Contamination Impact. The BUILD and TKCJL Projects shall both implement risk management measures as a part of site design and during and after construction as described in the Final Risk Management Plans for each site. These Final Risk Management Plans shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Measures in the plans are provided to avoid possible build up of volatile organic compound vapors in residential buildings and measures to avoid construction impacts. These measures include, but are not limited to: []Groundwater Use. Local groundwater on the site shall not be used for any purpose (including domestic and construction purposes) []Vapor Barriers. Vapor barriers (i.e., liners) shall be installed beneath all buildings, including buildings constructed over above-ground parking garages and crawl spaces Ventilation. All future residences shall be 060623 syn 0120131 8 NOT YET APPROVED placed over parking garages or crawl spaces that are ventilated with fresh air Elevator Pits and Stairwells. No below-grade structures, such as elevator pits, shall be constructed below five feet below the ground surface [] Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Measures. Prior to occupancy, air samples shall be collected with ventilation systems running and concurrently from outside air at locations considered representative of background conditions ¯Measures to Reduce Migration Of Impacted Groundwater. The lateral migration of impacted groundwater along underground utility lines shall be avoided by the use of low-permeability fill or cutoff features -Construc£ion Plan Reviews. Construction plans shall be reviewed by a California registered professional engineer for conformance to the requirements of this RMP prior to construction. Copies of each Construction Plan Review Report shall be submitted to the RWQCB for formal comment and to the City of Palo Alto for review and approval. [] Construction Measures. The BUILD Project includes provisions such as the preparation of Health and Safety Plans and soil management protocols during construction []Post-Construction Maintenance and Monitoring []Notification of Future Residents (Covenant and Environmental Restriction) []Annual Monitoring Review []Contingency Plan for Modification/Adjustment of Ventilation Systems [] Trust Account for Post-Construction Continqency Plan Refer to Section III. E. (3) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation and Avoidance Measures in this EIR for a detailed description of measures to avoid exposure of people to vapors from impacted groundwater for both the BUILD and TKCJL Projects. Impact E.2: Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment could create a significant hazard to the public by allowing residential uses near and/or adjacent to industrial properties that use and store toxic and volatile hazardous materials.While :routine emissions of hazardous materials do not appear to pose a health .hazard, residents and other users 060623 syn 0120131 9 NOT YET APPROVED could be exposed, to hazardous materials in the event of an accidental release. Mitigation Measure E.2-1: Hazard Assessment and Emergency Preparedness. Shelter in Place and Evacuation Plans for residents and other users shall be prepared for the BUILD Site and the TKCJL Site. These plans shall provide protocols and directions to follow in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials on adjacent or nearby sites. The Plans shall be prepared based upon a Hazard Assessment and guidelines provided by the City of Palo Alto and shall be reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Fire Department prior to occupancy. Appendix L of this EIR provides an example of emergency preparedness guidelines for day care facilities and schools in or adjacent to industrial zones. FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and the mitigation and avoidance measures included in the BUILD and TKCJL Projects (and as incorporated in the respective Risk Management Plans for both sites) will avoid or reduce hazards from existing soil and/or groundwater contamination to a less than significant level. Implementation of Program Mitigation Measures and preparation of Shelter in Place and Evacuation Plans will avoid or reduce hazards associated with locating residential and other sensitive uses in close Proximity to industrial uses that may use toxic and volatile hazardous materials. E. Hydrology And Water Quality Impacts. Impact F.I: Redevelopment of the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would substantially increase the quantity of stormwater runoff from the site or result in capacity impacts to the stormwater collection system within the Project vicinity. Mitigation Measure F.I-I: Runoff Control. The BUILD and TKCJL Projects shall avoid increased stormwater flows from the site by detaining additional runoff on site. The Project shall provide detention to limit peak discharge from the site to not exceed existing peak storm water discharge. .Detention may be accomplished through the use of oversized pipes, a rock sump in landscaping, or similar measures that provide adequate storage to detain, at a minimum, additional runoff during a 10-year storm event. The final design of these measures shall be 060623 syn 0120131 10 NOT YET APPROVED reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. Impact F.2: Construction activities on the Project site, including pavement removal and earthmoving, could result in adverse impacts to the water quality of San FranciscoBay. Mitigation Measure F.2-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the Project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. "Stormwater inlet protection consisting of burlap bags filled with drain rock will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system ¯All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary []Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities .will be suspended during periods of high winds []Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered []All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard []All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction sites will be swept daily with water sweepers []Vegetation in disturbed areas will be replanted as quickly as possible. Impact F.3: Redevelopment of the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would disturb more than one acre of area and stormwater runoff from the proposed development could contribute to a degradation of surface water quality of Adobe Creek, and ultimately, San Francisco Bay. 060623 syn 0120131 11 NOT YET APPROVED Mitigation Measure F.3-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Project shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to construction grading for the proposed land uses, the applicant shall file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which addresses measures that would be included in the Project to minimize and control construction and post-construction runoff. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The following measures shall be included in the SWPPP: []Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system i Effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control during the construction and post-construction periods . Coverage of soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events and perform monitoring of runoff Inspection and maintenance of SWPPP measures before, during and after each rainfall event ¯Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system When the construction phase is complete, a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the General Permit for Construction shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Public Works Department. The NOT shall document that all elements of the SWPPP have been executed, construction materials and waste have been properly disposed of, and a post- construction stormwater management plan is in place as described in the SWPPP for the site. As part of the mitigation for post-construction runoff impacts addressed in the construction SWPPP, the Project~ sponsor shall implement regular maintenance activities (i.e., maintaining on-site drainage facilities and landscaping that receives stormwater runoff, litter control)at the site to prevent soil and litter from accumulating on the Project site and contaminating surface runoff. An annual post-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building 060623 syn 0120131 12 permits. include: NOT YET APPROVED Other post-construction source controls and BMPs may maintenance of landscaped areas as necessary to maintain soil structure and permeability site maintenance, including routine catch basin cleaning; and maintenance of landscaping with minimal pesticide use, including landscape maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid significant flooding impacts on the Project site. The proposed redevelopment on the Project site will not substantially increase peak storm water runoff from the site if subject to requirements to provide for on-site detention of storm water runoff. New residential buildings and landscaping could be a source of additional non-point source pollutants in storm water. With implementation of NPDES construction and municipal permit requirements, the Project will not result in significant storm water runoff or water quality impacts during construction of post-construction periods F. Biol,o@ical Resources Impacts. Impact G.I: Protected native birds and bats, and their nests and roosts may be present in landscaping or abandoned buildings and could be impacted by the implementation of the proposed BUILD and TKCJL Projects. Mitigation Measure G.I-I: Protections for Nesting Birds. Project sponsors shall remove potential nesting habitats (vegetation) only during the non-nesting season between September 1 and March I. If vegetation is to be removed or otherwise impacted during the nesting season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, and if active nests are found, disturbance-free buffer zones shall be established. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed no more than 30 days prior to the start of demolition/vegetation removal or no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season. If nesting birds are located on or immediately 060623 syn 0120131 13 NOT YET APPROVED adjacent to the site, a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around ~the active nest shall be established for the duration of breeding until young birds have.fledged. Mitigation Measure G.I-2: Protections . for Roosting Bats. The following measures are included in the BUILD Project to avoid potential impacts to native roosting bats, such as the Mexican freetail bat: Preconstruction surveys for bats shall be conducted no more than 14 days in advance of the demolition of the building on-site. Surveys shal! be conducted on several consecutive days/nights to assure the identification of all roosting bats in the building. Demolition shall not proceed until a qualified bat biologist has adequately surveyed the building, removed any bats, and determined that all bats have been captured [] If a maternity roost is present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the extent of construction- free zones around active nurseries since these species are known to abandon young when disturbed. If either a maternity roost or hibernacula is present, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. CDFG should also be not±fied of any active nurseries within the construction zone ¯If an active nursery~roost is located, demolition of that building can commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March i) or after young are volant (flying)(i.e.,after July 31)-.The disturbance-free buffer zones described in the mitigation above shall be observed during the maternity roost season (March 1 - July 31). FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid possible impacts to nesting bird and roosting bats on the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site. G. Cultural Resources Impacts. Impact J.l: Development of the Project site, including excavation and grading,could result in the disturbance of archaeological resources. 060623 syn 0120131 14 NOT YET APPROVED Mitigation Measure J.l-l: Pre-Construction Surveys and On- Site Monitoring. Prior to the start of construction or at the time of removal of landscaping and asphalt, a visual inspection and monitoring of the Project site shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist, approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.Monitoring shall consist of coordinating subsurface work to allow for the careful examination of vertical and horizontal soil relationships for the purpose of defining positive archaeological finds (prehistoric and/or historic). After written approval, the Planning and Community Environment Department shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or other subsurface work on the site and the applicant shall provide a written protocol that stipulates the manner in which the applicant shall comply with the monitoring requirements. The monitor shall maintain a field log of their presence and observations, carefully noting soil conditions. In the event archaeological deposits are discovered all work within the proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeologist can examine the find and document its provenance and nature. If the find is deemed significant by the archaeologist excavation shall be performed to allow for the mapping of the aerial extent of any deposits as well as to understand their depth below the existing surface. Maps shall be prepared by professional surveyors to aid Project designers in the avoidance of impacts to these deposits if at all possible by relocating structures and .utilities, and/or by placing fill over them to allow construction and/or use as landscaping or for parks which could be done without any damage to the resources themselves. Work shall only proceed on the Project site once a Treatment Plan is submitted .by the archaeologist to the City and adequate mitigation measures are adopted or the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In the event that the proposed Project cannot be redesigned to protect any buried archaeological deposits, a program of hand excavation into areas of Projected impacts shall be conducted to determine the significance of the resources. Recommendations shall be prepared for the mitigation of impacts to any resource areas that are found to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. Mitigation could include but is not limited to an additional program of data recovery through hand excavation along with archaeological monitoring of all Project related earthmoving activities inside 060623 syn 0120131 15 NOT YET APPROVED the borders of the resource areas to allow for the recording and/or removal of significant archaeological materials and/or information and human burials. Mitigation Measure J.l-2: Notification of Archaeological Finds. In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and the archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance 0f the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of Findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of state law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. FINDING: Implementation of the identified mitigation measures is feasible and would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. II.ALTERNATIVES. CEQA requires an evaluation of the comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed Project. The following alternatives were evaluated in the EIR: 060623 syn 0120131 16 NOT YET APPROVED A. No Project Alternative. Scenario I: Under the first scenario, the existing office building (currently vacant) would remain on the site and would be refurbished for office uses. Renovation or improvements to the existing parking lot and landscaping would also be required for the existing office building to be reoccupied. Scenario 2: Under the second scenario, the approximately 12.5 acre site could be redeveloped with up to 273,000 sq.ft, of office or light industrial uses at an FAR of up to 0.5. This would replace an approximately 265,000 sq.ft, office building and a 2,500 sq.ft, fast food restaurant at the corner of San .Antonio and East Charleston Rd. FINDING: Scenario 1 would avoid the land use, transportation, noise,hazardous materials, and cultural resources impacts and would substantially reduce the air quality, noise and water quality impacts associated with construction. Scenario 2 would avoid noise impacts other than those from construction impacts, would avoid the hazardous materials impacts, and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative traffic. However, Scenario 2 would have construction impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. While both No Project scenarios are environmentally superior to the proposed Project, neither would meet the Project goals of either BUILD or CJL for. developing residential uses, a community center and a preschool site nor would it meet the City’s housing goals of providing very low and low income housing for seniors, including the development of this site as a Housing Opportunity Site. B. Reduced Scale Alternative. Description: Under this alternative,the allowed development on the BUILD and CJL Sites would be reduced by approximately 40 percent and would include the following components: 96 condominiums and 40 senior apartments on the BUILD Site; and 66 congregate care and 42 assisted living units, 67,800 square feet of recreation/community center 060623 syn 0120131 17 NOT YET APPROVED uses, and a 10,200 square foot facility on the TKCJL Site preschool/daycare FINDING: This alternative would result in similar land use, noise, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, traffic safety and construction impacts (air quality, noise, water quality, and cultural resources) as the proposed Project. All of these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures similar to those included in the proposed Project. The Reduced Scale Alternative, would however, eliminate the significant impact at the Charleston/ Alma intersection during the PM peak hour and significant parking impacts. The Reduced Scale Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project because it would avoid these transportation impacts. However, this alternative has not been selected because the mitigation measures included in the Project avoid or reduce all of the identified significant impacts to a less than significant level and because the Reduced Scale Alternative does not support all of the Project’s goals and objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project objectives of developing the maximum number of housing units to address the City’s jobs/housing imbalance or to provide the greatest number of senior affordable units that can be developed on the site. It also may not be able to meet TKCJL’s goal to enable the Jewish Community Center to restore the full range of services essential to its long-term financial viability. Because of the reduced number of residential Units, it also may not meet the financial objectives of BUILD or TKCJL. C. Buildin@ Hei@ht Alternative. Description: This alternative would conform to building height and roadway setbacks specified in the Palo Alto Municipal code. Buildings would not exceed 50 feet in height and would be set back a minimum of 24 feet from San Antonio Road, 24 feet from Charleston Road and 55 feet from Fabian Way. As a result, this alternative would be a smaller development, representing a less intense use of the site. FINDING: This alternative would result in similar land use, transportation, noise, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and construction impacts (air quality, noise, water quality, and cultural resources) as the proposed Project, although the extent of these impacts would be reduced somewhat. 060623 syn 0120131 18 NOT YET APPROVED As with the proposed Project, all of these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures similar to those included tin the proposed Project. The Building Height Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project because it would result in similar significant impacts to those of the proposed Project. Furthermore, it does not support all of the Project’s goals and objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project objective of developing approximately 400 housing units to address the City’s jobs/housing imbalance or to provide the greatest number of senior affordable units that can be developed on the site. It also may not be able to meet TKCJL’s to enable the Jewish Community Center to restore the full range of services essential to its long-term financial viability. Because of the reduced number o residential units, it also may not meet the financial objectives of BUILD or TKCJL. 060623 syn 0120131 19 Exhibit B ~ oo o o 0 I I I I I o o o I o -’~ 00 ~ I o 0 ~ ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18]08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: BUILD/BRIDGE PROJECT FROM GM TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Application and Hearings. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing ±265,000 square foot office building at 901 San Antonio Road, and the construction on an approximately four acre site bounded by San Antonio Road and Fabian Way, of ±216,700 square feet of residential living space including 103 for- sale dwelling units, 56 senior apartment units, and an at-grade parking garage (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of April 20, 2006 considered the Project and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings held on June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006, recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 901 San Antonio Road- BUILD/BRIDGE (the "subject property") from "GM General Manufacturing" to "PC Planned Community " The subject property, consisting of approximately four acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Amendment of Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, is hereby amended by changing the land use of certain property known as 901 San Antonio Road- BUILD/BRIDGE from "Light Industrial" to "Mixed-Use" The subject property, consisting of approximately four acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4.Findings for Approval District. of Planned Community The City Council, in approving the Planned Communiiy district, hereby finds that: (a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are such that general or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the Project on the site will provide public benefits not otherwise attainable, as more specifically described below. (i) The site has been largely unoccupied and in a deteriorated state for many years: While this has generated little parking demand or traffic, it has been an obstacle to creating an environment that would be beneficial to a variety of uses. It is presently zoned to permit commercial development, including office uses, which would exacerbate the City’s shortage of housing relative to jobs. The Project will replace a deteriorated, largely vacant office building with well-designed structures built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high quality. (ii) Conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for housing. The project would result in the redevelopment of a site listed in the Housing Sites Inventory list of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to a residential project containing 159 Units of market rate for-sale townhome-style units. (iii)Designation of land for affordable housinq. The PC project for the development of 103 market-rate townhome-style units would allow BUILD to designate a one-half acre parcel for the development of 56 senior apartments that would be affordable to low and very low income levels. This project would be built and administered by BRIDGE Housing Corporation. The Project’s owner has 2 provided a summary of the proposed program, making a commitment to provide this housing. Staff has determined that this proposal is acceptable in meeting the BMR polices and programs. A formal Agreement to Provide BMR Housing shall be executed prior to final adoption of this ordinance and recorded before the effective date of the ordinance. (iv) Development of a BUILD/BRIDGE/TKCJL shared plaza. The project would develop a 5,000 square foot plaza that would demarcate the main pedestrian entrances to the two developments and be a focal point for the projects. (v) Second Mortgage Proqram for Local Public Employees. $25,000 to .$i00,00~ low interest second mortgages to be offered to local _~.~7~_~ .....employees targeted to households earning from 100% to 200% of area median income ".-~ o ....~ ~ ....~.~ with a priority on City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District employees. Intention of the second mortgage program would be to have --~7~-~ .....local employees live near the workplace as a way to help alleviate the jobs-housing imbalance and impact on traffic. Mortgage program would be revolving and administered by HomeBricks, a BRIDGE affiliate over a thirty-year period. Fund would be initially established at $500,000. (vi) Payment of additional Charleston Arrastradero fees. Payment of .......~~ ..........~ ..........ly $480,000 ~ ~ D~’S share± which respresents approximately 500% of BUILD’s prorate cost of implementing the Charleston Arrastradero plan.~,,,~~-~--~-~ pa}~,cnt to (viii) Project design goals. The project wouid include construction of residential buildings that would serve the proposed uses of the site and that would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The publicly accessible edges have been designed to create connection between the public and private edges, such as the street level townhome units along the shared driveway with the TKCJL project and the stairways and walkways along Fabian Way leading to the main entrance of the senior apartment building. The private areas are oriented into the central landscaped courtyard of the site. The buildings are well designed and have been determined to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings. (c) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole one with substantial public benefit. (d) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the 3 Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following significant Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The existing industrial office building on the site, at 90 feet in height, is visually prominent. The proposed BUILD project would remove this building and allow buildings up to 50 feet in height on a site bordered by tall trees on the east and one- and two story buildings (up to approximately 15 to 30 feet in height) to the north, west and south. The size and scale of proposed residential and other structures on the TKCJL Site would not be visually overwhelming or incompatible with surrounding uses, including two-story industrial buildings with parking along the Fabian Way frontage. (ii) Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project would redevelop an existing vacant office building and parking lot to uses that would be beneficial to the immediate region and the City, in that the project would provide diverse housing types and uses in and under utilized area of the City in the form of for sale townhome, affordable apartment units for senior citizen, assisted living and congregate care living units. In addition, the project would include community center, open to the public that would include uses such as a preschool and cultural hall, a fitness center, play areas, administrative office.space for non-profits, and community meeting areas. The development of the plan and associated studies included input from the public and project stakeholders. (iii)Policy L-II: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The project would be compatible with nearby neighborhoods, in that the design and location of the high density housing, community center and the buildings that would be constructed to contain the uses are separated from single-family neighborhoods by arterial streets and smaller scale commercial uses. The architecture and neighborhood compatibility has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and was found to be well designed and of a appropriate scale to the immediate context of the area. (iv) Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. The proposed project is the designation of land for mixed-use development which would allow for the development of 4 variety of housing types. The BUILD site would be.developed with very low and low income senior housing apartment units, and market rate townhouses and flats. The project would be consistent with this policy as a result of the varied housing types and increased density proposed as a part of development. (v) Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The proposed project would allow for the redevelopment of a vacant industrial property along San Antonio Road, Charleston Road, and Fabian Way and a smaller commercial use at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road. The proposed BUILD development, in the northern portion of the 901 San Antonio Road site, includes seven townhouses with stoops along Fabian Way. As the amount of public street frontage is limited along Fabian Way, planning and layout of the BUILD Site also considers the internal orientation of residences over podium parking structures. Balconies from some of the proposed condominium units would overlook the main access driveway off of Fabian Way and pedestrian access to the main access driveway area is provided from both the condominium and the senior apartment buildings. These components of the projects have been evaluated by the Architectural Review Board and have been found to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings. (vi) Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The proposed BUILD and TKCJL projects include at-grade parking with residences, recreational, and community center uses built atop a podium structure above parking areas. This will avoid negative physical aspects of surface parking lots. Views of at-grade parking areas will be minimized through the growth of l~ndscape plants surrounding the podium structure and by bringing some development down to street level to screen the parking area from the street. (vii)Policy T-I: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The proposed housing development located on San Antonio Road is one of two major transit corridors identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being desirable for increased housing densities. The BUILD and TKCJL projects include measures, including pedestrian walkways, to encourage pedestrian access within the entire 12.5 acre site. One bus route, VTA Express Route 104, operates adjacent to the 901 San 5 Antonio Road site along East Charleston Road. Bus service on this route runs only on weekdays between Palo Alto and San Jos@ during morning and late afternoon commute periods. (viii) Goal H-I: A supply of affordable and market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. The BUILD project would contribute 56 units toward the fair share housing needs of Palo Alto. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. The proposed BUILD project would develop 56 affordable housing units for low and very low income levels and would increase the density and diversity of housing in the project area. The proposed CJL project includes residences for seniors in the form of assisted living and congregate care in a licensed residential facility. The two projects provide a range of housing at increased housing densities. (ix) Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non- residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion of non-residential land to residential or mixed use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion. Policy H-3: Continue to support the re- designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would convert a Light Industrial site, which currently contains an office building and fast food restaurant, to Mixed Use with housing anticipated to be one of the primary uses. The land use, density, and affordable units proposed by the BUILD project and TKCJL project are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan program measure and policy regarding the conversion of non- residential and underutilized lands to residential or mixed use development. (x) Goal H-3: Housing opportunities for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low, and moderate income households. The proposed BUILD development would offer housing opportunities (rental apartments) to very low and low income seniors and the CJL project would provide assisted living and congregate care for seniors. The projects, therefore, would diversify the City’s housing stock in the project area. (xi) Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. The BUILD and TKCJL projects would protect trees to be retained and replace trees removed from the site in conformance with the City’s Tree Ordinance and Tree Protection Manual. Street trees along the Fabian Street and San Antonio Road frontages will be replaced as required by the Department of Public Works. Two large redwood trees on the adjacent Space Systems/Loral property and healthy trees within the San Antonio Road right-of-way also will be protected from damage during construction activities, as described in Section II. G. Biological Resources Mitigation and Avoidance Measures. (xii)Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. The project includes a mix of uses and shared parking to reduce the need for on-site and nearby residents to drive. In addition, much of the housing will be designed for seniors, which will result in fewer vehicle trips. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, such as bicycle parking and van or shuttle service, will be incorporated into the projects to further reduce trip generation. SECTION 5. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled BRIDGE Urban Infill land Development, Palo Alto, California and Fabian Way Senior, Palo Alto California prepared by Steinberg Architects dated June 22] 2006, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. SECTION 6. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. to the following: The permitted uses shall be limited (i) Multiple Family Residential Use: Multiple-family uses and uses customarily incidental to multiple-family uses. In any individual unit, home occupations accessory to the residential use of that unit are permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating home occupations. (ii) Parking Garage: Two spaces per townhome residential unit and 0.7 spaces per senior apartment unit shall be reserved for the use of building tenants, as well as fifty-three (53) guest parking spaces. SECTION 7.Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures adopted by City Council ResolutionNo. (i) Any exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Tree Protection. The Development Plan requires the planting and protection of specified new trees within the development. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (c) Parking and Loading Requirements. Two spaces per townhome residential unit and 0.7 spaces per senior apartment unit shall be reserved for the use of building tenants, as well as fifty-three (53) guest parking spaces. Fifty-four (54) of the total number of spaces may be tandem oriented parking spaces. No on-site loading zones are specified. A total number of 188 Class I and Class III bicycle parking spaces shall be included in the project. (e)Special Conditions (i) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The BMR agreement for the PC project for the development of 103 market-rate townhome-style units would allow BUILD to provide a one-half acre parcel on the site for the development of 56 senior renta! apartments that would be affordable to extremely low and very low income households. The senior rental project would be built and managed by BRIDGE Housing Corporation. BUILD will in effect transfer its BMR obligation of 16 inclusionary townhomes (103 units times 15%) to BridgcBRIDGE by providing BridqcBRIDGE with $7.3 million in funding for the senior rentals and by selling the 0.5 acre parcel to ZridgcBRIDGE. The $7.3 million is the estimated value of the BMR in-lieu fees for the required 16 BMR townhomes. It is intended that BridgcBRIDGE will seek all financing to construct the senior housing from non-City sources. Due the uncertainties and competitiveness of financing affordable rental housing, BridgcBRIDGE would be allowed use up to six years to begin construction. 8 Two back-up alternatives have been developed in the event the senior rentals are financially infeasible. One option that 9e~Ie3eBRIDGE can elect is to develop a small mixed income condominium project, estimated at about 30 to 32 total units, on the 0.5 acres. In this alternative, a minimum of 16 for-sale BMR units would be provided (to cover the obligation for the 103 BUILD townhomes) plus additional BMRS to satisfy the BMR requirement on the remaining market rate condos. The Development Plan would permit either the 56 senior rental apartments or the for-sale condo project on the 0.5 acres. The second option is for BRIDGE n~N_.... ~ to pay in-lieu fees to the City and sell off the 0.5 acres. This option would be used only if both the senior rentals and the for-sale condos are financially infeasible to develop within the maximum six years allowed. In this scenario, the City will receive a minimum of $4.5 million in housing fees and a maximum of the original $7.3 million plus inflation increases. The Project’s owner has signed a letter dated September i, 2006 June 22, 200G making a commitment to provide this housing. A BMR letter agreement shall be prepared and signed prior to Council consideration of the PC ordinance and a formal agreement to provide BMR housing shall be executed prior to the approval of the Final Map by the City Council and recorded concurrently with the subdivision map. The BMR and public benefit contributions by BUILD and BridgcBRIDGE are described in further detail in the attached letters. The provisions of this condition (e) (i) have been agreed to by the Project’s owner and the City of Palo Alto and would be set forth in an agreement regarding provision of BMR Housing which shall be executed and may be recorded prior to the final passage of this ordinance. (f) Development Schedule. Building permit issuance is anticipated for the first phase of the project in March 2007. Demolition, grading and construction are expected to take 15 months with project completion of phase I in April 2008. The 159 units will be completed as two projects: a 103 unit townhouse community and a 56 unit senior affordable rental community. The developer anticipates phasing the townhouse community over three phases with the entire podium garage completed as part of phase I. The senior affordable rental development will be completed separately in a single phase. The applicant anticipates that completion of ~ Pphase__l is likely to occur no sooner than the 2009 with the Senior housing phase to be completed by the end of 2012. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Phase I application for building permits shall be made no later than 1 year from the date of adoption of this ordinance. Application for buildinq permits for the senior affordable rental development shall be made no later than January 2011. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may extend these time limits once by not more than one year, as described in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director, at his/her discretion, may allow changes to the phasing order, sequence or a change in the Development Plan to accommodate one of the BMR alternatives as described in subsection (e) (i), based upon a review of the request and the consistency of the request with the certified EIR, conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and any other dedications, exactions or reservations. A written determination of the Director’s decision will be made in writing to the applicant. SECTION 8.Environmental Impact Report. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") . Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "901 San Antonio Draft EIR, February 2006;" "901 San Antonio Final EIR, June 2006", and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 9.Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. SECTION i0. This ordinance shall~ be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: i0 AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ii Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (06PLN- 00031) FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO- BUILD/BRIDGE PROJECT (BUILD, OWNER;STEINBERG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT) FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE PC- The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A.Steinberg Architects ("the applicant") has requested approval of the demolition of an existing ±296,000 square foot office building at 901 San Antonio Road, the former Sun Microsystems site, and its replacement with a ±216, 700 square foot residential project including 103 for-sale housing units, 56 apartment units for seniors, and an at-grade parking garage (the "Project"). Resolution No. for the Project. The City Council has previously adopted approving the Environmental Impact Report C. The Architectural Review Board on March 16, 2006 and April 20, 2006 reviewed and considered the design of the Project and recommended approval upon certain conditions. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held e public hearings on the Project on June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006 and recommended approval of the design of the Project based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below. E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September ii, 2006 and heard and considered all public testimony, both oral and written, presented to it, together with all staff reports and the record of the proceedings before the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission. SECTION 2.Design Approval. The City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 06PLN-00031, regarding the architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth below, finding that: 1 a. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Architectural Review findings as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. b. The design, as conditioned, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project is consistent with the following significant policies and programs: Policy L-I: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy L-8: New Development Limit Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own district character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering places. Policy L’II: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small scale local businesses. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Policy L-65: Encourage religious and private institutions to provide facilities that promote a sense of community and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of street and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with new development projects. Consider incentives fro including public art in large development projects. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-77: Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must ~be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. Policy T-l: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Goal H-l: A supply of affordable and market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. Program H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the City’s existing neighborhoods. Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. Land use and development applications ~.that propose the conversion of non-residential land to residential or mixed use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion. Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. Program H-14: Rezone, where necessary, those sites identified on the Housing Sites Inventory, using appropriate residential or mixed use zoning districts, prior to 2004. Program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. Goal H-3: Housing opportunities~ for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low, and moderate income households. Program H-34: Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed use projects that propose more affordable housing than the minimum required under; the City’s BMR Program and for 100% affordable housing projects. Policy H-14: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to very low, low, and moderate income households. Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractica! to locate them onsite. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-22: Limit the .amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Policy N-35: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses inareas with compatible noise environments. Policy N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto. Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas. Program N-76: Implement the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. c. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the project would convert an underutilized office building and surface parking lot to higher density residential units. The heights of the buildings would be compatible with adjacent commercial buildings and the residential neighborhoods in that the project is located approximately 350+ feet from the nearby single-family neighborhoods and is separated from commercial uses by arterial roads (San Antonio and Charleston Roads). This separation would allow for taller structures without affecting compatibility with surrounding areas; The design is appropriate to the function of 5 the project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs and objectives of the residential uses proposed by the applicant; d. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the buildings, which although extend to the maxlmum height limits allowed in the PC district, would be set back approximately 350+ feet from the edge of the Light Industrial/Single-Family land use areas north of Fabian Way. The buildings would be designed to be compatible with the adjacent uses in the neighborhood; e. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site as this project is a residential infill development and would enhance, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure; f. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed housing types, building design and ~landscaping are supported by adequate shared amenities to ensure harmonious co-existence of the residents; g. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that appropriate private and public outdoor spaces are provided for the residents that would serve the .unique needs of the residents in each housing type; h. Access to the property and circulation thereon is safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the main access point for vehicular traffic would be via a shared driveway on the adjacent TKCJL site. These shared facilities would reduce the need for multiple access points at the relatively narrow street property line on Fabian Way. The driveway would not interfere with the movements of pedestrians and bicyclists, in that pedestrian safety devices would be incorporated at driveway entries over public sidewalks; i. Natural features have been appropriately preserved and integrated with the project where possible. Existing street trees would be retained. Few other significant natural features exist on the site; j. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that a color and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and plant materials to add vibrancy to the site and to help its integration with the surrounding properties; k. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors creates a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that a variety of species types have been chosen and landscape features have been designed that will enhance the streetscape and surrounding environment; i. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the combination of California native plants would have low maintenance and water use requirements; m. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements such as the following: Title-24 value calculations exceeding standards by i0 percent; spectrally sensitive low-E windows with appropriate Solar Heat Coefficient ~per proper solar orientation; high energy efficient cooling and heating systems; appliances with high energy efficient ratings; low-flow plumbing fixtures and faucets; operable windows; and low-flow irrigation combined with drought resistant plant materials. SECTION 3. Conditions of Approval. General Plan Conformance. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with approved plans, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. o Planning Division Oversight. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall place additional funds on deposit to the City for the ongoing Planning Division oversight of the project until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. o Project Compliance. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval set forth in the Architectural Review resolution and the Planned Community ordinance that would be approved by the City Council. o The project shall be subject to the mitigation measures as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report’s Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City Council. The MMRP is attached an exhibit to the CEQA resolution. o The project would be subject to applicable Development Impact Fees, which would be due prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicable impact fees would be calculated based upon the fee structure in place at the time of building permit submittal. o The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the Below Market Rate (BMR) program as described in the applicant’s letter, dated June 22, 2006. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by BUILD and the City, and recorded against the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. o Mortgage Assistance Program Agreement- An agreement describing the terms and conditions of the Mortgage Assistance Program, as summarized in the Public Benefits section of the PC ordinance and more fully described in the Development Statement letter to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on June 22, 2006 shal! be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to building permit finalization of the first phase of development. The agreement shall contain, at a minimum, details of the loan amounts, interest rates, terms, conditions, and administration. Copies of the approved agreement shall be forwarded to the Planning Division and the Attorney’s office. Prior to the submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a construction impact minimization plan for neighboring businesses, developed with cooperation from the neighboring business owners. The plan would identify the potential impacts from construction, the time when those impacts would be expected to occur during construction, and how those impacts would be minimized, including, but not limited to: temporary relocation of customer parking, loading/unloading areas and pedestrian access ways; identification of temporarily modified circulation patterns around the project site; and temporary signage providing identification to businesses that have views from public views that are blocked during construction. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and Public Works. Transportation Division o TKCJL and/or BUILD shall relocate and upgrade the pedestrian crosswalk across Fabian currently located near the northern property line of the BUILD parcel. The crosswalk shall be relocated to align with the Fabian driveway into CJL. The crosswalk shall be placed on the immediate north side of this intersection and shall include the components and elements noted in the EIR traffic study. The crosswalk shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to approval of the Final Map. i0.Once the Project is completely built and occupied, but not later than five years after occupancy of the initial phase of either the BUILD or TKCJL projects, traffic signal volume warrants shall be tested at the southernmost driveway on Fabian. The traffic signal warrant study shall be conducted in consultation with the Transportation Division at the expense of BUILD and TKCJL. Should the warrant study conclude that a traffic signal is warranted and the City desires that a traffic signal be installed, BUILD and TKCJL shall .fully fund the design and construction of the signal with the cost apportioned between the two applicants at 12% for BUILD and 88% for TKCJL, based upon the traffic assumptions contained in the 11.Future plans submittals shall show the bicycle parking, by class and location. All racks and lockers must be of a design acceptable to the City. 12.Future plan submittals shall note the dimensions of access driveways, drive aisles, parking modules, wayfinding signs, or other components of internal circulation and parking to indicate the functionality of such components. 13.Unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Division, the Project site frontage shall include a minimum five-foot landscape buffer between the back-of-curb and the five-foot sidewalk along the San Antonio Road frontage, in order to prevent pedestrians from walking immediately adjacent to the flow of traffic. 14.The Project applicant shall contribute the Project’s fair share (approximately $2,750) towards the cost of the newly installed signals at the intersection of the San Antonio Road/NB US I01 ramp. 15.The Project applicant shall pay the Charleston-Arastradero corridor impact fee prior to occupancy of the initial phase of development. Building Division 16.The applicant shall continue to work with the Building Division on those design aspects of the project that may affect compliance with building regulations, policies and programs. A final list of specific and standard conditions would be applied prior to the submittal for building permits. Planning Arborist PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 17.Site Plan Requirements. Extend the Type II street tree fencing to enclose the entire planter strip and from sidewalk to the outer branch dripline.The Site Plans shall denote Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as bold dashed lines enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Protection Report) as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T- I, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. 18.The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information: Sheet T-I Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan ((http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/arb/planning forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. 19.Tree Preservation Report (PTR). When required, the most current version of the TPR by the Project Arborist shall be printed on Sheet T-I and/or T-2 in its entirety. A i0 21. 22. 23. 24. prominent note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-I and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees." Prior to submittal of building permit, the applicant’s Project Arborist shall review the entire plan set. Corrections shall be modified as necessary for consistency with the approved tree preservation report. The arborist shall provide a letter of acceptance of the plans, specifying the date of the plans, to accompany the submittal. Site Plans shall denote Type I fencing around Protected Trees and Type II fencing around Street Trees a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. All civil plan sheets shall include a note directed to the trees to be protected, including neighbor overhanging trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 650- " Aboveground utilities shall be located on the site in such a way that landscape screening can grow adequately to interrupt direct view from street frontages. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on- and’ off-site plantable areas out to the curb for each parcel/project shall be submitted for review. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: o All existing trees identified both to be r~tained and removed, including street trees. o Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. o Irrigation schedule and plan. o Fence locations. o Lighting plan with photometric data. o Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. ii 25.All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. 26.Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards.Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. 28.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the planting of appropriate screening (e.g., shrubbery, landscape rock covering, fitted with dark green wire cage, etc) to minimize visibility. 29.All Planning Department conditions of approvalfor the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. DURING CONSTRUCTION 30.Tree Protection Verification. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective ~fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 31.The applicant shall be responsible ’for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 12 32.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 33.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification 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. POST CONSTRUCTION 34.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00 and 5.00 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planninq- community/tree index.html). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Fire Department 35.Site addresses shall be prominently posted at the main access to each property property. (2001CFC901). The BUILD townhomes would have an address at the main entry on the shared driveway with TKCJL. The BRIDGE senior housing addresses will be at the corner of Fabian Way and the shared drive ramp wall. 36.Applicant shall work with the Fire Department to provide fire access to the maximum extent practical, in conjunction with hose outlets and traffic signal preemption outlined below. 37.Fire Department access roads shall be marked by striping, signs or other approved notices. (2001CFC901.4) 38.An approved access walkway shall be provided to each egress/rescue window 2001CFC902.3.1) Elevated slab shall 13 39. 40. 41. be configured as an exit court in accordance with the Building Code. Approved evacuation pamphlets shall be (Section 3.09(a) (i), Regulations) signs and or emergency information provided throughout the building. Title 19, California Code of A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1999 Edition. (PAMCI5.04.160) Approved 2½-inch hose valves shall also be provided within each courtyard and at approved locations within the parking structure. 42.An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s), and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1999 Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) 43.Elevator car nearest the common driveway shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24_ x 82_ plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (PAMC 15.04.120) An automatic and/or manual alarm system shall be provided for each building type in accordance with the California Fire Code (2001CFCI006.2.9) . Public Works and Public Works Recycling SITE SPECIFIC 45.Since this project will create one acre or more of impervious surface, it will be subject to updated storm water regulations (C.3). The regulations require inclusion of storm water treatment controls sized in accordance with numeric standards, source control measures that prevent pollutants from contacting storm water runoff, and site design measures that reduce storm runoff and isolate contaminated runoff in order to minimize the need for storm water treatment. In addition, the regulations require a signed agreement with the City for the long-term maintenance of installed storm water treatment measures, subject to verification by the City. The applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering staff to discuss the 14 46. 47. 48. implications of the regulations on the project along with other grading and drainage issues. It appears that the primary access to the townhouse development through the senior development would be through an adjacent parcel. Therefore, at minimum, access and parking easements must be granted to the applicant from the adjacent property owner prior to the recordation of the Final Map required for this development. Any recorded easement granted for the benefit of this development "run with the land". The applicant will be required to construct public improvements as part of this development. The nature and scope of the required public improvements will be determined through a meeting with City departments prior to improvement plan submittal. Resurfacing the width of the projects’ frontage streets and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk are typical standard requirements. Due to the size, scope, and sensitivity of the development, the earthwork phase of construction is to take place outside of the City, s designated wet season: October Ist through April 15th, unless previously approved by the Director of Public Works. GENERAL 49.The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE- approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 15 49.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 50.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 51.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation volume exceeds i00 cubic yards. 52.The project is within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Because of the stringent regulations governing the design of any structure in the Special Flood Hazard Area, the applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering to discuss the various significant design constraints that will impact the structure. In addition, please note that there are many informational handouts available at the Development Center to assist in preparing improvement plans. 53.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 54.Proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Unless otherwise approved by the Director of 16 Public Works and FEMA, those areas that will be subject to contact with floodwaters, such as crawl spaces and garages, shall be constructed with flood- resistant construction materials, as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93. The requirements, if applicable, specified in these regulations must be clearly and specifically noted on the structural drawings and in material schedules, and not merely noted by generic reference to the Technical Bulletin. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Special floodwater openings shall be required in structure walls, as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93. The openings shall have a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above.grade PAMC, Sec. 16.52. This property is in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The plans must explicitly state the lowest floor is to be elevated to a minimum Base Flood Elevation of 8ft. This minimum floor elevation must appear on the architectural and structural plans. The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approva! shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement/garage construction issues.This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered,and by using this and other available information,as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement/garage is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken 17 60. 61. 62. to render the basement/garage waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 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. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to Adobe Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all 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. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas.City ordinance requires that these areas be covered. DURING CONSTRUCTION 63.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 18 64.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 65.The developer shall require its contractor to .incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 66.For purposes of determining compliance with the City’s Flood hazard Regulations, per condition I0, an inspection of the as-built elevation of the lowest floor shall be arranged prior to pouring the foundation of the garage (and/or building as the case may be). 67.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 68.The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure. This elevation certification should be done at the stage of construction when the "as built" elevation of that floor is first established and still correctable with minimum effort; a FEMA elevation certificate or copy thereof must be submitted for City files.In cases of improvement to existing structures where an existing floor will be the lowest floor, certification shall be made prior to construction. Sec. 16.52. 69. 70. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/0r removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. Any unused driveway shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 19 71.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off- site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign- off. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP 72.Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final Map is recorded with County Recorder. 73.The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a Final Map. 74.The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 75.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and .Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP 76.This property is in a special flood hazard area and notation of this shall appear on the recorded map. 77.The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. 2O Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 78.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheets (each water and gas meter shall be denoted on a load sheet) for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). 79.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. 80.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 81.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. 82.The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and .services will provide the’ domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 83.If necessary, the applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 84.The onsite sanitary sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. The City’s responsibility will start where 21 the private system connects to the City’s existing sewer main in the street. 85.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two 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. 86. 87. 88. 89. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. One gas meter may serve the proposed central boiler system. If an alternative system is used, the applicable gas meter requirements would be required for the alternative design for each parcel/project. A separate water meter and backflow preventer for each parcel shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. These meters and backflow preventers shall be located at the street per Palo Alto Utilities Standards. Show the locations of the irrigation meters on the plans. These meters shall be designated as irrigation accounts and no other water service will be billed on these accounts. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. A separate domestic water meter and backflow preventer for each parce! shall be installed at the street per Palo Alto Utilities Standards. Show the locations of the meters on the plans. For service connections of 4-inch through 8- inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and 22 90. 92. 93. 94. install a concrete vault (on private property adjacent to the Fabian Way property line) with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed 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. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 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. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities procedures at the applicant’s expense. 23 Utilities Marketing Services 95.Prior to issuance of either a building permit or grading permit, all common area landscaping for each parcel/project shall be approved by the utilities marketing services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to for each parcel/project and a dedicated irrigation water meter(s) shall be requ±red. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at (650) 329-2549 for additional information. Utilities Electric PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 96.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 97.The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within I0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 98.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 99.Industrial and large commercial/subdivision customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. i00. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. i01. This project requires a transformer/switch/transition cabinet unless padmount otherwise 24 approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer/switch/transition cabinet shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. 102. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shallgrant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 103. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. 104.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 105.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 106.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 107.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 25 108.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 109.Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. Ii0.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT Iii.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. DURING CONSTRUCTION 112.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way.This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 113.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 114.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure 26 work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 115.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 116.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 117.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 118.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 119.All new underground electric services for each parcel/project shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 120.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 121.The applicant shall grant Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 122.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 27 123. For each parcel/project, all fees must be paid. 124. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant for each parcel/project. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 125.Developer shall provide electrical load details/calculations for sizing the padmounted transformer for the proposed project. Lead time on the transformer is 6-8 months. The City does not permit installing padmounted equipment (transformer/switch) in the basement or in any other inaccessible locations. Any extension or relocation of existing distribution lines or equipment if required shall be done at customer’s expense. Customer shall maintain clearances from the electrical lines per City and N.E.C. requirements. Utilities Engineering will provide cost estimate/fees when drawings are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. Customer must visit the proposed project site and acquaint himself/herself with the field conditions prior to submitting the drawings. Customer must schedulea meeting with Utilities Engineering (650-566-4533/4516/4535) and obtain City’s standards and specifications. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change The Classification of Property Known as 901 San Antonio Road- BUILD/BRIDGE Project from GM TO PC Planned Community and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Map from Light Industrial to Mixed Use." INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 28 ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment 29 Attachment E City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment~ September 1, 2006 Joe McCarthy, Project Manager BUILD LLC 34.5 Spear Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105-1673 Lydia Tan, Executive Vice President BRIDGE Housing Corporation 345 Spear Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105-1673 Planning Division Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 103-Unit Residential For Sale Townhouse Project and 56-Unit Senior Rental Project at 901 San Antonio Road; APN: 127-37-024; 06PLN-00000-00031 Dear Joe and Lydia: This letter Agreement between BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development, LLC, (BUILD .or Developer), BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE) and the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment (Director) describes how BUILD and BRIDGE will satisfy the provisions of the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program for the Planned Community (PC) zone change application for the proposed 103-unit residential for-sale townhouse condominium development (the "BUILD Project") and the 56-unit senior rental apartments (the "Senior Rentals") at 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. The BMR program requirements are contained in Program H-36 of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4 - Housing). Representatives of BUILD, BRIDGE and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the "Director") have discussed and negotiated the terms of this agreement, and the signatures of BUILD’s and BRIDGE’s corporate officers on this letter confirms you agree to these provisions. This agreement will be incorporated by reference into the adopted PC ordinance and the conditions of approval for the PC application. Its provisions will also be incorporated by reference into the conditions of approval for the future subdivision map agreement for the BUILD Project. Summary of Proposed Development: The 4.0 acre site is zoned General Manufacturing (GM) and is presently composed of one parcel occupied in part by the former Sun Microsystems building, which will be demolished. Subsequent to approval of the PC application, the existing four acre parcel will be divided into two parcels: a 3.5 acre site for construction of the BUILD Project and a 0.5 acre site for construction of the Senior Rentals. BRIDGE will then acquire title to the 0.5 acre site from BUILD at fair market value, estimated to be $2.6 Million (including the value of planning entitlements, but exclusive of the value of parking and related easements). BRIDGE will acquire, at 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Printed with so¥-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 2 of 10 additional cost, easements for access and parking within the BUILD Project’s garage for the Senior Rentals. BUILD For-Sale Townhome Proiect: A total of 103 new attached, townhouse style condominiums, ownership units will be constructed by BUILD on a podium structure over grade level parking. The townhouses will include a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom units in various floor plans ranging in size from about 836 to 2,113 square feet of interior living space. BRIDGE Senior Rental Proiect: On its half acre parcel, BRIDGE, or its affiliates, will construct, and then manage, a 56-unit rental apartment building for occupancy targeted to extremely low income seniors at affordable rents. Unit mix may vary based on funding source, but it is anticipated there will be 52 one-bedroom units, three studio units and one, two-bedroom unit for a resident manager. All units, other than the manager’s unit, will be restricted by a recorded regulatory agreement(s) for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years of affordability. Specifically, occupancy and rents will be restricted as follows: o 30 units at 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) 25 units at 40% of the Area Median Income (AMI) BMR Requirement for the BUILD Proiect: The BUILD Project is subject to a fifteen (15%) percent BMR requirement; under Program H-36, that would normally result in the provision of 16 units of the 103 total townhome units being sold at .BMR prices, under the rules and procedures of the BMR program. However in order to assist the City in meeting its Housing Element objectives for the production of very low income rental housing, BUILD proposed an alternative plan that is financially equivalent to the 16-unit BMR obligation and is intended to result in the addition of 56 very low income, senior rental units to the City’s stock of affordable rental housing. The Director, BUILD and BRIDGE have agreed on this alternative plan to the standard provision of BMR units within the market-rate project, as described in this letter agreement because of: (1) The provision of 56-units towards the City’s unmet need for affordable rental housing; and (2) The leverage that BRIDGE should be able to achieve by using BUILD’s BMR contribution to attract federal, state and local affordable housing subsidies of approximately $16 million; and (3) Through funding leverage, the development of additional.affordable rental units well in excess of the 19 units that is financially equivalent to the 16 townhome BMR requirement. HADOC\BMR Program~Bridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 3 of 10 Seifel Report: Equivalency of BRIDGE’s Extremely Low Income Senior Rental Units to BMR For-Sale Townhomes in the BUILD Proiect: The City required BUILD to hire an independent consulting firm with experience in inclusionary housing analysis to analyze BUILD’s proposal to provide financial support for a BRIDGE low rent senior project as an alternative to provide the standard 15 percent BMR units in their townhome development. The report prepared by Seifel Consulting Inc. dated May 26, 2006 titled: "Palo Alto Inclusionary Housing Analysis" ("Seifel Report") examined both: 1) What would be a reasonable financial contribution from BUILD to BRIDGE; and 2) How many of the senior rental units in BRIDGE’s project could be considered as developed with BUILD’s payment and thus be counted as meeting the City’s BMR program requirements? Based on data in the Seifel Report, the Director has determined that a $7.3 million payment will be financially equivalent to the provision of the normally required 16 for- sale BMR townhomes within the 103 BUILD Project ($457,000 (Affordability Gap per BMR unit) times 16 equals $7,312,000). Using the ratio (1.15:1) between the average affordability gap of a BUILD BMR townhome and the average affordability gap of a BRIDGE senior rental unit, the Seifel Report concluded that 19 of the BRIDGE senior rental units are equivalent to 16 BUILD BMR townhomes. The equivalency calculation is based on a rent structure for the Senior Rentals, as described above; where 30 units are at 30% of AMI rents and 25 units are at 40% of AMI rents. Thus, of the 56 Senior Rental units, 19 will meet the BMR program requirements of the BUILD Project and the remaining. 37 units will be additional affordable rentals made possible through the cooperation of BRIDGE and BUILD. BRIDGE’s extensive track record in winning funding awards and producing subsidized senior rental housing, together with BUILD’s sale of the land for fair market value and its $7.3 million development subsidy, makes this agreement possible. BUILD’s Obligations: There will be no BMR units within the 103-unit BUILD Project; all of the BUILD units will be sold at market rates. BUILD’s BMR obligation for the BUILD Project (the 103 townhomes) will be satisfied in full by BUILD’s completion of the following actions: 1) Sale of Senior Rentals Site: Selling, by grant deed, fee title to the half acre Senior Rentals site to BRIDGE, together with the sale of the legal rights to the access and parking easements needed for the Senior Rentals, as described in the PC application and architectura.1 plans approved by the City for the 901 San Antonio Road; and 2) Contribution of Funds for Senior Rentals: Providing $7.3 million in funding to BRIDGE (the "BUILD Payment"). H:kDOCkBMR ProgramkBridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 4 of 10 Timing for Completion of BUILD’S Actions: 1) Sale of Site & Easements to BRIDGE: Not later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of the City Council’s adoption of the PC ordinance, BUILD will execute a purchase contract with BRIDGE for the sale of the Senior Rentals site and the access and parking easements. This purchase contract shall provide BRIDGE with sufficient "site control" as that term is defined in the California State regulations for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program ("Tax Credits") to submit financing applications. A copy of the purchase contract shall be provided to the City. The purchase contract shall specify that the close of escrow shall occur within 90 days from the approval of the Final Map, or such other reasonable closing date as may be approved by the City. A copy of the recorded grant deed shall be provided to City. 2) BUILD Payment: BUILD’s $713 million payment shall be made in three (3) installments to coincide with completion of townhomes sales in the BUILD project. However, BUILD may elect to make partial or full payment to BRIDGE before the deadlines stated below. a. 1st. Payment of $2,300,000 shall be made not later than 60 days after close of escrow of the 34th townhome sale; and b. 2na. Payment of $2,500,000 shall be made not later than 60 days after close of escrow on the 67th townhome sale; and c. 3rd. Payment of $2,500,000 shall be by the earlier of: i. 60 days after Close of escrow on the 103rd townhome sale; or ii. Close of escrow on the construction loan funding for the BRIDGE Senior Rentals or the Alternative A - BRIDGE condominium project; or iii. Payment by BRIDGE to the City of the Alternative B - BMR in-lieu fee. BUILD shall notify the City and BRIDGE when sales contracts begin to be signed and then shall provide written progress reports on the townhome sales with each of the three payments or at least every six (6) months until the $7,300,000 is paid in full. The reports shall list the number of townhomes sold with escrows closed and the unit’s address or assessor’s parcel number and verification of each payment shall be made to the City. The City Attorney may require an enforceable security agreement or other document, such as a note and deed of trust be recorded against the BUILD parcel, to secure the total amount of the BUILD Payment. The security document will provide for a partial reconveyance or release of restrictions as units are sold and the fee payments completed. BRIDGE’s Obligations: By assuming the responsibility for fulfilling BUILD’s BMR obligation for its 103 unit project, BRIDGE is obligated to diligently pursue in good faith financing commitments and building and other permits necessary for the H:\DOC~BMR ProgramkBridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 5 of 10 completion of the 56-unit Senior Rentals project. BRIDGE agrees to devote its efforts exclusively to the Senior Rentals project during two years beginning with the effective date of the PC ordinance (the "Effective Date") and will not work on the Alternative A project during this initial two year period. If all the necessary funding commitments for the Senior Rentals have not been secured after the end of year two, BRIDGE may elect to pursue funding and approvals for either: 1) The Senior Rentals; and / or 2) The Alternative A - Mixed-Income Condos BRIDGE may also continue to seek funding commitments for the Senior Rentals while concurrently securing design approval and financing for the Alternative A: Mixed- Income Condo project (described below), based on BRIDGE’s professional judgment and assessment of the likelihood of success for either project. However, BRIDGE agrees not to abandon its efforts to develop the Senior Rentals while there remains some reasonable chance of successfully developing the Senior Rentals and agrees to consult with City before proceeding exclusively with the Mixed-Income Condo project. Deadlines for Financing Commitments, Start of Construction and Completion of Affordable Housing: BRIDGE is allowed up to four years from the Effective Date to secure all necessary construction and permanent funding commitments for either the Senior Rentals or the Alternative A - Mixed-Income Condos. If such funding commitments are not in place at the end of the four year period, BRIDGE may elect to utilize an additional two year extension. BRIDGE shall notify the City of its election of the extension and provide the City with a written description of its work to date, the status of each project and the funding commitments obtained and planned. From the month and year in which BRIDGE secures the financing commitments, BRIDGE will take out the first shell building permit for the selected housing project within two years and complete construction within two years of the building permit issuance. If BRIDGE has secured financing commitments for both the Senior Rentals and the Alternative A- Mixed-Income Condos, then BRIDGE agrees to proceed with the construction of the Senior Rentals. Financing for Senior Rentals Project: City and BRIDGE acknowledge that due to the important objective of providing extremely low rents that the Senior Rentals project can carry little or no amortizing debt and still cover projected operating costs and deposits to reserves. Thus, BRIDGE must raise approximately 90 to 100% of the project’s development costs in the form of grants, deferred payment or residual receipts loans and equity. BRIDGE has provided the City with tentative alternative financing scenarios H:kDOCkBMR Prograrn~Bridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Fina!.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 6 of 10 and has been actively researching financing programs and submitting funding applications where appropriate. One or more of the following highly competitive housing programs will be needed as a principal financing source: 1)Nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) 2)HUD 202 Capital Grant program 3)State Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) 4)Four percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits with tax exempt bond financing. In addition, BRIDGE must secure commitments from other affordable rental housing financing sources (typical sources of funding are: the County of Santa Clara, the State HOME program, the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and the Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable Housing Program). The City does not provide financing or subsidies for housing units that are developed to satisfy the BMR program requirement. Thus, the development costs of the 19 Senior Rentals units that satisfy the BMR requirement for the BUILD Project cannot be funded with City housing funds. Alternative B - BMR In-Lieu Fee (the "BRIDGE Fee Payment"): At such time that BRIDGE determines that both the Senior Rentals and the Alternative A - Mixed- Income Condos are infeasible, but not later than the end of the fourth year, or the sixth year in the event of the extension, then BRIDGE agrees to pay a BMR in-lieu fee payment to the City. Upon receipt of the full amount of the BRIDGE Fee Payment, together with acceptable documentation of the calculation of the fee amount, the City will deem BRIDGE’s BMR obligation fully satisfied and BRIDGE will no longer be obligated to develop either the Senior Rentals or the Alternative A - Mixed-Income Condos. The City will deposit the BRIDGE Fee Payment to the Residential Housing Fund, which Fund is used for affordable housing development, preservation and rehabilitation, and the City will release the 0.5 acre property from the restrictions of this BMR Agreement. Subsequent housing development applications for the 0.5 acre property will be subject to then-current City affordable housing and BMR requirements, as applicable. Calculation of BRIDGE Fee Payment: The fee amount will be equal to the initial $7.3M contribution from BUILD less actual costs incurred by BRIDGE to acquire the land and prepare the site for development plus the resale proceeds of the 0.5 acre parcel together with its related parking easement rights and off-site improvement credits. These costs will include land acquisition, parking easement acquisition, reimbursement by BRIDGE of BUILD’s prorated predevelopment costs, prorated shares of off-site improvements, and BRIDGE’s actual land holding and preconstruction costs. The maximum payment that the City would receive is $7.3 million plus an annual CPI adjustment. The CPI adjustment (which only applies to the $7.3 Million payment) will commence at the close of escrow on the sale of the last unit in the 103 unit market-rate townhouse H:~DOC~BMR ProgramkBridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-6-06 CC Packet Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 7 of 10 development until full payment of the BRIDGE Fee Payment to the City. However, in no event shall the BRIDGE Fee Payment be less than $4.5 million even if the calculation results in a lower amount. BRIDGE will provide documentation to the City with the fee payment for the allowed costs and credits or revenues as described more specifically in Attachment B the BRIDGE Fee Payment Calculation Worksheet Methodology. Description of Alternative A , Mixed-Income Condo Proiect: At this time only a general concept for this alternative housing project has been agreed upon between the City and BRIDGE; BRIDGE will develop this project more thoroughly should BRIDGE determine that it is necessary to pursue .this alternative. The 0.5 acre site would be reconfigured to allow construction of approximately 32 units of for-sale condominium flats with about the same general building footprint and floor area ratio as the Senior Rentals project. The intention is that the current PC zone ordinance would permit Alternative A, however design approval by the Architectural Review Board will likely be necessary to the extent that the reconfiguration has an impact on the exterior design. A minimum of 16 condos would have to be built and sold as BMR units to satisfy the BMR requirement for the BUILD Project and additional BMR units would be provided at a 15% rate times any units built in excess of 16 (Example: 35 total units are built, less 16 BMR units equals 19 additional units, 19 times 15% equals 3 BMR units (2.85 rounded up); total BMR units equals 19 out of 35). The final construction plans for the building permit(s) will need to designate each BMR unit and those final designations, locations and floor plans shall be approved by the Director prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Alternative A for consistency with this agreement. Compared to the market-rate townhomes proposed for the BUILD Project, the Alternative A units would be equivalently sized with similar interior finishing, but configured as stacked flats rather than townhomes. Construction, Finishing, Amenities: The BMR units shall be comparable in all aspects to the market-rate housing units including, but not limited to, construction quality, appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, appearance, flooring materials, finish work, amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to all facilities. Developer may request permission from the Director to use different interior finishes, appliances and fixtures in the BMR units than in the market-rate units. Such substitute materials and equipment must still be of very good quality and durability. Any such request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to issuance of the Project’s building permit. The Director must approve substitute materials in writing. Prior to the close of escrow for the sale of each BMR unit, the City shall inspect the BMR unit to determine that it meets the construction and finishing standards stated in this Agreement and the City Manager shall approve the acceptance of each BMR unit into the program. H:\DOCkBMR ProgramkBridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-6-06 CC Packet Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 8 of 10 Sale of BMR Units, Buyer Selection and Qualification: Developer shall offer the BMR units for sale to the City at the approved BMR prices in accordance with procedures generally described in Attachment C. Developer shall cooperate with the City, the buyers and the City’s program administrator as necessary in the first sale of each of the BMR units. The City normally selects qualified buyers from the BMR ownership program waiting list. At the appropriate time in the sale transaction for each BMR unit, the City will assign its right to purchase to each qualified BMR buyer. BMR Unit Sales Prices: Pricing for the BMR units in Alternative A will be set based on the standard City BMR price calculation methodology and distribution between price categories in effect at the time that BRIDGE’s Architecture Review Board application for Alternative A is deemed complete by the City. Attachment D describes and illustrates the City’s current methodology for setting BMR prices for newly constructed units. The financing gap associated with Alternative A would be addressed by the BUILD Payment to BRIDGE, and by a cross-subsidy associated with the sale of the market-rate units built on the 0.5 acre BRIDGE site. Table 1 shows the required unit types, numbers of bedrooms, and square footage of the minimum 16 BMR units and the current 2006 BMR purchase prices. Unit Type Plan I Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 TOTAL Table 1: Alternative A - Mixed-Income Condo Project Description of Minimum Required 16 BMR Units Type 1 Bd, 1 Ba 2 Bd, 2 Ba 3 Bd, 2.5 Ba 4 Bd, 3 Ba Net Square Feet 750 sf 1,200 sf 1,500 sf 1,900 sf Price Category (based on AMI) 80% to 100% 80% to 100% 100% to 120% 80% to 100% 100% to 120% 80% to 100% 100% to 120% BMR Sales Prices As. of 5-15-06 $195,600 $227,300 $290,150 $258,600 $328,600 $283,850 $359,350 No. of BMR Units 1 4 2 5 2 1 1 16 City’s Commitments: The city commits that a condominium housing development of up to 35 units on the 0.5 acre site would be allowable within the PC Zoning ordinance for the 901 San Antonio Road property and that Alternative A, as described in this agreement would not require additional City Council approval as long as the H:\DOC~BMR Program\Bridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doe BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 9 of 10 development does not exceed 35 units and the floor area ratio (FAR) does not exceed the FAR of the Senior Rentals. BMR A~reement to Be Recorded: A formal BMR Agreement incorporating the terms of this letter agreement shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by BUILD, BRIDGE and the City, and recorded against the BRIDGE Property prior to, or concurrent with, the recording of the subdivision map that divides the 4.0 acres into two legal parcels. The recorded BMR Agreement will be a contractual obligation of BUILD and BRIDGE and its successors in interest and shall run with the land. The City requires that lenders with secured interests in the property subordinate to the recorded BMR Agreement. If the Senior Rental project will be developed, then a City regulatory agreement with a minimum term of fifty-five (55) years will be recorded against the project at the close of its permanent funding to regulate the rents and occupancy of the 19 BMR units. If the Alternative A: Mixed-Income Condos are ultimately developed, then individual City BMR deed restrictions for each of the BMR units shall be recorded with the grant deed at the first sale by BRIDGE to a BMR qualified buyer with a term of at least 59 years. Future transfers or sales to subsequent BMR owners will initiate a new 59-year term of affordability. A copy of the City’s current Deed Restrictions is attached to this agreement as Attachment E. The City is expecting to revise the current deed restrictions and the City’s revised deed restrictions shall be used and recorded with the grant deed to the initial homebuyers. Program Administrator: The Department of Planning and Community Environment administers the BMR program. The City’s current contract program administrator for the BMR program is the PAHC Housing Services, LLC (PAHC). PAHC administers the sales of newly constructed BMR ownership units for the City. The current sales procedures are generally described in Attachment C; BRIDGE shall comply with the City then-current BMR sales procedures if the Alternative A project is constructed. The City may assign any or all of the administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions to its program administrator or other designee. Should BRIDGE develop Alternative A, the City agrees to discuss having BRIDGE assume some or all of the administration of the BMR sales. Please sign this letter below indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR program contribution for the BUILD and BRIDGE developments at 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. Thank you for your cooperation and your contribution to affordable housing in the City of Palo Alto. H:~DOCkI3MR ProgramkBridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doc BUILD / BRIDGE BMR Agreement September 1, 2006 Page 10 ofl0 No Director of Planning and Community Environment BRIDGE Urban Landfill Development, LLC and BRIDGE Housing Corporation agree to satisfy the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate housing requirement for the housing development at 901 San Antonio Road (APN: 127-37-024; Application No: 06PLN-00000-00031), as described in this Letter of Agreement dated September 1, 2006 BRIDGE Urban L~ndf~l ~lopment, LL_C BRIDGE Housing Corporation ~-~---~ Gary Baum, City Attomey Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official, Planning Division Steven Turner, Senior Planner, Planning Division Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager, Planning Division Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division Linda Mabry, BMR Administrator, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Attachments: A) B) c) D) E) Property Description [to be added to recorded agreement] BRIDGE Fee Payment Calculation Worksheet Methodology Procedures and Instructions for the Sale of New BMR Units BMR Sales Price Calculations, May 2006 Below Market Rate Ownership Deed Restrictions [Current Version dated 8/93] HADOC~MR Program\Bridge - BUILD BMR Ltr Agrmt 9-1-06 Final.doc Attachment A: Property Description [To be inserted in recorded agreement] ATTACHMENT B Attachment B Line # Less 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Plus: Bridge Fee Payment Calculation Worksheet Methodology. Description Amount $7,S00,000BMR IN=LIEU FEE PAYMENT PAID TO BRIDGE (THE "BUILD" PAYMENT) Bridge’s Actual Costs For:. Land Acquisition Parking & Access Easement Acquistion Predevelopment Costs Shared Off-Site Costs (w/BUILD) Share of Risk Management Plan Costs Land Holding Costs Preconstruction Costs $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 9 Interest earned by BRIDGE on the $7.3 M during the $0~eriod the funds are held 10 Subtotal:$7,300,000 Plus: 11 Proceeds of Sale of Land with Parking & Access $0Easements at Year Six 12 SUBTOTAL: BRIDGE Fee Payment $7,300,000 Plus: 13 Annual CPI Adjustment (if applicable)$0 14 TOTAl= Payment Due to City From BRIDGE $7,300,000 The. BRIDGE Fee Payment must equal a minimun of $4.5 Million; the maximum Fee Payment is $7.3 Million. If the $7.3 Million amount is due using the above calculations, then the City will also receive from Bridge a CPI adjustment payment in addition to the $7.3 Million. The CPI adjustment shall equal the percentage change in the CPI Index in effect, commencing with the close of escrow on the sale of the last unit in the BUILD 103 unit project until full payment to City of the Bridge Fee Payment, times the $7.3 Million. If the Fee Payment calculation results in a Fee Payment of less than $7.3 Million then no CPI Adiustment payment is required. H:\Sheet\Bridge Fee Pymt Worksheet- Att B BMR Agrmt ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 Sales Procedures for New Below Market Rate (BMR) Ownership Units This document provides an overview of the City ofPalo Alto’s policies and procedures for the selection of buyers and the sales of newly constructed BMR ownership units provided under the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)Program - H-36 of the Housing Element as adopted on December 2, 2002. The information is intended primarily for housing developers and others interested in an overview of the buyer selection and sales process. Further details of the process, both for new unit sales and resales of existing BMR units, may be found in the BMR Program Policy and Procedures Manual prepared by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). 1) BMR Agreement Between City and Developer: During the entitlement review process, a BMR agreement is prepared between the City and the Developer. Compliance with the BMR program agreement is included as one of the project’s Conditions of Approval. Generally, a letter agreement is drafted, signed by the Developer and the Director of Planning and Community Environment and included in the staff report packets sent to the Boards, Commission and Council decision makers, as applicable. A final BMR Agreement, in a form that will be recorded against the land, is prepared prior to the final entitlement approval for the project. This formal document must be executed by the appropriate officers of the Developer and by the legal owners of the land (if different than the Developer). A consent and subordination to the BMR Agreement is also required from any lender with a secured interest in the land. Most projects with for-sale housing units will involve a subdivision map application. In such situations, the formal BMR Agreement is prepared, executed and recorded prior to City approval of the final subdivision map agreement. The formal BMR Agreement may be a separate legal document or may be incorporated into the text of the subdivision agreement. The BMR Agreement (both the initial letter agreement and the formal, recorded agreement) will include complete descriptions of the BMR units and will reference the units’ floor plans, features, sizes and locations. The BMR units must also be designated on the site plans that are part of the subdivision map. 2) Sale of BMR Units to a Qualified Purchaser Designated by the City: The BMR Agreement provides the City with a fight to purchase the BMR units from the Developer for the specified below market price(s) at completion of the Project. The standard practide is for the City to assign its right to purchase to a BMR buyer that has been selected and qualified by our contract program administrator, the Palo Alto Housing HADOC~BMR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 Corporation (PAHC). The Developer does not have the right, or the responsibility, to select and qualify buyers for the BMR units. It is a violation of the BMR Agreement for the Developer to sell a BMR unit directly to a buyer of its own choosing (even if that buyer meets the program’s qualifications) without the prior express written consent of the City, which would need to include the City’s assignment of its legal right to purchase. After the BMR units’ initial sale, as provided in these procedures, the Developer has met its responsibilities regarding the BMR program. The provisions of the BMR Deed Restrictions, which are enforced by PAHC and the City, control resales of the BMR units. The sales process begins with the Developer notifying the City and PAHC of its intention to begin the marketing and sales of units in the Project. The Developer should inform PAHC as early as possible of the amount of the final monthly homeowners association dues because this is a critical piece of information for the buyer information packets and the qualifying process. PAHC must also be informed when the BMR unit(s) are legally available for binding purchase contracts to be signed. PAHC selects the buyer for each BMR unit (the "Designated BMR Buyer") according to program preferences (preference for applicants that live or work in Palo Alto), income, asset and household requirements and order on the waiting list. The Developer must then execute a standard California Real Estate Purchase Agreement with the Designated BMR Buyer for each BMR unit within two (2) weeks of notice from PAHC of the buyer’s selection. Should the first Designated BMR Buyer not be able to obtain financing or close escrow for whatever reason, PAHC shall provide a substitute buyer, or buyers, as necessary. The Developer shall execute a purchase agreement with any number of substitute buyers designated by PAHC as necessary in order to sell each BMR unit to a qualified buyer. 3) Comparability of BMR Unit, Features and Upgrades: Except as provided in the BMR Agreement and related official correspondence from the City, the design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances, and like features of each BMR unit shall be comparable to all other units in the Project. The owner of each BMR unit shall have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as will be available, or provided, to owners of other units in the Project. Each Designated BMR Buyer shall be offered the opportunity to select colors, finishing materials, add-ons, upgrades or other features on the same terms and pricing as buyers of market rate units. However, the cost upgrades, contracted for by a Designated BMR Buyer, must be shown separately in the purchase contract and escrow statement and not added to the purchase price of the BMR unit because the of the limitation on the BMR unit’s price in the BMR Agreement. H:kDOC~MR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 4) Inspection & Acceptance of BMR Unit(s): Representatives of the City and PAHC shall be allowed to inspect each BMR unit, and a sample of the other units in the Project, immediately prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or final approval of the building permit by the City’s Building Division in order to determine that each BMR unit meets the standards of construction and finishing, as required by the BMR Agreement. This inspection is independent of the City’s inspections for Building Codes and other Planning Conditions. The City shall specify in writing any deficiencies in the BMR unit(s) and such deficiencies shall be corrected by the Developer to the satisfaction of the City within 2 weeks of receipt of such notice or by such other deadline that is acceptable to the City. Prior to close of escrow on the sale of each BMR unit, the City Manager, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, shall execute a "Certificate of Acceptance". This document, which is the City’s official approval and acceptance of each BMR unit, shall be recorded as an exhibit to the Grant Deed from the Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer, as described below. 5) Recording of Documents: Prior to close of escrow for each sale, the Developer must execute the Grant Deed that will transfer title of each BMR unit from the Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer. Also, prior to closing PAHC obtains the Designated BMR Buyer’s signature on the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Deed Restriction (the "BMR Deed Restrictions") and the City executes the "Certificate of Acceptance". After these documents are properly executed, PAHC transmits them to the Escrow Agent. The Developer shall instruct the Escrow Agent to attach both the Certificate of Acceptance and the BMR Deed Restrictions as exhibits to the Grant Deed prior to its recording. The Developer shall also instruct the Escrow Agent to reference these documents on the face of the Grant Deed in the manner specified by PAHC. In general, the Developer shall cooperate fully with the City, PAHC and the purchaser in the escrow process. The City may develop new or revised legal documents (including revisions to the BMR Deed Restrictions) in order to secure its BMR deed restrictions and implement the program’s goals and objectives. The Developer agrees to assist City as necessary in the closing and recording of the City’s BMR documents. 6) Provision of Project Information: The Developer, and its sales and marketing agents, shall cooperate fully with the City and PAHC to accomplish the sale of each BMR unit to a Designated BMR Buyer. The Developer, or its sales agent, shall provide to PAHC, (for distribution to interested BMR H:kDO(kBMR Policy & ProceduresL2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doe Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 purchasers) all sales information and services normally provided to prospective purchasers including, but not limited to: Copies of sales brochures including unit plans with square footages, descriptions of standard and optional features & price lists for optional features; Information and documentation, as required by State law, regarding the condominium association, the association dues or fees, association by-laws and an estimate of real property taxes including any special assessments or bond costs; All warranties, guarantees and insurance as are provided for the market units in the Project; Completion of"punch list" work and performance of repairs on the BMR units, as provided for the market units in the Project; Cooperation with PAHC in scheduling and holding an open house(s) specifically for interested BMR purchasers to view and inspect the BMR unit(s). 7) Representation: Neither the Developer, nor its sales organization or real estate agent, shall charge any commission or fees to the BMR buyers, or the City, in connection with the sales transaction for the BMR units. Typically, the BMR buyers are not represented by a real estate agent. However, if a buyer chooses to be represented by an agent or attorney, the buyer is responsible for the cost of those services. PAHC is not a licensed real estate agent or broker and does not receive any commission on the sales of BMR units. PAHC administers certain aspects of the BMR program on behalf of the City of Palo Alto and is compensated under an annual contract with the City for those services. PAHC staff shall be the primary contact for the Developer and Escrow Agent in the sales process for each BMR unit. 8) Seller’s Closing Costs: The Developer is responsible for the payment of the escrow and closing costs typically paid by the seller of residential real property in Palo Alto. 9) ~: The BMR buyer selection and qualification process (from the mailing of information packets to the execution of a purchase contract) takes approximately 5 weeks. The time period from opening of escrow to closing of the purchase generally takes 45 to 90 days. HADOCkBMR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 . Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 Thus, the total time from initiation of the sales process by PAHC to close of escrow could extend from four to five months. Close cooperation between the Developer, the Developer’s sales agent and PAHC is necessary in order for the process to proceed smoothly. 10) Waiting List for BMR Ownership Units: PAHC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units. The waiting list is used for the sales of both new and resale units. There are usually over 300 households on the list, which is updated annually. Past experience has shown a strong demand for BMR units from qualified waiting list buyers, especially for newly constructed BMR units. However, if a buyer cannot be found from the waking list, PAHC advertises the unit directly to the public in order to find qualified buyers. For a project with a larger number of new BMR units becoming available at the same time, PAHC and the Developer may undertake a special advertising and marketing effort while the project is under construction to recruit a sufficient pool of qualified BMR buyers. 11) Sales Process: The following steps describe in more detail the general process involved in selecting and qualifying a buyer for each BMR unit. a) , The Developer provides PAHC with a schedule for completion of construction of the Project and an estimated date for completion and availability of the BMR units. The Developer provides PAHC with contacts with its sales staff or real estate agent and with its escrow company. b) Often a preliminary meeting at the Project site is held prior to completion between PAHC, the City, the Developer, the general contractor and the sales / marketing agent to discuss process and timing, to tour the project and inspect the BMR units and other units. c) The Developer provides PAHC with all reports and documents required by law including, the condominium reports and documents, preliminary title report(s) on the BMR units, inspection reports and disclosure statements. Marketing brochures including floor plans of the BMR units with square footages, lists and description of standard and optional features with prices for optional features must also be provided. The amount of the monthly homeowners association dues for each BMR unit is also needed. d) PAHC prepares an information and application packet about each BMR unit and mails it to all households (this may go to a large number of households) on the waiting list that appear eligible for that size and price ofunk. HADOC~BMR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT C:BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 e) An open house exclusively for prospective BMR buyers is held and the Developer’s sales agent cooperates with PAHC to schedule the date and time for this open house. The Developer’s sales agent conducts the open house. For a very large project, or one completed in phases, more than one open house may be necessary. f) Interested buyers must comply with several deadlines including submitting a complete application, attending the open house, formally indicating an intention to buy, proving their qualifications for the program (verifying income, assets, household size, and Palo Alto preferences) and verifying that they have the downpayment funds and can obtain financing to buy the unit. The selected household (Designated BMR Buyer) for each BMR unit is the household with the highest position on the waiting list, who is qualified by income and household size limitations and other criteria and who completes the application process within the specified time deadlines. g) A number of local mortgage lenders are familiar with the BMR program and offer advantageous financing terms to our buyers. The Designated BMR Buyer usually finalizes their loan application and secures loan approval after being selected by PAHC, although many buyers will have already been pre-qualified for a loan. The typical BMR buyer needs a low down payment loan, but some buyers make substantial down payments. h) Once PAHC has qualified and designated a buyer, the Designated BMR Buyer and the Developer, or its Agent, meet to negotiate the purchase contract. The purchase price must not exceed the price specified in the BMR agreement with the City. The cost of any additional features or upgrades purchased by the BMR buyer must be paid for separately and is not included in the purchase price. The purchase contract terms should be typical for home purchases in the area such as standard times for obtaining approval of a mortgage and closing escrow, amount of the "good faith" deposit, inspection of the completed unit, division of closing costs, etc. PAHC staff reviews the purchase contract before and after signing to verify that the contract meets the above terms and guidelines. i) PAHC coordinates the closing process and the execution of the necessary documents, as described above, with the Escrow Agent. Often the BMR units are among the first completed sales in a Project. HADOCkBMR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of NEw BMR Units.doc Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT D-1 Date:June 15, 2006 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum To:Planning Division Staff & Housing Developers, and Others From:Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division Steve Emslie, Director of Planning & Community Environment Subject:Updated Prices for New BMR Units - Effective May 15, 2006 Palo Alto has updated its prices for newly constructed housing units for the Below Market Rate (BMR) home ownership program, as shown below. The attached tables explain the price calculations. The City updates the BMR prices annually. The new prices for 2006 are effective as of May 15, 2006 and apply to BMR units in projects receiving final planning entitlement approvals (i. e. the date of: the Director’s letter for ARB action, Council adoption of a PC zone ordinance or approval of Site & Design) on or after the effective date of the updated prices. Factors updated annually are: the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County, as published by the State Department of Housing & Community Development, interest and mortgage insurance rates for loans typically used by BMR buyers and other home ownership costs (covered by allowances for repairs and maintenance, typical homeowner association dues, and fire insurance). The developer is required to sell new BMR units at the "BMR Unit Price" shown below. The required BMR price is the midpoint price affordable by assumed households in the target income range for that unit type. BMR units must also comply with the City’s "Standards for BMR Units". As described in the BMR Program H-36 of-the Housing Element, as adopted in December 2002, there are two levels of pricing and affordability for BMR ownership units: Studio Units 1-bedroom units 2-bedroom units 3-bedroom units 4-bedroom units Lower Moderate Income 80% to 100% AMI Units $164,250 $195,600 $227,300 $258,600 $283,850 Higher Moderate Income 100% to 120% AMI Units $213,200 $251,650 $290,150 $328,600 $359,350 Attachments: 1) Price Calculations for Lower Moderate Income Units (80% to 100% of AMI) 2) Price Calculations for Higher Moderate Income Units (100% to 120% of AMI) HADOCkBMR Program~13MR Price Cover Memo Att & Exh for 2006 6-06.doc Persons In Household 1 2 3 4 5 ATTACHMENT D-2 City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program Prices for New BMR Units for Households at 80% to 100% of Median Income 80% of County Area Median Income $59,100 $67,500 $76,000 $84,400 $91,200 Dated: May 15, 2006 100% of County Area Median Income $73,900 $84,4OO $95,0oo $105,500 $113,900 Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of Median Income $139,700 -$188,800 $167,600 -$223,600 $195,800 $258,800 $223,600 $293,600 $246,200 $321,500 Assumed Household Size for Unit Type 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Type Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms BMR Unit Price (Assumes 90% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type) $164,250 $195,600 $227,300 $258,600 $283,850 VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS: Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 4106/06) Annualized Rates: Interest Rates (As of 5115/06)6.70% Mortgage Insurance (As of 5/15/06)0.89% Property Taxes 1.25% Total Effective Interest Rate 8.84% Number of Monthly Payments:360 Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):95% Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance $425 Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month) Loan Terms: Zero (0) Loan Points 30 Yearl Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan Assumes a maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs: (mortgage, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance, fire insurance) $105,500 H:\Sheet\BMR 5-2006 Att - Exh Prices at 80-100% of AMI ATTACHMENT D-3 City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program Prices for New BMR Units for Households at 100% to 120% of Median Income Dated: May 15, 2006 Persons In Household 100% of County Area Median Income 120% of CountyArea Median Range of Affordable Prices at 100% to 120% of Median IncomeIncome 1 $73,900 $88,600 $188,800 -$237,600 2 $84,400 $101,300 $223;600 -$279,700 3 $95,000 $113,900 $258,800 -$321,500 4 $105,500 $126,600 $293,600 -$363,600 5 $113,900 $136,700 $321,500 -$397,200 Assumed Household Size for Unit Type Unit Type 1 Studio 2 1 Bedroom 3 2 Bedrooms 4 3 Bedrooms 5 4 Bedrooms BMR Unit Price (Assumes 110% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type) $213,200 $251,650 $290,150 $328,600 $359,350 VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS: Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 4/06/06) Annualized Rates: Interest Rates (As of 5115106)6.70% Mortgage Insurance (As of 5/15/06)0.89% Property Taxes 1.25% Total Effective Interest Rate 8.84% Number of Monthly Payments:360 Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):95% Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance $425 Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month) Loan Terms: Zero (0) Loan Points 30 Year, Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan Assumes a maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs: (mortgage, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance & fire insurance) $105,500 H:\Sheet\BMR 5-2006 Art- Exh Prices at 100-120% of AMI ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions (August 1993) SUBJECT TO: A.Right of First Refusal. Grantee hereby grants and gives to the City of Palo Alto ("City") a right to purchase the real property conveyed hereby and any improvements thereon (the "Premises") under conditions hereinafter set forth. City may designate a governmental or nonprofit organization to exercise its right of first refusal. City or its designee may assign this right to an individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility qualifications. After the exercise of said right by City, its designee or assignee in the manner hereinafter prescribed, City, its designee or assignee may assign said right to purchase to any substitute individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility requirements and is approved by the City; provided, however, that such subsequent assignment shall not extend any time limits contained herein. Any attempt to transfer title or any interest therein in violation of these covenants shall be void. B.Procedure on Sale. Whenever the Owner ("Owner" refers to Grantee and all successors in interest) of said Premises no longer desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in writing to that effect. Such notice shall be personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, certified, addressed to City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403. City, its designee or assignee shall then have the right to exercise its fight to purchase said Premises by delivery of written notice, by personal delivery or certified mail, to the Owner thereof at any time within sixty (60) days from the receipt by City of such written notice from Owner of intent to sell or dispose of the Premises. If the Cityl its designee or assignee exercises its right to purchase said Premises, close of escrow of said purchase shall be within ninety (90) days of the opening of such escrow by either party. Said escrow shall be opened upon delivery to Owner of written notice of the exercise of the option or as soon thereafter as possible. In the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone opening of escrow until selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the opening of the escrow shall not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the City’s exercise of its right to purchase. Closing costs and title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City of Palo Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the Seller. Any work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is not the responsibility of the Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and then at the (Rev. 8/93)Page 1 of 7 Reg. ATTACHMENTE expense of the Buyer. The Buyer shall be responsible for payment of any prepayment fees imposed by any lender by reason of the sale of the premises. The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the close of escrow or as may be otherwise provided by mutual agreement of Buyer and Seller. The purchase price of the Premises shall be fixed at the lower amount arrived at via the following two methods: City or its designee shall have an appraisal made by an appraiser of its choice to establish the market value. The owner may also have an appraisal made by an appraiser of Owner’s choice to establish the market value. If agreement cannot be reached, the average of the two appraisals shall be termed the market price. Dollars ($) XXXXXXXXXXXX plus the amount of any prepayment fees paid by the selling Owner at the time said Owner purchased the Premises (base price); plus an amount, if any, to compensate for any increase in the cost of living as measured by one-third (1/3) of the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose area published by the U.S. Department of Eabor~ Bureau of Labor Statistics (hereinafter "the Index"). For that purpose, the Index prevailing on the date of the purchase by the selling Owner of said Premises shall be compared with the latest Index available on the date of receipt by City of notice of intent to sell. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and the base price shall be increased by one-third (1/3) of that percentage; provided, however, that the price shall in no event be lower than the purchase price paid by the selling Owner when he purchased the Premises. This adjusted price shall be increased by the value of any substantial structural or permanent fixed improvements which cannot be removed without substantial damage to the Premises or substantial or total loss of value of said improvements and by the value of any appliances, fixtures, or equipment purchased to replace appliances, fixtures, or equipment which were originally acquired as part of the Premises by Owner; provided that such price adjustment for replacement appliances, fixtures, or equipment shall be allowed only when the expenditure is necessitated by the non-operative or other deteriorated condition of the original appliance, fixture, or equipment. If at the time of replacement the original appliance, fixture, or equipment had in excess of twenty percent (20%) of its original estimated useful life remaining, Owner shall document to the City’s satisfaction the condition of the appliance, fixture, or equipment which necessitated its replacement. No such price adjustment shall be made significantly in excess of the reasonable cost to replace the original appliance, fixture, or equipment with a new appliance, fixture, or equipment of comparable quality as hereinafter provided. No such adjustment shall be made except for improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment made or installed by the selling Owner. No improvements, appliance, fixture, or equipment shall be deemed substantial unless the actual initial cost thereof to the Owner exceeds one percent (1.0%) of the purchase price paid by the Owner for the Premises; provided that this minimum limitation shall not apply in either of the following situations: (a)Where the expenditure was made pursuant to a mandatory assessment levied by the Homeowners’ association for the development in which the Premises is located, whether levied for improvements or maintenance to the Premises, the common area, or related purposes. (b) Where the expenditure was made for the replacement of appliances, fixtures, or equipment which were originally acquired as part of the Premises by Owner. (Rev. 8/93)Page 2 of 7 Reg. ATTACHMENT E No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment unless the Owner shall present to the City valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows: (a)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straight-line depreciation applied to the original cost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment. (b)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more, shall be the appraised market value of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addition or fixture to the premises (i.e., the amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the market value of the premises) at the time of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as the market value of the premises in method 1 above. (c)On January 1, 1982, and every two years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or recordation hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those paragraphs in the following manner. On each adjustment date, the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailing on the date of recordation of this deed. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be increased in the same percentage. In no event shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). (d)No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested. Any sale price determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount shall be determined as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner’s intent to sell, City or its designee shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. City or its designee shall have an opportunity to determine whether all plumbing, electrical, and heating systems are in working order; whether any violations of applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes exist; whether all appliances which were originally furnished to Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements thereof, are in working order; whether walls, ceilings and floors are clear and free of holes or other defects (except for holes typical of picture hangers); whether doors, windows, screens and similar appurtenances are cracked, broken or torn; and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or any replacement thereof, are clean and free of holes, tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City (Rev. 8/93)Page 3 of 7 Reg. ATTACHMENT E shall obtain estimates to cure the observed deficiencies. The Owner shall cure the deficiencies in a reasonable manner acceptable to City or designee within sixty (60) days of being notified of the results of the inspection, but in no event later than close of escrow. Should owner fail to cure such deficiencies prior to the scheduled date of close of escrow, at the option of City, its designee or assignee, escrow may be closed, title passed and money paid to the selling Owner subject to the condition that such funds as are necessary to pay for curing such deficiencies (based upon written estimates obtained by City) shall be withheld from the money due the selling Owner and held by the escrow holder for the purpose of curing such deficiencies. City, its designee or assignee shall cause such deficiencies to be cured and upon certification of completion of work by City, escrow holder shall utilize such funds to pay for said work. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the selling Owner. No other payment shall be due said Owner. In no event shall City become in any way liable to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer of the Premises in connection with any sale or other conveyance of the Premises. Nor shall City become obligated in any manner to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer by reason of the assignment of City’s right to purchase. Nor shall City be in any way obligated or liable to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer for any failure of City’s assignee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with the terms of any purchase and sale agreement. Until such time as the City’s right to purchase is exercised, waived, or expired, the Premises and any interest in title thereto shall not be sold, conveyed, leased, rented, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred to any person or entity except with the prior express written consent of City or its designee, which consent shall be consistent with City’s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing in Palo Alto for persons of low and moderate income. Any encumbering of title of the Premises in connection with securing any financing or loan may only be accomplished with City’s prior express written consent; however, in the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, the provisions of Section D of this instrument shall govern. The following transfers of title or any interest therein are not subject to the right of first refusal provisions of this deed: transfer by gift, devise, or inheritance to grantee’s spouse or issue; taking of title by surviving joint tenant; transfer of title to spouse as part of divorce or dissolution proceedings; acquisition of title or interest therein in conjunction with marriage; provided, however, that these covenants shall continue to run with the title to said Premises following said transfers. C.Termination of Right of First Refusal. The provisions set forth in this deed relating to City’s fight to purchase shall terminate and become void automatically fifty-nine (59) years following the date ofrecordation of this deed. Upon the expiration of said fifty-nine (59) year period, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a non-profit charitable organization or its successor organization, shall have the right to purchase the Premises, and if Owner no longer desires to own the premises, Owner shall notify the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in accordance with the procedures for notifying the City in Paragraph B above. If the Palo Alto Housing (Rev. 8/93)Page 4 of 7 Reg. ATTACHMENT E Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do so in accordance with the procedures and price set forth for the City in Paragraph B above. D. Default. Owner covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924 (b) of the Civil Code of the Sate of California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924 (f) shall constitute a notice of intent to sell hereunder and City or its designee or assignee may exercise its preemptive fight prior to any trustee’s sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, provided, however, notwithstanding any language contained in this instrument to the contrary regarding the rights of the lien holder, the City, or its designee or assignee, must complete such purchase no later than the end of the period established by California Civil Code Section 2924 ( c ) for reinstatement of a monetary default trader the deed of trust or mortgage. In the event of default and foreclosure, the City, or its designee or assignee, shall have the same fight as the Owner to cure defaults and redeem the Premises prior to foreclosure sale. Such redemption shall be subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as would otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing herein shall be construed to create any obligation on the part of the City to cure any such default, nor shall this right to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The City, or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from Owner all costs incurred in curing any such default. In the event City elects not to exercise its fight to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its right to purchase the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to Owner on the date of the foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the City for increasing the City’s low-income and moderate-income housing stock. E.Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. In the event that the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of being used to rebuild, or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, or in the case of a condominium project, in the event of liquidation of the homeowners’ association and distribution of the assets of the association to the members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed remaining after payment of encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: That portion of the surplus up to but not to exceed the net amount that Owner would have received under the formula set forth above had City exercised its fight to purchase the property on the date of the destruction, condemnation valuation date, or liquidation, shall be distributed to Owner, and the balance of such surplus, if any, shall be distributed to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation or its successors or assigns. (Rev. 8/93)Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT E All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses: CITY:City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION: OWNER: 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403 By acceptance of this deed, Grantee/Owner accepts and agrees to be bound by the covenants contained herein, and further acknowledges receipt of and agrees to be bound by the provisions of these deed restrictions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantee has caused this instrument to be executed this __ day of ., 20 Signature of Grantee Signature of Grantee Print Name Print Name Signature of Grantee Signature of Grantee Print Name Print Name (Rev. 8193)Page 6 of 7 Reg. ATTACHMENT E CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code Sec. 1189) STATE OF COUNTY OF On , before me, , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared ., personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Rev. 8/93)Page 7 of 7 Reg. Attachment F APPROVAL NO. 2006- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: BUILD/BRIDGE PROJECT TENTATIVE MAP 06PLN-00050 (BRIDGE URBAN INFILL LAND DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT) At its meeting on September ii, 2006, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel (approx. four acres) and create one multiple-family lot containing 103 multiple-family units and one multiple-family lot that would contain 56 apartment units, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City o[ Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD), this project involves the subdivision of one parcel (approx. four acres) and the creation of one multiple-family lot of approximately 3.5 acres containing 103 multiple-family units and one 0.5 acre multiple-family lot that would contain 56 apartment units. The density of the 3.5 acre multiple-family lot would be approximately 29 dwelling units per acre, and 112 dwelling units per acre for the 0.5 acre lot containing apartment units. These densities would be allowed under the Planned Community zone district, which the applicant has requested for this site. Of the total units proposed, the fifty-six (56) apartment units would be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units for senior citizens. Thirteen (13) separate floor plans are proposed within four (2) types of residential buildings. The senior apartment building site would contain three floor plan types in a four story building. The for-sale townhome site would contain ten (i0) floor plan types in two and three story buildings above an at-grade parking garage. The unit sizes in the apartment building would range from 475 to 910 square feet within studios, one bedrooms, and a two bedroom plan. The unit sizes on the townhome parcel would range from 784 to 1,994 square feet within one to four bedroom configurations. The parking garage would contain approximately 303 parking spaces for the residents of the apartment building and the townhome units. B~ The Tentative map plan set includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the 1 creation of lots, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plans conform to the Development Plan submitted for the Planned Community zone change request (06PLN-00031). Because the request is to create more than four parcels and condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 2~.08.0~0). C. The Tentative map indicates the location and extent of proposed dedications associated with the development of the project, including public utility, public storm drain, and ingress/egress easements. D. These dedications would be reviewed and recorded during the Final map process.. The Final map would describe the terms and conditions of the dedications, including how the dedications may be used and maintained and the identification of the parties responsible for payment of costs, fees and maintenance issues. E. The Tentative map is associated with the application for a Planned Community zone change request, which also includes a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The Tentative map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances and received Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review on July 26, 2006, 2006. The Commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site encompassing both the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) projects. The FEIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was completed and distributed for a 45-day public review period from February 17, 2006 through April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on March 29, 2006, to accept comments from the public and from Commissioners. The FEIR was prepared following the public review period. FEIR includes the Responses to Comments and, where appropriate, revisions to the DEIR language to reflect the response. Responses to several substantive comments relative to transportation, hazards and hazardous materials, visual resources and aesthetics, public facilities, and related revisions in the FEIR are discussed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution No. that accompanies this Tentative Map resolution. Staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is consistent with the FEIR. The FEIR was certified by the City Council at the public hearing on September II, 2006. SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findinqs. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): i. 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 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended concurrent with project approval. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans : The map is consistent with major Comprehensive Plan policies related to the change in land use, Policy L-l: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The existing parcels are located within the urban growth boundary and the lot merger is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area and Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. The map is consistent with the Housing Element policies (Goal H-l, Policies H-2 and H-4, Goal H-2, Policy H-9, and Goal H-3, below market rate units). 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The subdivision and related project would result in a change of land use from commercial office to multiple-family residential, and would do so in a way that would be consistent with the PC Development Plan and FEIR. The project site, at approximately four acres with street frontage on Fabian Way and San Antonio Road could support the Project and improvements. The Tentative Map, as conditioned, is suitable for the development of the project site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The purpose for the Tentative Map is to subdivide the existing parcel and create one multiple-family lot containing 103 multiple-family units and one multiple-family lot that would contain 56 apartment units. In doing so, the site would be consistent with the PC Development Plan approved for the site. 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 hab i tat : The subdivision of the parcel and creation of rental housing lot and condominium units will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other sensitive species is present on site. 6. That the design of the subdi vi si on or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The Tentative Map will not cause serious public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report that was certified for the project, and mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been approved to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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. The design the parcel merger will not conflict with easements on or off the site, as all easements will be maintained and any adjustments or new easements shall only be allowed~or established by the conditions of approval. SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approval Granted. Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. 4 The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one page, dated and received June 22, 2006, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the 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 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]) . SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020 [c]) . 2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal. 3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, dated September I, 2006. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by BUILD and the City, and recorded against the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Prior to Submittal of Final Map Planning Division 4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance with the ARB and the Tentative Map approved plans and conditions. 5 Department of Utilities 5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and Planning and Community Environment, Public Utility Easements for installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures shall be designated on the Final Map. Department of Public Works Engineering Division 6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the Public Works Department. 7. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the Tentative Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting shall determine the scope of all work required and related to offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the Final Map. Prior to Approval of Final Map 8. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB and Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted in relation to this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder. Designation on Improvement Plans 9. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works standards. Additional public street improvements shall be made, as determined by Public Works Engineering. I0. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. II. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above grade, per City standards. 6 Prior to Recordation of Final Map 12. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the Final Map to guarantee the completion of the on and offsite condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Ten[ative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]) . PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc titled "Tentative Map, consisting of one page, dated and received June 22, 2006. PARTNERING WITH CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORHOODS Attachment G June 22, 2006 Steve Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Updated Planned Community District Application for 901 San Antonio Road Dear Steve, BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development, LLC (BUILD) is pleased to submit this update to our application submitted July 30, 2004 for a Plarmed Community (PC) District rezoning of the 4 acre site located at 901 San Antonio Road. Since the initial submittal, BUILD has re-designed the 4 acre site reducing the density, the bulk and the height of the project and has re-located the senior community from the San Antonio Road side of the site to the main entry of the development along Fabian Way. The end result is 67 less units and a design that takes better advantage of the sites dynamic features. BUILD proposes to build 159 housing units on the 4-acre parcel adjacent to the existing Space Systems LoraI facilities and the proposed Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL). The development presents a great opportunity to meet several City planning and land use objectives including providing homeownership and rental units at prices not typical for the Palo Alto market. BUILD has continued to work. closely with City Staff to create a project that is well thought out and consistent with the requirements of the PC district zoning. The 159 units will be developed as two separate projects: a 103 unit for-sale townhouse community and a 56 unit affordable-rental senior community. The flats and townhouse-style condominiums will range in size from approximately 750 square feet to 1,980 square feet. Units in the senior community will range in size from 600 square feet to 850 square feet. All rental units will be restricted to seniors at very-low income affordability levels. The City’s inclusionary housing requirement for the townhouse community is being met through a portion of the affordable senior rental units. A letter detailing the agreement between BUILD and the City of PaIo Alto 345 SPEAR STREET. SUITE 700 SAN FRANCISCO,(’~,\ 94105-1673 TEL 415-989-1111 FAX 415-321-3591 regarding the required Below Market Rate (BMR) units is attached. Once both the PC Zone and Comprehensive Plan change are approved, BUILD will transfer the land for the senior community to BRIDGE Housing Corporation for the completion of the senior development and BUILD will proceed with the development of the townhouse community. Both development projects combine a contemporary design with traditional construction materials. Units will be oriented to allow as much sunlight as possible while still providing maximum privacy and generous community and private open space. Lush landscaping will fill the pathways and courtyards and residents will be able to take full advantage of the views east toward the foothills. To promote better urban design stoops~ and porches have been placed along Fabian Way and the shared drive off of Fabian Way. The project site has a current Comprehensive Plan designation of Light Industrial and is currently zoned General Manufacturing (GM). Section 18.68.060 of the Planned Community (PC) district regulations requires that the following findings be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council in establishing any new PC district: (1)The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (2)Development of the site under the provisions of the planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. (3) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Our project addresses and meets the standards of these findings as follows: (1) The 4 acre site is located in south Palo Alto. When the application was originally submitted, zoning permitted a maximum FAR of 1:1 for mixed residential and non- residential uses, provided that the residential use did not exceed 0.5:1. The applicant proposes a residential FAR of 1.24:1. Increased FAR is necessary to develop a greater number of units suitable to the target market and to low and very-low income seniors. The unit density falls within the R-40 zoning that would have been allowed under the sites current zoning of General Manufacturing (GM). Traffic~ density and similar impacts are therefore not any more intense than if the project were to apply under an R- 40 zoning. Due to the FAR and height over 40 feet (as required under the R-40 zone), the development under existing zoning does not provide sufficient flexibility for such housing variety. If necessary, the applicant will also share parking with the TKCJL. (2) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. Past developments under the PC Zoning District have met the public benefit requirement by providing a wide variety of benefits, including public art, public open space, public parking, and affordable housing, among other measures. The BUILD deveIopment at 901 San Antonio Road provides some public benefit on site and proposes to augment these measures by providing additional benefits that will have a community wide impact. The related public benefit is as follows: General on-site public benefit: Provision of publicly visible and accessible plaza. Shared with the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, a 5,000 square plaza will demarcate the main pedestrian entrances to the two developments and be a focal point for the campus. Designation of land for use as affordable housing. Instead of maximizing the amount of market rate housing that could be built on the site, BUILD elected instead to make 1/2 acre available for the development of housing that will be affordable to low and very low income seniors. The affordable senior community is expected to more than double the City’s annual production goal for very-low income senior rental units as stated in the City’s 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan. It will also meet more than 50% of the City’s current unmet need for very low income units as established in the City’s Housing Element. Very-low income seniors are identified in the City’s Consolidated Plan and the City’s Housing Element as a high priority population, particularly in need of affordable housing options. 3 AII BMR units will be provided for in the affordable senior rental community; an independent living community for very-low income seniors over 55 years of age. Additional affordability for seniors by deepening affordability limits from the 100% and 120% of Annual Median Income (AMI) otherwise required by the City to at or below 50% of AMI. Provision of 103 for-sale market rate units priced at entry to mid-market levels. Paying a fair share of a Charleston Arastradero Impact Fee for improvements along East Charleston Road. Provision of a sensitively scaled, pedestrian-friendly project that organizes the height and massing of the project in a way that minimizes visual impacts on existing nearby residential neighborhoods and along public streets. Promoting Smart Growth development utiIizing the City’s existing infrastructure and minimizing overall impacts of development on City resources. Creation of a comfortable and quiet living environment on an under utilized site in an existing noisy location which will further shelter noise transmission to existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. Community wide public benefit: Increased Contribution to Charleston Arastradero Corridor Implementation Pla_~.9_n: BUILD agrees to make a payment of approximately 400% to 500% of BUILD’s share of costs of implementing the Plan. BUILD will pay the amount in full at the sale of the last unit in the to@nhouse development. Establish Second Mortgage Program for Public Employees: $25,000 to $100,000 low interest second mortgages to be targeted to households earning from 100% to 150% of area median income. Maximum eligible household income will not exceed 200% of area median income. Preferences will be given to those living and working in Palo Alto and the surrounding communities. The intention of Second Mortgage Program is to help alleviate the jobs-to-housing imbalance by providing opportunities for Palo Alto based workers to live in or near Palo Alto. The mortgage program would be revolving over a 30 year period and 4 administered by HomeBricks a BRIDGE affiliate. The fund would be initially established at $500,000. Funds to be available for potential buyers at the opening of the sales center and models for the BUILD townhouse community. More details regarding the second mortgage program are provided in the attached summary. The specifics of the program will be developed in more detail and finalized prior to building permit issuance for the BUILD townhomes. (3) The project is in an area of Palo Alto that is at the edge of existing residential neighborhoods. Conversion of this property into residential uses will establish a link with those existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. The project meets the established policies of the Housing Element by increasing the supply of for-sale housing and affordable rental housing as well as helping to alleviate the severe jobs to housing imbalance in the City of Palo Alto while having minimal impacts especially traffic and noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the project will generate a significant portion of the new housing units deemed necessary in the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan to meet State of California Housing Element requirement for Palo Alto’s "fair share" housing needs. In particular, it will contribute 56 units of Very Low Senior Rental units - meeting just more than 50% of the City’s current unmet housing need for that population. Following are key sections of the Comprehensive Plan that relate to the proposed development. A complete list of pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan is attached. a.Comprehensive Plan Goal H-l: A Supply of affordable and Market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. b.Comprehensive Plan Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. c.Comprehensive Plan Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. d. Comprehensive Plan Program H-1 Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of the existing density range for sites along San Antonio Road. e.Comprehensive Plan Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. 5 f.Comprehensive Plan Program H-14: Rezone, where necessary those sites idenf~fied on the housing Site Inventory, using appropriate residential or mixed use zoning districts, prior to 2004. g.Comprehensive Plan Goal H-3: Housing opportunities for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. h.Comprehensive Plan H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate-income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that propose affordable housing units in excess of minimum City BMR program standards either in terms of number of affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. i.Housing Element Program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. Comprehensive Plan Program T-l: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing rninimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. k.Comprehensive Plan Program T-3: Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-nodal transit stations. I.Comprehensive Plan Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. Comprehensive Plan 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. o.Comprehensive PIan Program H-16: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, evaluate and improve existing incentives that encourage mixed use (with a residential component) and residential development on commercially zoned land and establish development standards that will encourage development of the maximum amount of housing permitted under the allowed density range, particularly for projects that provide affordable housing. p.Comprehensive Plan Program H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units in excess of minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of the affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. q.Comprehensive Plan Program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. r. Comprehensive Plan Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. s.Comprehensive Plan Program H-34: Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed use projects that propose more affordable housing than the minimum under the City’s BMR Program and for 100% affordable housing projects. to Comprehensive Plan Policy H-14: Support agencies and organizations that provides shelter, housing and related services to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Attached is a copy of the development program statement and development schedule as required by Sections 18.68.080 and 18.68.100 of the PC District regulations. We appreciate the City’s time and dedication on this project and look forward to working together with Staff and officials in developing such a unique development for the City of Palo Alto. Lydia Tan Executive Vice President Steven Turner Joe McCarthy Sandy Sloan Randy Popp Development Program Statement Per section 18.68.060, the following section is a description of the proposed project: a0 Necessity of the Application: As detailed by the attached letter, the PC application is necessary in order to develop the site for the proposed residential use. The zoning restrictions under the sites’ current zoning and other comparable City zoning regulations do not support a viable design and development to support a quality living environment along with high density, entry-level and affordable housing. Uses Proposed: Through this PC appIication, the applicant proposes to change the current office and light manufacturing use designation to a residential use. The applicant proposes to build approximately 159 housing units (approximately 216,757 square feet) on the 4-acre parcel adjacent to the existing Space Systems/Loral facilities. C0 Description of Uses: BUILD, LLC and BRIDGE Housing Corporation intend to develop a 4 acre site at 901 San Antonio Road into a 103 unit townhouse community and a 56 unit affordable senior rental community. Both projects will be adjacent to and share a main entry with the 8.5 acre TKCJL project currently being designed. The surrounding uses, sites, orientations, and market were considered when developing the site plan and the units. 103 Unit For-Sale Townhouse Community The two and three story townhouse-style condominiums will sit on a single level garage with the exception of several units resting at grade along the shared drive. Units at the first level along the shared drive are one and two bedroom fiats with two story townhouses above. The garage will provide ample, secure parking and convenient access to homes and open space above. All construction will be at or above existing predominant grade and will meet all requirements of the AE8 flood zone. The 103 unit development includes 5 one bedrooms, 35 two bedrooms, 48 three bedrooms and 15 four bedrooms. The homes will range in size from 750 square feet to 1,980 square feet. Homes will include a spacious living area, open kitchen with quality energy efficient appliances and private open space in the form of a fenced front or backyard. The two and three level buildings will be wood frame construction either located over a concrete podium or at grade above a crawl space. 8 The center of the development includes a Iarge landscaped common area filled with raised grass planters positioned to maximize exposure to full sun. Fluid landscaped pathways leading from the common area provide private access to each home. The verdant landscape planting is a critical component of the townhouse community as it helps provide a unique identity for the project and also compensates for most of the open space, common and private, being situated on top of a podium. The landscape areas on each side of the project on grade have specific roles to perform. A line of tress along the north property line screens views from the residences of the roofs of the Loral industrial facilities. The planting of terraces along the Shared Drive support a residential street quality but also reinforce the formality of the TKCJL entry experience. The planting along the east side of the site unifies the entire San Antonio Road frontage with a landscape that is scaled to the passing vehicIe and creates a distinguished experience for this entrance to Palo Alto. The 2 and 3 story massing fuses contemporary architecture with traditional materials like hardi-board siding. The orientation of the units will allow ample light to reach each unit and take advantage of the foothill views to the East. In order to promote quality urban design and encourage a sense of neighborhood scale, townhouses with stoops and porches are located along the shared drive. 56 Unit Senior Affordable Community The affordable senior community is envisioned as a unique development consisting of 56 apartments and shared common spaces within a contemporary low-rise building fronting Fabian Way. The development will include a multipurpose community room, management and leasing offices, laundry facilities, a generous lobby/living room space and an outdoor courtyard suitable for community events and activities. The building is organized as four stories over grade, with community spaces clustered on the ground level, and residential units stacked along double-loaded corridors. ’ Residents will be able to take advantage of an elegant rear courtyard with private seating areas and reception space, direct access onto a shared podium with the townhome community, and a landscaped pedestrian area along the Fabian Way frontage. Convenient access to secure parking for residents and ample visitor parking is located in the garage shared with the townhouse community. Like the townhouse community the development will have a contemporary design, incorporating a limited variety of different facade materials, generous windows, and fine detailing. First floor apartments will include individual stoops/entry-ways that engage the street level and encourage pedestrian activity, particularly along Fabian Way. The building’s lobby and associated elevator core will be structured as an elegant "tower" element that pops above the building’s roofline, anchoring the entryway lobby, and providing the building with a readily identifiable presence. The 56 units will include 3 studio apartments at 475 square feet, 52 one bedrooms at 650 square feet, and 1 two bedroom manager’s unit at 800 square feet. All units will have comfortable living/dining areas, contemporary kitchens, and private decks overlooking either the landscaped rear courtyard or Fabian Way. Unit layout and design will include universal design elements that assist seniors as they age in place, with a portion of the units reserved for households with mobility restrictions. All units will be restricted to seniors at very-low income affordability levels, with a minimum of thirty units reserved exclusively for extremely-low income (30% or less of area median income) affordability levels. Landscape areas for the senior community are located at the front and back of the building, and the character of the planting and design corresponds accordingly. Planting on Fabian Way is ordered to establish a formal separation between the public sidewalk and vehicular traffic and define entrances to individual units. The landscape in back takes advantage of its protected location to create a densely planted environment that is common space for all the senior residents and visitors to the facility, and offers a tranquil and immersive garden experience. do Unit Information: The for-sale component of the project will include 5 one bedrooms, 35 two bedroom units, 48 three bedroom units and 15 four bedrooms. The unit sizes range from 700 square feet to 1,800 square feet. Based on the current market, prices are expected to range from the mid $400,000’s to the mid $800,000’s. The senior affordable project will include 3 studio apartments at 475 square feet, 52 one bedrooms at 650 square feet, and I two bedroom manager’s unit at 800 square feet. Based on the current market, we anticipate rental prices will range from $400 to $800 per month. 10 Development Schedule In compliance with Section 18.68.100, the following is the proposed development schedule for the project: (a)Target Dates: The applicant is assuming the processing of the project will take 6 months. This time period includes circulation and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approvals from the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and the City Council. Building permit issuance is anticipated for the first phase of the project in March 2007. Demolition, grading and construction are expected to take 15 months with project completion of phase I in April 2008. (b)Phasing: The 159 units will be completed as two projects: a 104 unit townhouse community and a 56 unit senior affordable rental community. The developer anticipates phasing the townhouse community over three phases with the entire podium garage completed as part of phase I. The senior affordable rental development will be completed separately in a single phase. The applicant anticipates the need to obtain a significant amount of public funds in order to accomplish the senior affordable rental development. Potential sources of funding include low income tax credits and/or HUD program funds. However, due to the funding cycles and existing competition for limited public funds, the applicant anticipates that completion of this phase is likely to occur no sooner than late 2008. 11 Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Sections Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Housing Element Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. Housing Element Policy H-2: Conservation and maintenance of Palo Alto’s existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods. Housing Element Goal H-3: Housing opportunities for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. Housing Element Policy H-14: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing and related services to very low, low and moderate income households. Housing Element Program H-1 Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of the existing density range for sites along San Antonio Road. Housing Element Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. Housing Element H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate-income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that propose affordable housing units in excess of minimum City BMR program standards either in terms of number of affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. Housing Element program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. 12 Housing Element Program H-18: Encourage the development of housing on or over parking lots adopting incentives that will lead to housing production while maintaining the required parking. Comp Plan Program T-l: Encourage infiI1, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. Comp Plan Program T-3: Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-nodal transit stations. Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Policy 78: Encourage Development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. 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-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments. Goal H-l: A Supply of affordable and Market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional .housing needs. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. Program H-l: Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit stations by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of existing density range for sites within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned transit station or along two major transit corridors, E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road, wherever appropriate. Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion of non- 13 residential land to residential or mixed use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversions. Program H-6: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, create zoning incentives that encourage the development of diverse housing types, such as smaller, more affordable units and two- and three-bedroom units suitable for families with children. Consider using a "form" code to achieve these objectives. Program H-14: Rezone, where necessary those sites identified on the housing Site Inventory, using appropriate residential or mixed use zoning districts, prior to 2004. Program H-16: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, evaluate and improve existing incentives that encourage mixed use (with a residential component) and residential development on commercially zoned land and establish development standards that will encourage development of the maximum amount of housing permitted under the allowed density range, particularly for projects that provide affordable housing. Program H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, aIlow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units in excess of minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of the affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. Program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Program H’34: Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed use projects that propose more affordable housing than the minimum under the City’s BMR Program and for 100% affordable housing projects. Program H-36: Implement the City’s "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program by requiring that al least 15% of all housing units in projects of five units or more, be provided at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate- income households. Projects on sites of five acres or larger must set aside 20 percent of all units as BMR units. 14 Program H-38: Adopt a revised density bonus program ordinance that allows the construction of up to three additional market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally required, up to a maximum zoning increase of 50 percent in density. Allow an equivalent increase in square footage (Floor Area Ratio) for projects under this program. The revised density bonus program will meet State standards for the provision of housing units for very low- and lower-income renters, seniors ands moderate income condominium buyers incompliance with Government Code Section 65915. Program H-39: Encourage the use of flexible development standards and creative architectural solutions in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component. The intent of this program is to allow individual projects to develop* individual solutions to create an attractive living environment both for the project and adjacent development and to address specific project needs, such as the provision of open space. Policy H-14: Support Agencies and organizations that provides shelter, housing and related services to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. 15 Mortgage Assistance Program - Program Description 901 San Antonio Road Loan Amount: $25,000 to $100,000 per applicant Interest Rate: 3%, simple interest Term: 30 years Repayment Requirements: Interest only payments for first 10 years of loan, fully amortizing for the remainder of the term. At any time during loan term, proceeds from refinance with cash out or sale of property must be used to pay principal and accrued interest due in full. Principal and interest also due immediately if the home is no longer owner occupied. No prepayment penalty. Eligible Borrowers: The goal of this program is to try and alleviate the jobs-housing imbalance by providing opportunities for Palo Alto based workers to live in or near Palo Alto. Eligible borrowers are as follows: First preference for City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District Employees, with employee status verified as of the date of application and close of escrow; Second preference for households in which at least one member works in Palo Alto, with employee status verified as of the date of application and close of escrow; Third preference for households in which at least one member works in a neighboring city or unincorporated area within a 3 mile radius, with employee status verified as of the date of application and close of escrow; Fourth preference for all other households; Program is targeted to households earning from 100% to 150% of area median income. Maximum eligible household income will not exceed 200% of area median income; Home must be owner occupied. Annual certification attesting to this must be provided by borrower; 21 Process for determining maximum sales price will be agreed upon between BRIDGE and the City prior to launch of program; Current homeowners are eligible only if they are moving from outside the City to Palo Alto. Otherwise limited to buyers who have not been homeowners for the last 5 years. Eligible Geography: Homes can be purchased in jurisdictions that are in close proximity and thus will help alleviate traffic impact, which would be later defined but is intended to be jurisdictions and unincorporated county areas within a 3 mile radius. Program Amount: Program will be funded at $500,000. Loan repayment proceeds will be re-invested into the program. Pro~am Term: Mortgage Assistance Program is a revolving fund that will be in existence for 30 years, to the extent funds continue to revolve and be available for re- investment. Pro~am Administration: Program materials and documents will be prepared Bridge and administered by HomeBricks, an affiliate of BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Annual reports of program activity will be submitted to the City. Additional Program Funding From Other Sources: BRIDGE and HomeBricks will cooperate with the City to seek additional funding for the second mortgage program from outside sources such as charitable donations, developer contributions and State or local grants. 22 TO: Attachment K PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Steven Turner, Senior Planner Curtis Williams, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment AGENDA DATE: March 29, 2005 SUBJECT:901 San Antonio Road: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community (PC) applications for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) projects. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission: Accept public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); Close the public hearing; and Forward comments on the DEIR and direct the consultant and staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION Planning and Transportation Commission Review of DEIR The purpose of this hearing is to accept public testimony and Commission comments on the DEIR that has been prepared for this site and the associated projects. Subsequent to public testimony and Commission comments, along with the written comments submitted on the DEIR during the 45-day public review period, a Final EIR/Response to Comments will be prepared by the EIR consultant and staff. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) will review the project merits for the proposed BUILD and CJL Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community applications at a subsequent public hearing. It is expected that this project hearing will be held in approximately 60 days. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Site Information The project area is located at 901 San Antonio Road. The project area is bounded by San Antonio Road to the east, Charleston Road to the south, Fabian Way to the west, and the Space Systems/Loral facility to the north. The northem four-acre parcel or BUILD site is owned by BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD), and the southern 8.2-acre parcel (CJL site) is owned by the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL), a joint project/consortium of the Albert L. Schultz Jewish Community Center, the Jewish Community Federation and the Jewish Home. The original 12.2- acre parcel was approved for subdivision by the City Council, with recommendation from the Planning & Transportation Commission, on March 3, 2003. City records, such as the Record of Land Use Action and previous staff reports pertaining to the decision, are available for review upon request. The site contains a five-story, 257,980 square foot, vacant office building, previously occupied by Sun Microsystems. An at-grade parking lot surrounds the building and contains parking lot trees and ground level landscaping. Automobile access to the site is provided from San Antonio Road, Charleston Road and Fabian Way. The KFC restaurant at the corner of San Antonio and Charleston Roads is an existing commercial use in operation on the project site. Comprehensive Plan The existing land use designation for the entire 12 acre project site is Light Industrial. According to the ComPrehensive Plan, Light Industrial compatible land uses include wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing and packaging of goods. Compatible residential and mixed use projects would also be compatible with the land use category, with floor area ratios up to 0.5. Zoning The subject property is located within the GM (General Manufacturing) zoning district. The GM District permits manufacturing and general business services such as cleaning and repair, bakeries, printing and publishing, construction material storage. Additional permitted uses include day care centers, administrative office services, single and multiple-family residential uses. The site development provisions of the GM District (PAMC Section 18.20.030) permit a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Residential uses are no longer permitted in the GM District, pursuant to Council revisions adopted in October of 2005. Project Description The following is a description of the land use components and the various activities associated with the project: BUILD- The project contains two separate components: The townhouse component, to be developed by BUILD, LLC, would contain 160 for-sale (market rate) units and a 315 parking space at grade garage. The townhomes would range in size from City of Palo Alto Page 2 800 square feet to 1,550 square feet in one, two and three bedroom configurations. Nine of the townhomes would face and have access to Fabian Way. Five of the townhomes would be constructed at ground level with access to the pedestrian walkway along the access driveway between the BUILD and TKCJL parcels. The remaining units would be constructed on top of the parking podium and around two central landscaped courtyards. A shared entry plaza and pedestrian entry stairs from the main access driveway would also be provided on the south side of the two buildings. The senior housing component, to be developed by BRIDGE Housing Corporation, is a four- story building containing 66 studio and one bedroom apartment units, including a single two bedroom unit for the on-site manager. The units would range in size from 650 square feet to 850 square feet. The units would be organized around an internal courtyard and extend to approximately 56.5 feet in height. A direct pedestrian connection with the TKCJL: site is expected. All units would be restricted to seniors at low and very low income affordability levels. CJL-The project contains the following components: Jewish Community Center of approximately 130,000 square feet. Uses within these buildings include a 380-seat cultural hall, teen center, activity areas, preschool and after school facilities, a caffi, meeting rooms, administrative offices, commercial uses, and maintenance facilities. Recreation facilities would include two swimming pools, a fitness center and a sports field. The buildings for these uses would be constructed over. a podium garage.. Jewish Senior Residences, including 180 senior residential housing for senior congregate care and assisted living. The total floor area of the residential uses would be approximately 287,000 square, feet. Parking garage containing 615parking spaces. The garage would be constructed "at-grade" as the site is located within a flood zone. Below-grade structures would not be allowed. The community center and senior housing would be constructed on a podium platform above the parking garage and above the eight-foot flood zone boundary. Automobile driveways and on-site circulation elements will facilitate organized and efficient movement of vehicles, pedestrians and deliveries to and from the site. Access to the site would be provided from San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, and Fabian Way. A landscape plan that would create a sequence of linked open spaces at the podium level, provide screening and security at the ground level, and serve to enhance the transitional areas for pedestrians at the stairways and lightwells between grade and the podium level. Proposed Planning Applications/Permits The project sponsor has filed the following applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment- A Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including City of Palo Alto Page 3 Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Planned Community Zoning- In accordance with the requirement of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18.68 (Planned Community districts), the applicants have submitted development program statements, development schedules, and the proposed findings for the establishment of PC districts. The findings include a description of the proposed public benefits, which include the senior housing project component containing on both projects for low and below market rate rental units. The PC process was initiated by the P&TC on December 1, 2004 for the BUILD project and on September 14, 2005 for the TKCJL project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for this site by David J. Powers & Associates, with staff assistance, encompassing both the BUILD and CJL projects. The DEIR also considers the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR." The Program EIR component of the DEIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project-specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the DEIR deals with the project- specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. The DEIR was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Notice of Preparation/EIR Scoping Process In December of 2004, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was made available for public review, indicating the City’s intent to prepare an EIR and soliciting input regarding the issues to be addressed. In addition, these documents were distributed to local and state agencies, as well as interested groups, for review and comment. As part of the required 30-day public review period, City staff held a public scoping meeting on December 9, 2004 for members of the public to comment on the assessment. Due to project changes, revised Notices of Preparation were distributed in March of 2005 and October of 2005. The Notices and responses are included in Appendix A of Volume 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review on February 17, 2006. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, a minimum 45-day public review period is required and the comment period will close on April. 3, 2006. The Notice of City of Palo Alto Page 4 Availability for the DEIR is contained in Attachment A. Written comments received by the Planning Division this far are contain in Attachment B. A brief summary of the DEIR format, content and the significant environmental and policy issues addressed in the DEIR is provided as follows. Format and Content The DEIR consists of two volumes. Volume I is the EIR text and Volume II contains a number of technical appendices to support the analysis in the DEIR. Volume I is organized, pursuant to CEQA requirements, as follows: The Summary of the DEIR includes a project description, a table of potential impacts and mitigation measures, and brief discussion of required EIR contents. Section I (Introduction) includes a general overview of the CEQA process, public participation, and an outline of the contents of the DEIR. Section II (Description of the Proposed Project) provides a detailed outline of the project characteristics of both projects, the objectives of the projects, conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and other plans, and a description of the approvals required. Section III (Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation) provides an extensive evaluation of all of the potential environmental impacts of the project. This section discusses the Program-level impacts and mitigation related to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Project-level impacts and mitigation measures for each of the projects. Section IV (Cumulative Impacts) discusses the cumulative environmental effects of the project along with other pending and future development in the area. Section V (Growth Inducing Impacts) addresses the ways in which the proposed projects could foster economic, population or housing growth in the surrounding area. Section VI (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) identifies a range of alternatives to the project that may reduce or avoid project impacts, but which still attain most project objectives. Section VII (Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes) discusses the irreversible commitment of natural resources that could occur as a result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Section VIII (Significant Unavoidable Impacts) lists the significant unavoidable impacts that could result if the proposed projects are implemented. Section IX (References) lists the references, persons and organizations consulted during preparation of the DEIR (note that references not included in Volume II are generally available at the City). Section X (Authors and Consultants) outlines the City of Palo Alto staff and consultants who participated in preparation of the DEIR. Environmental Analysis (Impacts and Mitigation Measures) The following discussion outlines each topic for which one or more significant impacts were identified and mitigation measures were required. Environmental topics for which all impacts were determined to be "less than significant," cumulative impacts, and alternatives reviewed are als0 discussed. For each section of the DEIR, "Program-level" impacts and mitigation measures are outlined to address the Coriaprehensive Plan Amendment. "Project-level" impacts and City of Palo Alto Page 5 mitigation measures are then discussed to be applied to the BUILD and CJL projects. 1. Transportation Transportation impacts are addressed in Section III-B of the DEIR. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by the transportation firm of Korve Engineering (Appendix B), based on staff direction and an updated version (2005) of the City’s traffic model. This model estimates traffic conditions through 2015 and reflects local traffic growth associated with approved and .known projects. The model’s forecasts also incorporate the regional land use data projected by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for municipalities throughout the County, including neighboring cities such as Mountain View, where projects may have an impact on traffic within Palo Alto. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant transportation impacts under the Project analysis conditions and proposed mitigation measures: a. Traffic volumes at the Charleston/Alma intersection at the P.M. peak hour Mitigation: Implementation of a traffic adaptive signal program along the Charleston- Arastradero corridor b. Safety impacts at the mid-block crosswalk on Fabian o. Mitigation: Design and safety improvements to the crossing c. Queuing and safety impacts from left turn movements into and out of the site from Charleston Mitigation: Prohibit left turns or provide left turn lane (if found feasible in light of the available right-of-wayand the City’s design plans for the subject roadway segment) d. Queuing and safety impacts from the loading dock along San Antonio Road near the Charleston intersection ~ Mitigation: Relocate loading dock with access from Fabian .. e. Inadequate on-site parking during special events ¯Mitigation: Monitoring, notification of events, and off-site parking agreements (if necessary) The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 2.Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration impacts are addressed in Section III-C of the DEIR. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant noise and vibration impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the projects: a. Excessive interior noise levels (from industrial use and traffic) in the residential units Mitigation: Building design to reduce noise to 45 dB or less b. Excessive exterior noise levels (from industrial use and traffic) in the residential and community areas Mitigation: Building design, walls and other measures to shield outdoor use areas c. Excessive noise during construction City of Palo Alto Page 6 do Mitigation: Limited hours of construction, equipment controls Excessive vibration during construction . Mitigation: Equipment controls, coordination, with Loral Systems The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 3. Air Quality Air quality impacts are addressed in Section III-D of the DEIR. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant air quality impact and proposed mitigation measure for the project: ao Excessive dust from construction activities Mitigation: Implementation of dust control measures prescribed by Air Quality Management District The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards and hazardous material impacts are addressed in Section III-E of the DEIR. The analysis relies heavily on environmental assessments prepared for the site and on Risk Management Plans that require review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the projects: a. Potential releases of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from groundwater or soil contamination (CJL site) on or adjacent to residential uses ’ Mitigation: Implementation of Risk Management Plan measures b. Accidental releases oftoxics from adjacent industrial uses on residential uses Mitigation: Hazard Assessment and, Emergency Preparedness plans (Fire Department) The Risk Management Plans (RMPs) require implementation of an extensive array of measures, such as the provision of vapor barriers, ventilation, dewatering during construction, plan reviews, protection and abandonment of wells, monitoring and reporting, public disclosures, and contingency plans and funding. The Risk Management Plan for the CJL site also includes on-site remediation of contaminated soil on the site. The RMPs are enforceable by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Palo Alto. The Hazard Assessment and Emergency Preparedness planning would require the submittal of Shelter in Place and Evacuation Plans for residents and other users of the site, in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials. The plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 5. Hydrology and Flooding Hydrology and flooding impacts are addressed in Section III-F of the DEIR. The DEIRoutlines the following potential Significant hydrology and flooding impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the projects: ao Increased stormwater runoff in excess of the capability of the stormwater system Mitigation: On-site detention and runoff controls to result in no net increase Potential water quality impacts from increased runoff Mitigation: Design and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to treat runoff prior to discharge from site The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 6. Biological Resources Biological resource impacts are addressed in Section III-G of the DEIR. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant biological resource impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the projects: a. Disturbance of nesting birds Mitigation: Pre-construction surveys, limitations on construction periods, and protective measures b. Disturbance of.~roosting bats Mitigation: Pre-construction surveys, limitations on construction periods, and protective measures The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. 7.Cultural Resources Cultural resource impacts are addressed in Section III-J of the DEIR. The DEIR outlines the following potential significant cultural resource impact and proposed mitigation measures for the projects: ao Potential disturbance of archaeological resources from site excavation and grading Mitigation: Pre-construction surveys, on-site monitoring, and notification of archaeological finds. The DEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant levels. Project Effects Determined To Be Less than Significant City of Palo Alto Page 8 Based on the evaluation in the DEIR, it was determined that the projects would not result in significant environmental effects for several environmental resources. For each of those, the DEIR analysis found that existing City regulations and/or review processes are adequate to avoid significant impacts. Impacts were determined to be less than significant for the following resource areas: 1) Land Use (see discussions of Noise and Hazards and Hazardous Materials for related impacts, however); 2) Geology, Soils and Seismicity; 3) Visual Resources and Aesthetics; 4) Utilities and Service Systems; 5) Population and Housing; 6) Public Facilities and Services; and 7) Energy. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were evaluated based on the .City’s list of approved and pending projects outlined in Table 32 of the DEIR, as well as on overall regional traffic growth for the transportation analysis. Cumulative impacts for most resources, such as visual or biological resources, are found to be less than significant. The cumulative impact of the numerous projects on transportation, however, results in substantial operating delays and/or deterioration in level of service at four intersections, even with the implementation of the traffic adaptive signal system approved for the Charleston-Arastradero corrdior. The impact of this project to that total, however, is relatively small. Additional improvements required to reduce the overall cumulative impacts to less than~ significant levels are outlined in an appendix to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix B) in Volume II of the DEIR. The City has previously found (in the Comprehensive Plan and more recently, in the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Study), that some of these improvements are not feasible and would conflict with the City’s policies for protection of neighborhoods and facilitation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The City’s traffic engineer, however, will evaluate the identified improvements to determine if any potential alternatives are feasible for implementation to at least partially mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts. The projects will be required to pay their fair share contributions towards the design and implementation of the feasible mitigations, which will be addressed as conditions of approval. Unavoidable Si~nificant Adverse Effects CEQA requires that the DEIR identify and discuss significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The DEIR concludes that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. Alternatives Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIR is re,quired to review alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives are presented and analyzed in Chapter VI of the DEIR. A total of four project alternatives were prepared (Alternatives A through E). Alternatives were derived from analysis of opportunities to reduce potential significant impacts identified in Chapter III. For each alternative, a brief comparison of the potential impacts is made to theproject impacts, as well as an assessment of the feasibility of the alternative. The following is a brief summary 6f the project alternatives that were developed and analyzed in the DEIR: City of Palo Alto Page 9 Alternative A: No Project Alternative. A "No Project" alternative is required to be assessed under the provisions of CEQA. Alternative B: Reduced Scale Alternative. This alternative presents a project with the number of residential units and amount of other floor space reduced by 40%. This option would eliminate the project,traffic impact at Charleston/Alma intersection in the P.M. peak hour, but would otherwise have most of the same project impacts and would require virtually all of the proposed mitigation measures. Alternative C: Building Height Alternative. This alternative would limit the height of structures on both sites to comply with height and setback requirements, with reductions of about 25% of the residential units and 8.5% of space for other uses. While project impacts would be reduced, none would be reduced below a level of significance and all of the proposed mitigation measures would still be required. Alternative D. BUILD Design Alternative. This alternative represents an option outlined by BUILD to eliminate approximately 66 units from the original proposal, and to relocate the senior housing component to the Fabian Way side of the site. Again, project impacts would be reduced, but not to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative must be identified, other than the No Project Alternative. The Reduced Scale Alternative is indicated to be the environmentally superior alternative, based on the avoidance of the significant traffic impact at the Charleston/Alma intersection. Final Emzironmental Impact Report (DEIR) Subsequent to the completion of the public review period on April 3, 2006, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) will be prepared and will accompany the project applications to the Commission and then to the City Council. Written responses will be provided to all comments submitted in writing or at this public hearing, as part of the FEIR. Proposed Revisions to Pro/ects BUILD representatives have indicated that Alternative D (BUILD Design Alternative) is.now their preferred development plan, have submitted detailed plans to staff, and have presented the plans to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review. This plan would reduce the total number of residential units (from 226) to 159. CJL has recently indicated in a letter to the City that it wishes to add 13 residential units to its project and a small amount of additional square footage to the community uses on thesite. Also, at the ARB review of these projects, some of the building and site features have been modified from the plans depicted in the EIR. Staff and the EIR consultant believe that these changes should be addressed in the Final EIR by revising the project description and the analysis sections accordingly to reflect the revised project, and to delete Alternative D. The net changes appear to reduce impacts, but further City of Palo Alto Page 10 project, and to delete Alternative D. The net changes appear to reduce impacts, but further analysis will be required to confirm that conclusion. NEXT STEPS Following preparation of the Final ElR/Response to Comments document, and subsequent to ARB review and recommendation on the project, the Planning andTransportation Commission will conduct a public hearing(s) on the project applications, and will recommend approval or denial to the City Council. The City Council will then review the Final EIR/Response to Comments and the planning applications for final action. ATTACHMENTS A.Notice of Availability B.Emai! from Michelle Rembaum, CEPA & CRWQCB, dated March 22, 2006 COURTESY COPIES Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stem, Campus for Jewish Life ’Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Interested Parties PREPARED BY:Steven Turner, Senior Planner Curtis Williams, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Andy Coe, Interil Director City of Palo Alto Page 11 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 329-2441 NOTICE OF A VAILABILITY AND COMPLETION SCH#2004112108 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project located at 901 San Antonio Road. The DEIR will be available for a 45.day public review period starting on February 17, 20!)6, and ending at 5:00 p:m. on April 3, 2006. All written comments on the DEIR must be received at the Planning Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment on the fifth floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, by 5:00 p.m. on April 3,2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) will take public testimony on the DEIR at a public hearing on March 29, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers on the first floor of City Hall. A public hearing notice will be distributed prior to the P&TC hearing. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will consider the DEIR at a public hearing on April 6, 2006, at 8:00 a.m., in the City Council Chambers on the first floor of City Hall. Project Title:901 San Antonio Road Project Project Location: 901 San Antonio Road Project Description: The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of two properties totaling approximately 12.5 acres in the City of Palo Alto. The northern 4-acre parcel is owned by BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) and the southern 8.5-acre parcel (CJL site) is owned by the Campus for Jewish Life (CJL), a joint project/consortium of the Albert L. Schultz Jewish Commu.nity Center, the Jewish Community Federation and the Jewish Home. Several discretionary actions are.requested including: 1) a CompreheJasive Plan amendment for the entire area (12.5 acres); 2) a project level Planned Community (PC) Development rezoning and major subdivision on the 4=acre BUILD site; 3) a project level PC Development ¯ rezoning and subdivision on the 8.5-acre CJL site; 4) variances for allowed building heights of up to 56.5 feet ~ on the BUILD site and up to 58 feet on the CJL site; and 5) a Development Agreement for the CJL site. BUILD proposes to construct 226 residential units on four acres of the site. CJL proposes to construct 180 units of assisted living and congregate care residential units for seniors, a 113,000 square-foot community center, and a 17,000 square-foot preschool facility. Significant Environmental Effectsi The Draft EIR identifies significant impacts in the areas of transportation, noise, air quality .(construction), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, biological resources and cultural resource. Lead Agency:City of PaloAlto, California Loaner Copies Available at:City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor M-F (8-12; 1-5 PM) except on the closed Fridays Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue M-F (8-12; 1-4 PM); W (9-12; 1-4 PM) Copies for Review Only at:All Libraries City’s Website at www.cityofpaloalto.org Review Period:February 17 through April 3, 2006 Contact Persons:Steven Turner, Project Planner, 329-2155 Amy French, Current Planning Manager, 329-2336 Submittal of Written Comments: If you wish to comment on the EIR, please submit your written comments to SieVen Turndr~ Department of Plarming and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto,."CA 94301, between the dates of February 17, 2006 and no later than April 3, 2006. ’ Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations for these meetings should notify the City of Palo Alto, 24 hours prior to the meetings at 650- 329-2550. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, March 29, 2006 REGULAR MEETING at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM Commission ers: Patrick Butt - Chair Karen Holman - V-Chair(Recused) Lee I. Lippert Paula Sandas Phyllis Cassel - absent Daniel Garber Annette Bialson Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Melissa Tronquet, Asst. City Attorney Andy Coe, Interim Deputy Director Heba E1-Guendy, Transportation Engineer Steven Turner, Senior Planner Curtis Williams, Consultant Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. Comments Regarding 901 San Antonio Road Draft Environmental Impact Report APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None Chair Burt: Good evening. At this time we would like to convene the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for Wednesday, March 29, 2006. Would the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. At this time we have an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that are not scheduled on the agenda. I do not have any speaker cards so we will go on to our first agenda item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 1 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Burt: Our first and only scheduled agenda item is Comments Regarding 901 San Antonio Road Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Planning and Transportation Commission will accept public comments this evening regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, known as the DEIR. Staff, would you like to make a presentation? NEW B USINESS: Public Hearings Comments Regarding 901 San Antonio Road Draft Environmental Impact Report: The Planning and Transportation Commission will accept public comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed 901 San Antonio Road Project (Review of the project permit requests will not be considered at this meeting). The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of two properties totaling approximately 12.5 acres in the City of Palo Alto. The northern 4-acre parcel is owned by BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) and the southern 8.5-acre parcel (CJL site) is owned by the Campus for Jewish Life (CJL), a joint project/consortium of the Albert L. S chultz Jewish Community Center, the Jewish Community Federation and the Jewish Home. BUILD proposes to construct 226 residential units on four acres of the site. CJL proposes to construct 180 units of assisted living and congregate care residential units for seniors, a 113,000 square-foot community center, and a 17,000 square-foot preschool facility. Comments on the DEIR may also be provided in writing to the City’s Planning and Community Development Department not later thanS:00 p.m. on April 3, 2006. Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: Yes, Chair and Commissioners, I will start it off. As you mentioned the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to accept public comments and questions about the adequacy of the EIR and then to have the Commission provide its comments and/or questions about the Draft EIR. Those comments will be addressed by the consultant and by Staff in a Final EIR in the Response to Comments section of the Final EIR. We will be returning to you when the projects, which in this case our Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community zonings, returns to the Commission. If you have comments on or opinions on the merits of the project itself outside of the Draft EIR those are more appropriate to be held until the projects are officially before you. Steven Turner, Senior Planner is going to give you a brief overview of the projects themselves so there is an understanding of what the EIR is based on. Nora Monette from David Powers and Associates will provide summary of the Draft EIR, its key issues, mitigation measures and alternatives. There are also representatives of the applicant here who are available for questions if there are some project questions that Staff can’t field. The procedure should be to have the Staff and consultant presentation, then open.the public hearing for comments, close it and go to the Commission for your comments. I would note that City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 2 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the comment period does close on April 3, 2006 so any written comments are still welcome after this meeting until the third. Then the Final EIR will be prepared and it will probably be at least a couple of months before the projects come back to you after ARB review and the Final EIR preparation. I will turn it over to Steven. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Thank you, Curtis. I just wanted to provide an overview of the site and the project as described in the Draft EIR. The project site is the former Sun Microsystems building on San Antonio Road. It is the parcels that surround San Antonio Road and Charleston and Fabian Way. The Sun Microsystems building as I mentioned is on the site. It is a five story, approximately a 300,000 square foot building. The site is now divided up into two smaller sites. The Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life is an eight-acre parcel and right next to it is the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development site of four acres. So we have the two sites that we are working with in the Draft EIR. As described in the EIR the BUILD project would include 160 for sale market rate townhomes and 66 senior apartment units. Also there would be a 315 parking space garage constructed at grade and it is designed to create a podium level and the top of the podium would be approximately 16 feet above grade. The townhomes and the senior apartments would be constructed on top of that podium which would be above the flood zone as the site is in the flood zone. So constructing those units on the podium would bring them outside of the flood zone. There are also townhomes that are facing Fabian Way and the shared BUILD/CJL driveway. Those units would be placed in front of the parking podium facing Fabian and the driveway. The orientation of the buildings creates opportunities for landscape courtyard in the interior of the site. So that is the BUILD. For the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life there are a couple of programs within that project. There is the Jewish Community Center of approximately 130,000 square feet and that would include a 380 seat cultural hall theater, a teen center, activity areas, pre-school and after school facilities, a cafr, meeting rooms, administrative offices and maintenance facilities. There would also be recreation facilities including swimming pools, a fitness center and a sports field. The second component is the Jewish Senior Residences, which include 180 senior residential housing for congregate care and assisted living. The total floor area of those residential uses would be about 287,000 square feet. The Campus for Jewish Life project would also include a parking garage again constructed at grade and designed to create a podium. That would contain about 615 spaces. The Jewish Community Center and Jewish Senior Residence would again be constructed on top of the podium outside of the flood zone. There is a landscape plan that would create a series of linked open spaces at that podium level providing screening and security for the ground level and enhancing transitional areas for a pedestrian going up the stairways from grade to the project site. Both projects are requesting a Planned Community zone district, which would also include a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from a change of Light Industrial, which it is now to Mixed Use. That concludes that brief project summary. We can hand it offto Nora Monette of David Powers and Associates to describe the environmental Review and process for the project. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 3 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Nora Monette, Senior Project Manager, David Powers and Associates: Good evening. Our firm assisted the City with preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 901 San Antonio project. This evening I would like to take the opportunity to briefly describe the environmental review process and summarize some of the key environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to allow mixed use on the entire site and two specific development projects a residential project proposed by BUILD and a community center and senior assisted living and congregate care project proposed on the part of the site owned by the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, also referred to as CJL. Each of the projects are proposed to be developed under a Planned Community or PC zoning for the specific development projects, variances for allowed building heights are also proposed. The Comprehensive Plan change and two PC zonings on the 901 San Antonio site were addressed together because the projects are adjacent to each other, share some entrances and generally have environmental effects, which can be mitigated in similar ways. The EIR serves as both a program level document and a project specific EIR. Both program level and project specific mitigation measures are identified in the EIR. This is necessary because the proposal evaluated in the EIR includes this amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Once approved, a change in the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan for a particular piece of property will continue to be in effect independent of any associated Planned Community zoning and whether or not a particular property owner chooses to implement the zoning at a particular point in time. Implementation of the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan as addressed in the context of the policies and programs in Comprehensive Plan as well as other regulations and these regulations may include the City’s ordinances and laws and regulations o~ regional, state and federal agencies. As identified in the EIR these policies, laws and regulations would apply in the event of future development other than that that is currently being considered in the two Planned Community zonings. Any future development other than that that is addressed in the EIR would need subsequent project level environmental review. Significant impacts of the project include transportation, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and possible impacts to air quality, noise and vibration impacts, biological resources impacts, cultural resources and water quality impacts during the construction phase. To go over a few of these key issues the BUILD and CJL projects would result in a significant level of service impact to the intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street during the PM peak hour and that is without implementation of the Charleston/Arastradero adaptive signal technology. Some possible traffic safety impacts at an existing mid-block crosswalk on Fabian Way. There are some concerns about left-turn access into and out of the CJL site from Charleston. Also there are some concerns on operation of a proposed loading dock adjacent to San Antonio Road. Also identified was that parking demand during occasional special events could possibly exceed onsite parking supply. In terms of noise impacts there are elevated noise levels near major roadways that could potentially impact the residential development. There is identified volatile organic compound contamination on and near the site. The projects would allow residential uses near or adjacent to industrial uses that use hazardous materials. Again, the aforementioned construction impacts City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 4 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 involving dust, noise, vibration and water quality. There also could be an impact to buried cultural resources if they are encountered on the site. At this time I would like to briefly go over some of the mitigation measures specifically for transportation, noise, hazardous materials and hydrology impacts and will refer you to the EIR 6 for some of the other mitigation measures for the other impacts. As I mentioned, mitigation to 7 reduce the impact to the Charleston Road-Alma Street intersection during the PM peak hour 8 would be implementation of the City’s traffic adaptive signal technology as recommended in the 9 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Study. The City has developed a fee program and 10 developments would pay fees to the City of Palo Alto. Improvements to the mid-block 11 crosswalk would be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community 12 Development. Regarding the left turn lanes allow turning movements at driveways on 13 Charleston Road and then also the loading dock location those features would be modified to the 14 satisfaction of the Transportation Division. The project also incorporates monitoring, 15 notification and offsite parking agreements if necessary to address parking demand associated 16 with occasional special events. In terms of noise impacts both the BUILD and CJL projects 17 would use site design to shield outdoor activity areas to the satisfaction of the Building Official 18 and Director of Planning and Community Development. For interior noise levels the designs 19 would be reviewed in a detailed acoustical analysis to assure that the buildings achieve an 20 interior day/night average noise level of 45 decibels or less. In terms of construction the hours of 21 construction would be limited in accordance with the City’s requirements and demolition 22 activities of the existing Sun building that could generate ground vibration on the adjacent 23 property will be coordinated with the adjacent users. In terms of hazardous materials both 24 project will be required to implement risk management plan measures that are enforceable by the 25 Regional Water Quality Control Board in the City of Palo Alto. The measures in the risk 26 management plans are designed to avoid or reduce exposure of future residents or users of the 27 site to volatile organic compounds that could pose a health risk if they were allowed to build up 28 in confined spaces of buildings. Measures include the provision of vapor barriers andventilation 29 of parking areas. Monitoring and contingency plans are also included in the risk management 30 plans. Another hazardous material impact that was identified is the introduction of mixed land 31 uses including sensitive residential populations adjacent to existing industrial uses and mitigation 32 would include hazard assessment and emergency preparedness planning in the form of shelter in 33 place and evacuation plans for residents and other users of the site in the event of an accidental 34 release of hazardous materials. These plans would be submitted to the Fire Department for 35 review and approval. The last item I will go over is hydrology. The project proposes to 36 incorporate onsite storm water detention to avoid increased storm water runoff that could have 37 capacity impacts on the local storm water system. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 In the EIR following the impacts and mitigations section is another important section and that is the alternatives discussion. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an EIR identify alternatives that will attain most of the basic objectives of the project but also will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. As we discussed previously significant impacts of the project include transportation, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and possible impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and water quality during construction. Alternative locations for the proposed projects were considered but none of the sites met the basic feasibility criteria especially regarding the City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 5 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 size of the sites and would not avoid or substantially reduce significant impacts. Therefore the EIR included four alternatives a no project alternative, a reduced scale alternative that would reduce the allowed development on the BUILD and CJL sites to eliminate the significant impact at Charleston-Alma, a building height alternative and a BUILD design alternative that would be reduced in scale. This alternative would reduce parking impacts and reduce but no avoid the significant impact at Charleston-Alma. As has been noted earlier by Staffthere will be an opportunity this evening to provide verbal comments on the environmental analysis and the Draft EIR and written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the City until April 3, 2006. After the 45-day circulation period that we are in right now before the Draft EIR is complete on April 3 as Staff said, a Final EIR will be prepared. This Final EIR will consist of written responses to comments received in writing and at this public hearing and any text revisions to the Draft EIR. It is important to note that any modification to the proposed projects and our mitigation measures will also be addressed in the Final EIR. A key part of this analysis will be the determination of whether any changes would result in a new significant impact not previously identified or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental effect. Once the Final EIR is prepared it will circulated for a 10day public review period and after that time the City of Palo Alto City Council may consider certification of the EIR as complete and the project approvals by the City would follow certification of the Final EIR. Thank you. Mr. Turner: Great. I just want to add a couple of follow up comments in terms of the timeline and the proposed projects. The release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was not the first major milestone for this project. In fact a number of review processes have already taken place for these two projects, the first one as I alluded to earlier was the map that created the CJL parcel and the BUILD parcel and that was completed in 2003. After that the BUILD group came before the Planning and Transportation Commission for their first initial meeting for their Planned Community process. As you are aware the Planned Community process involves a number of hearings first it is an initial meeting with the Planningand Transportation Commission, then it goes to the ARB and then it returns to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a final recommendation to the Council. BUILD completed their first Planning and Transportation Commission meeting in December 2004. Most recently the CJL project came before the Commission in August of last year. Currently, both projects are under review by the Architectural Review Board and in fact we have both projects scheduled for April 20 ARB meeting. The BUILD project is a little bit farther along in their design. They had their first ARB meeting in March and the April 20 meeting will be their second follow up meeting. The CJL project will have its first meeting with the ARB on April 20 so they are moving forward. Both projects are moving forward with projects that are slightly different than what was analyzed in the Draft EIR. I just want to briefly go over those changes. The BUILD project has been reduced in terms of the project components on the BUILD side. In the Draft EIR the document analyzed 160 for sale townhome units. That has been reduced to 103 units. On the senior housing apartment side the Draft EIR analyzed a project containing 66 senior housing apartment units and that has been reduced to 56 units. So the total site number of units in the Draft EIR was 226 now it is down to 159 units so it is a reduction of about 67 units. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 6 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 It also reduced the floor area by over 100,000 square feet so that the total square footage for the BUILD project is just a little bit over 200,000 square feet. The Campus for Jewish Life project has increased slightly. For the senior housing units in the congregative care side they have added eight units and in the assisted living side they added five units for a total of 13 additional units. So the EIR addressed a project that contained 180 units total and the new project would contain 193 units with the 13 additional units. The community center portion containing the theater and all of the community center type uses has been increased by approximately 15,000 square feet. So when you add those changes together, the BUILD plus the CJL project, the project actually reduces the total amount of square footage that would be proposed on both sites by about 90,000 square feet. The floor area is also less. The Draft EIR shows a floor area of about 1.34 and the FAR for the currently proposed project is about 1.17. So that is a summary of the changes that are there and those changes will be analyzed by the City and we will determine how those changes would affect the significant impacts and mitigation measures from the Draft EIR. Any changes to the impacts and mitigation measures will be fully described in the Final EIR document. That concludes the Staff Report. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of the Staff before we hear from the public? Dan. Commissioner Garber: A question actually for the consultant. The purpose of EIRs obviously are to identify impacts in the environment. They are also to identify the least impactful solutions. How do you counsel cities when there are significant impacts on the environment which are actually to the benefit of the city, i.e., they may not be in supporting what the EIR is supposed to identify which is assuming the best solution is the least impactful ones. Presumably there are impacts, which have significant impact to the city but they are beneficial or net benefits. Ms. Monette: Beneficial impacts can be identified in an EIR. They are actually more commonly done in federal document’s environmental impact statements. Could you give an example of what you are thinking is a beneficial impact like in terms of housing? Commissioner Garber: Sure, housing although not that it is specific to this project say an intersection that has no light and it needs to be improved and that improvement does occur and it is a significant impact to that intersection but the reality is it is a net benefit to the city. Is that identified? Is that a part of what should be in the EIR? Ms. Monette: Well, in the mitigation section if there is a mitigation measure that reduces the impact generally the extent to which that mitigates the impact is identified. For the example on traffic if the mitigation, you would generally list the change to the level of service by that mitigation and then you could see whether it was better than it was before or certainly back to what the existing setting is. Commissioner Garber: That will do for the moment. Thank you. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 7 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burr: Thank you. At this time we will open the public hearing and so far I only have one card. I presume that we have other audience members who would like to speak. Now I am up to four. We encourage you to go ahead and get your cards in place so that we can plan ahead. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to speak. Maybe Staff can for the Commission and the public go over one more time the ground rules for this evening and what is relevant in the comments just in the context of what we are reviewing tonight. Mr. C. Williams: What we are reviewing tonight is the adequacy of the Draft EIR to provide you with the environmental information that you need to in the future make a decision on the project. So to the extent that there is information that was not fully developed or appears to be inaccurate those kinds of comments are right on target. If it is an issue that is not an environmental issue but it is more directed at the project or your particular opinion about whether something should be done or not that is more relevant to the project review when it comes back before you and directly to the Draft EIR. The responses on the environmental issues will be back to you as well with the project review. Chair Butt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a procedural question. April 6 is when the Architectural Review Board will be reviewing the Draft EIR, am I correct? Mr. Turner: No, they will be reviewing both projects on April 20 but this is the official public hearing for the Draft EIR. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but as I read through the document here it said that April 6 the Architectural Review Board will be reviewing or looking at the Draft EIR. Is that correct? Mr. Turner: Well, that is correct on the notice that is there but in fact they are simply reviewing the projects on the 20th and will not be holding an official public hearing on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, the question I have is will the comments tonight be forwarded to the ARB for their review in the context of the EIR? Mr. Turner: Yes, we can certainly make the ARB aware of the comments received tonight both by the Commission and members of the public. It may not be in their purview for the recommendation to act on those comments but they certainly can be made aware of them. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Burt: So, Steven, clarify for my memory if you would, ARB doesn’t formally do a review of the DEIR or the EIR, is that correct? Mr. Turner: That is correct. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 8 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burr: Then what I understood Curtis to be saying is that we and the public will have an opportunity at a later time to weigh in on the merits of the project as a whole but tonight we are focused just on the Draft EIR. Mr. Turner: Correct. Chair Butt: Great. Is this an incorrect notice that Lee has just shared with me? On the back of our report, second page from the back, the second paragraph down says the ARB will consider the DEIR on April 6. So does that notice need to be corrected? Mr. Turner: No. That sentence probably should not have been in the notice. The official review of the Draft EIR is happening tonight which was correctly noticed in the document. Chair Burt: Thank you. Our first speaker is Penny Ellson to be followed by Earl Caustin. Ms. Penny Ellson, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am Chair of the Green Meadow Community Association Civic Affairs Committee. This statement has been approved by the Green Meadow Board of Directors. I would like to start by thanking the applicant for their outreach to our community and for their support of the CharlestordArastradero plan. A good working relationship has been established between our organizations and we hope that this will continue into the future. Further we hope that our comments will contribute constructively to development of a project that will be a source of pride for both the applicants and our community. I am going to focus tonight on four points from the DEIR comments document that we submitted to you last night. First, we ask that the Final EIR provide information about whether or not the proposed Comp Plan amendment could or should have a sunset clause or whether the zoning changes, mixed use and PC, could or should be specific only to this project. If the proposed projects do not move forward might another developer take advantage of the significant density bonuses that would be granted by these changes without delivering the community benefits and synergistic uses that this project promises to deliver? It would be prudent, we think, to explore this possibility especially because the Comp Plan amendment changes cannot be conditioned. Second, the DEIR does not study pedestrian and bicycle LOS impacts. Green Meadow previously asked in the scoping sessions that the EIR measure impacts on pedestrian and bicycle level of service using the USDOT Bicycling Compatibility Index and the Florida DOT pedestrian model, which is the scale that was applied in the CharlestordArastradero study. We are concerned that the DEIR ignores the bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts and mitigations that were identified in the Charleston/Arastradero plan while it recommends the vehicle capacity improvements of the plan. The Comp Plan and the approved CharlestordArastradero plan do not prioritize vehicular capacity over safety and therefore pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts should be addressed in this DEIR. Further, the CharlestordArastradero plan safety mitigations should be included in the recommended mitigations of the DEIR. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 9 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Third, consistent with the DEIR recommendations Green Meadow opposes left turns in or out of the proposed Charleston driveways. Also, we would like to ask that the queue capacity of these driveways be carefully reviewed to eliminate the possibility of queuing on Charleston between the busy San Antonio and Fabian intersections. Finally, Green Meadow hopes that there will be a serious discussion about arterial access and functionality issues that we discussed in our comments. Although the Mayfield Mall and 901 San Antonio project EIRs both project incidental increases in traffic they are subtracting trips generated by the previous use that have not been on the streets in nearly a decade. In the interim background growth has filled capacity that was engineered for the previous use. The cumulative reality that we will have to live with is quite different. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Earl Caustin to be followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Earl Caustin, Palo Alto: Chairman Burt and Commissioners I am a member of the Palo Verde Residents Association. It is good to be able to speak to the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding a development a little bit earlier in the process than we have since our inception in January. I would like to say on behalf of the Palo Verde Residents Association our neighborhood, which is on the border of this new development, is quite interested in preserving the feeling and safety and walkability of our neighborhood. Traffic is a concern to us with this project in particular the ingress and egress to the newly planned development which feeds onto East Meadow Road and then onto our residential streets like Louis Road and Ross Road. These two roads do not appear to have been part of the traffic analysis. We now have Trumark and Eschelon that will be developed on East Meadow close by as well. As you can see this project and its routing maps show that there will likely be an increase in traffic in our neighborhood. We request that the developer contribute to our neighborhood traffic calming funds to fund a study and build traffic calming infrastructure, to better mitigate the natural issues a development this large will pose to our neighborhood. We want to continue to preserve the safety and enjoyability of our neighborhood. The Classic Communities project did in fact contribute some funds to traffic calming and was responsive to the needs and concerns of the Palo Verde Residents Association on that project. We hope that the same is done in this project but proportional to the much larger size of the development. Again, Louis Road, Ross Road, East Meadow will all find impacts to their traffic needs and safety needs and the quality of what it is like to be walking around and biking in our particular environment. So we look forward to the Commission and the entire rest of this project looking at the cumulative effect. There is the long-standing question of whether or not looking at each of these projects, as an individual environmental impact is the appropriate approach. There is a cumulative impact of all the projects and we would very much welcome the Commission and the City looking at this project in conjunction with the other projects in terms of cumulative impact on the neighborhood resources of our Palo Verde Residents Association area. Those would include schools, as was mentioned before, cumulatively. Those would include traffic as a result of the cumulative review of all the projects in that area. It would also include the impact on our park resource and other resources in the area. This is a very large project but it also is not the only project. If you look at the entire total of housing units that have been added City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 10 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 or plan to be added in that area it only stands to reason that they should be looked at cumulatively. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Betsy Allyn. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you. In terms of the DEIR the main concerns I have are traffic and parking. I will go through them in the report in the order they were given. First I am quite surprised that it finds that there is going to be an adverse impact only at Charleston and Alma not at Charleston and San Antonio or Charleston and Fabian. This kind of defies logic. If the DEIR is based on theoretical traffic, which would exist at the 901 San Antonio site not the actual traffic, which is zero and has been zero for years the DEIR is at fault. That is not the way the project should have been evaluated. It should be evaluated with the new traffic which will be generated not the phantom traffic which would have been generated if the site were occupied. So I strongly urge that they go back and take a look at that. Another thing that bothers me about the statement on impacts is it is unclear whether any of these impacts took into account the Charleston/Arastradero project which proposes narrowing Charleston from Fabian to Alma from four lanes to three. If the traffic impacts were based on a four-lane street and the street is changed to three lanes the DEIR must look again at traffic capacities on Charleston in that section because they are going to be significantly different than they are today. If that hasn’t been done it is a major blunder. Also the timing of when that four to three lane conversion occurs and when both BUILD and the Campus for Jewish Life are actually built and occupied are going to be different. So how is that going to be adjusted for? One of the comments I talked about is inadequate parking especially during special events at the Campus for Jewish Life. Two of the proposed mitigations are monitoring and notification of events. I can tell you based on actual experience when the Jewish Community Center was at Terman that those mitigations are totally useless. They don’t mitigate anything. The only potential mitigation is having agreements for offsite parking. NOW, people associated with the Campus for Jewish Life have said well, we will park at places like Loral. Bunk. Loral is not going to want you to park there. The only places I can identify in the area that are likely to allow parking for events are the high school which just opened almost across the street and there is a Jewish grammar school on San Antonio. I would strongly urge that you have in writing parking agreements for events from organizations and business and facilities in the vicinity of the campus, which will assure adequate off-street parking. Also, the increase in house which is proposed, the 13 units, while it doesn’t sound like much is going to cramp the parking onsite which is cramped to begin with. Adding even 13 units is going to make it even more inadequate. So I think the EIR should take a very close look at parking both for ordinary events and for special events. Then there is access to the site. On page three of the report it talks about access being allowed on three streets Charleston, San Antonio and Fabian but presentations made by people from the Campus for Jewish Life said they are going to limit the access to the site to Fabian for security reasons. So what is the real access? I would strongly urge that access especially for occupants be allowed off of San Antonio otherwise you are causing all the traffic to go down around two intersections and that is going to cause some real problems. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 11 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 In the suggested alternatives I would agree Alternative B, the reduce scale alternative, will result in fewer adverse impacts and is easier to mitigate. I would agree with the Staff and consultant’s recommendation to reject Alternative D. I don’t think that provides enough at all in terms of mitigations. I also would agree with some of the comments that have been made by others in regards to trying to get TDM and shuttles for the site. That should be part of the traffic mitigation. There is a shuttle right now that goes down to Stevenson House why not have that funded to also go up to the Campus for Jewish Life and take people to other parts of the City? There are also comments about library impacts and there will be significant impacts onthe Mitchell Park Library as a result of this development and they should be mitigated. Chair Burt: Thank you. Betsy Allyn to be followed by Bill Chapman. Ms. Betsy Allyn, Palo Alto: right off Arastradero Road. the coughs. Good evening. I live in the Green Acres II neighborhood, which is Thank you for listening to our comments through the sneezes and Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, may I preface my remarks to remind you that this massive project is being sited on a corridor that has been six years in planning with the City and the 12 contiguous neighborhoods? Charleston/Arastradero corridor has been designated a school commute corridor by the City Council unanimously. It has also been designated as an all-City school and bicycle corridor by the City Council unanimously. Ten thousand children cross it on a school day to go to 15 different schools public, private, Montessori, pre-school, daycare. It must be crossed to have access to four different City parks. The whole premise on which the Charleston/Arastradero corridor is based in totality is safety. I find no safety in this DEIR. I find only accommodationsl Transportation mitigations. One, there is great focus on automobile impacts but little discussion or none at all of safety features. Two, the use of the traffic significant signals along the corridor and most particularly at Charleston and Alma intersection as part of the CJL’s traffic mitigation is disingenuous and should not be allowed. Three, there is inadequate analysis of all impacts on pedestrian and bicycle safety. Parking mitigation. In a project of this magnitude and varied uses adequate onsite parking during special events, which could occur almost daily must be required so as to relieve congestion in the surrounding neighborhoods. Perhaps there could be some agreement reached between the City and the Campus for Jewish Life in regards to implementing a Palo Alto shuttle bus service along contiguous streets to serve the site better. Construction mitigation. All construction trucks should be required to use Fabian Way, Highway 101, San Antonio Road and Page Mill Road accesses. Hours on Charleston and Arastradero Roads limited as necessary should be allowed only between ten and three and none of the peak hours. Cumulative impacts. If the cumulative impact results in "substantial delays" and/or deterioration in level of services for intersections but is found to be "relatively small" then why the necessity City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 12 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 of increasing the intersection at Charleston and Alma? "The City has previously found that some of these improvements are not feasible and would conflict with the City’s policy for protection of neighborhoods in the facilitation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities." The answer seems to be however, that the City engineers will evaluate after the fact to partially mitigate. Strange. I also find that there could be critical concerns as to how the hazardous materials and wastes are to be handled. There are many questions. Thank you for your attention. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bill Chapman to be followed by Sally Probst. Mr. Bill Chapman, Palo Alto: Hi. I think many of you know by now that I am strongly in favor of having integrity in our school system. I will come to that in just a second, first I would like to commend Penny for having written a wonderful report, which we all have tonight. I hope in particular halfway through this that you will have a chance to read her school impact section where she talks about the bubble that is coming and the population with kids that may be expected from that. Before I say anything about schools, which will be brief, I want to mention something about traffic. In this City they do traffic studies we all know that. Some of the traffic studies are not very good and you all know that. How many of you were at the Board meeting in December? I was, I don’t know maybe some of you were. What they were talking about was the mess in front of Gunn High School where there is so much traffic because there are too many students going to Gunn High School. Then they talked about how they could mitigate that by modifying Charleston Road ad Bob Moss has talked about. They could narrow or put up lights, time the lights better but still the fact is that the City has mis-planned school traffic considerations at Gunn High School. Now, are we to feel any better when they talk about Rickey’s Hyatt development right nearby and they say, oh well, there will be impact fees? We don’t care about impact fees. We don’t care about in lieu payments. We would like our pleasant city back and that is going. Every one of these developments has a mis-analyzed traffic study saying under the carpet it goes, there will be no significant impact and then years later it is and it is too late. Now we are likely to be paying $6.0 million for studying Charleston Road to mitigate what is happening at Gunn High School if the trial test works. Now the main subject I want to talk about is schools. Right now today we are at capacity. Does anybody deny that? We are going to get further into the red with no City plan for handling it just from turnover of existing houses. No matter how worthy this project is or Charleston Classic Communities is or even Rickey’s, no matter how meritorious each of these projects is they are going to add to the kids/school imbalance in this city, which exists and is not looked at. You are right about the jobs/housing imbalance. That is not a real imbalance you should be talking about jobs/workers. If you make all the corrections you will find that we are in balance but when it comes to kids we have an imbalance and it is going to only get worse with each of these developments. You folks don’t really study that. It all gets minimized or just completely ignored. You talk about things in committee meetings and this and that but it keeps growing and if you look at the school population charts you know that what I am saying is absolutely correct. It isn’t taken seriously. Thanks a lot. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 13 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burr: Thank you. Sally Probst to be followed by Jean Wilcox. Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman and Planning and Transportation Commission. I live in Midtown and I know that this is not the time to speak about the benefits of either of these projects BUILD or CJL. That will be another time and there are several things that I will address at that time housing, economic benefits, and community benefits. Right now we are only talking about the Draft EIR. I must confess I haven’t finished reading it and so maybe my questions would be answered had I finished. Nevertheless I wanted to ask you about the possibility of including something in the EIR about working with the developer and the VTA so that there could be provision of a VTA sheker for a VTA bus. I have talked with developers in other cities and this is something that they are able to do and the VTA is very happy when they do it. This would encourage VTA bus line. Another thing I would like to ask you to look into is, and maybe this is already covered in the hazardous material, there is a plume and plumes keep moving regardless of what building goes on. Could there be some investigation of how the plume that is in the area will continue whether or not this goes forward? Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Jean Wilcox to be followed by Chuck Mousseau. Ms. Jean Wilcox, Palo Alto: Good evening, Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Sutherland Drive is a part of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, which is a triangular shaped neighborhood surrounded by Middlefield, Charleston and San Antonio Road. We are in fact probably the closest neighborhood to this proposed development and it is in that connection that I would like to address one or two of the issues. We are very concerned about possible traffic coming through our neighborhood because both Montrose and Sutherland are shortcuts to San Antonio Road. We are not only concerned about this in the long run but we are concerned about this with the construction and construction vehicles. We know that this happens because when Sun was on that site and when it was I believe Phillips before that we used to get all the traffic in the morning. We are very concerned about this. Another issue, which will affect our neighborhood, is the parking. We are concerned that our streets will be used for parking overflow. I draw to your attention the fact that when Cubberly Theater is being used in the evening we get all the overflow parking onto both Sutherland and Montrose. So we are looking at a possible large community center on this site, which will be used by the Campus for Jewish Life for evening events and we are definitely concerned about overflow parking using our streets. I am also concerned to hear from Bob Moss that Loral may not be able to offer their parking lots for evening events. Another issue for our neighborhood is noise. We are going to get noise from the theater probably at nighttime. They have talked in the past about having outside music in a courtyard, which we would be able to hear very clearly. I am concerned about that. We are concerned about the noise of construction too. If pile driving has to go on we are going to be shaken out of our shoes. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 14of33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The height is another issue which we have concerns about. First of all they talked about having to go up possibly two feet, then it went to four or five feet and now I believe we up to eight or nine feet. As a neighbor of mine said, why can’t they cut offthe top floor of those buildings? I will just offer you that. I would like to encourage both the Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD to have an egress out onto San Antonio Road so that not all the traffic leaving the site has to go up Fabian Way and then make a decision to go up Charleston or turn left onto Charleston and go up San Antonio Road. An actual fact, although I have supported the narrowing down of Charleston from its present four to three lanes I am very concerned that the narrowing down of the section between Fabian Way and Middlefield will in fact impact traffic in our neighborhood and send traffic through our neighborhood. The last issue I want to talk to you about is the hazardous material. The plume of water that they talk about does come down through our neighborhood. A neighbor who has lived there in the past, over 50 years, tells me that that is a remnant of when Adobe Creek used to go down through that neighborhood before it was diverted through the Meadow Park neighborhood opposite us. So we are very concerned about the hazardous and toxic waste and the removal of those hazardous toxic wastes. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Chuck Mousseau to be followed by Boris Foelsch. Mr. Chuck Mousseau, Palo Alto: Hi. A large part of what I wanted to say has actually been said previously by other folks and better. Specifically, I agree with the concerns that were raised by Penny Ellson and her letter about things like schools, traffic, libraries and parks. I also agree with the comments that Earl Caustin made that there is a lot of building going on in this area of the City and each of these things seems to be planned in isolation from the others. There seems be no one place where the cumulative impact is taken into account. It seems that there has to come some point where we do look at the cumulative impact of buildings like the two projects going on on Meadow Circle and the Classic Communities and now this project at San Antonio. I am going to suggest that this is probably the right time. At the very least it seems to me that an Environmental Impact Report for this project could include the results of reports from those other communities at the same time so that they can all be taken into account together. You might argue that’s unfair to this project and it is paying for the sins of other projects or something like that and that is certainly not my intention. It is my intention that we have a look at the whole of what is happening to the community in this area. It seems to me that this is a good time to do it. So my suggestion to you, my request to you, is that perhaps as an addendum to this Environmental Impact Report might be the Environmental Impact Reports from those other communities so we can look at it in its totality and see the total effect on the community. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Boris Foelsch to be followed by our last speaker, Greg Schmid. Mr. Boris Foelsch, Palo Alto: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I along with Earl Caustin, formed the Palo Alto Palo Verde Residents Association back in January largely out of concern for developments, which have already been approved. So what I am here to talk about comes out City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 15 of 33 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 the concern for some of the developments that are going on and in the context of the increased 2 density that we are seeing in the neighborhood. I for one look forward to the arrival of the CJL. 3 My wife used to work at the JCC. We have a lot of connections to that community and I know 4 from personal experience that the JCC is going to be a good resource to have there. There are a 5 lot of other things going in there so that being said, this is another big addition to the area and 6 you all of course appreciate that. I want to touch upon a few things related to that quickly. Some of which are in the DEIR in some detail and some of which aren’t. There is some mention of feeder streets particularly Meadow is mentioned Louis and Ross are not. Louis and Ross like Meadow is really important commute corridors to schools. I apologize if I am wrong I couldn’t find Louis and Ross in there as feeder streets but Meadow was on there. In any event, whether I am fight or wrong about that, I would like to emphasize my concern about children’s commute safety to schools. I have young children lots of us do in the area who are hopefully not being driven to school. I think that is actually a big contribution to the quality of life we have in the area is that we do have a very bikable neighborhood. We have the ability to get our kids to school without driving which is great. Fair Meadow, JLS, Palo Verde, Gunn High, etc., and so forth we would like to see that continue. I really hope, by the way, that the experiment with the Charleston/Arastradero corridor is successful. I am not going to use the word ’narrowing’ I think the modifications that are planned could work and I really hope they do. I don’t know if they will but I really hope they do because I bike that corridor a lot and I think that would be a really valuable thing to keep the whole bike commute safety. So if you could look at Louis and Ross as a part of this in some detail that would be great. A lot of things have been addressed really pretty well by other people so I am going to touch a few things here that other people didn’t. One is the people using CJL they are going to be a lot of young people I am sure and if they can bike there that would be great. There is some mention in the DEIR about bike lockers or racks that is all I saw. I would like to see that be something that really gets some emphasis and that it is possible and encouraged for people to bike there. That will potentially reduce the car trips we have taking people to and from activities there, which there will be a lot of I am sure no matter what. So that would be an important point I think for you guys to hit. That would actually help to preserve quality of life in the neighborhood and make it easier for everyone to benefit from the resource that is being put in there. Another thing which was mentioned in the charette results for the Meadow Circle, there were tons of them in there but one of them was the potential conversion of the fight-of-way underneath the 101 to the Baylands to a year-round resource. I think that is something you may want to look at in this context because if you think about all the people living at that site, I know that site pretty well, they have very limited access to open space from there. So if you want to walk from your house or your apartment or townhome to someplace with a little bit more green and a natural setting you are going to have a hard time doing that. The Baylands may be one good possibility. I know that would be a pretty difficult thing to try to secure because there are a lot agencies and jurisdictions and so forth involved with that but that would be a great resource not only for the people living there in the future but the people at the Trumark developments and the of course myself because I would use it all the time. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 16 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 The thing about cumulative impact that really resonates with me. We have these things going in. There is some mention in the DEIR about portable or relocatable classrooms, expansion of existing schools, opening of existing schools and so forth. Those are all the possibilities but they are all very difficult. We have existing school sites that we can convert or expansion of existing schools, there was one in here about getting back schools that had been leased out for other purposes but like the Stratford School was in that site for a couple of years. Maybe you will be able to get that back, I don’t know. The point is that the preservation of neighborhood schools is going to be something that is very difficult to do with the things that are listed here. Our neighborhood schools are really important for neighborhood cohesion and quality of life so I would like you to try to work as tightly as possible with the PAUSD on this to try to make that happen. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Greg Schmid. Mr. Greg Schmid, Palo Alto: I am a resident of South Palo Alto and a former member of the Palo Alto School Board. I know the Palo Alto Unified School District is not a party to this discussion but they are vitally interested in the outcome. In fact the district has twice the impact on its long-term fiscal health than the City does from any land use decision. Of course the district is vitally concerned with the number of students. The cumulative impact of the string of development decisions in South Palo Alto will have an impact on a district that has just publicly stated that there are no extra seats available in local neighborhood schools in the South Palo Alto part of town. Schools are a vital part of the quality of life in our community maybe the most important one in terms of the long-term health of Palo Alto. It would be an important benefit to our community if you could look at the cumulative impact of development decisions on the schools. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. close the public hearing. entering our discussion? That concludes our public comments. So at this time I would like to Commissioners, do we wish to take a quick break at this time before Okay, we will be back in about eight minutes. At this time we will reconvene the meeting. Staff would you share for the public and us the process by which Staff will respond to the public’s comments? Mr. C. Williams: Yes. There will be a transcript of this hearing so for the comments made at this meeting there will be a transcript. Those comments will be itemized, notated on the side of the transcript and then there will be a corresponding list of the response to each one of those notations so that you will actually see a comment and then a response. There are different formats for doing that and Nora could probably tell you what theirs are. Essentially, you will see each comment and a corresponding response to that in written form. That goes with the letters to each one of the comments and the letters would be itemized and enumerated with a corresponding response. Chair Burt: Thank you, Curtis. So Commissioners we have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions and to comment on the adequacy. We could intermix questions and comments or we could break those two apart. Any preferences? City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 17 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Bialson: I suggest we just allow this to flow as naturally as possible because I think ideas are going to come up as we speak. Chair Burt: That is what I suspected. So you can hoof it on intermixing questions and comments. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I just have a quick question. I heard from a lot of speakers tonight their concern about the cumulative effect of several projects taking place in South Palo Alto and how the environmental impacts of each of those projects are done separately from one another and not cumulatively. Could you speak to that perception if that perception is in fact true and what can be done to mitigate the impacts of different projects being done in a vacuum? Mr. C. Williams: We will in our responses try to respond to each one of those areas that has been brought up as far as the cumulative impacts goes. It gets back to CEQA looking at the project and its contribution to particular cumulative impacts and whether that is significant or not. The cumulative impacts are identified in a more general wayand are not required to be mitigated. The mitigation is associated with the project’s contribution and whether it is significant or not but it sounds like we need to do some more work on looking at those cumulative impacts. I think that is apparent. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had a question with regard to the reduction in the project specifically in the Bridge Housing Element. Will this EIR, if it is accepted, be permitted looking at the full build out of the units? Would that ever be permitted using the same EIR if Bridge in fact decided to build that extra 100,000 square feet? Mr. C. Williams: You mean if they went forward with what they have now and then came back later and wanted to add to that? Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Mr. C. Williams: We would have to assess at that point the adequacy of the EIR. Things change over time, circumstances change and frequently when something like that happens you do some kind of supplement or subsequent or whatever the term is for an EIR that looks at whether changes have occurred on the traffic side or whatever in terms of intervening years and makes a determination whether a new document is necessary, whether changes in the old one are necessary or whether the old one still is applicable or not but theoretically I suppose that is possible. I also want to point out that that BUILD component is almost identical to Alternative D in the document. So right now we are very comfortable with that fitting under that alternative. Essentially it is one unit difference and the orientation and all that, access and everything is .the same. So it fits well but whether they could add in the future or not would take a determination at that point in time. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 18 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I correct myself, BUILD not Bridge. Then I have one other question with regard to traffic impacts. Is this Draft EIR supplemental or complimentary to the Charleston/Arastradero study? Mr. C. Williams: This EIR should account incorporate and discuss and that should be part of the consideration of the traffic impact analysis, any other traffic studies that are applicable in the area and the Charleston/Arastradero all should be consideration that go into this EIR and I can generally say it was. It is something that was incorporated. Commissioner Lippert: Do you want to clarify that? Ms. Heba E1-Guendy, Transportation Engineer: Yes, if I may just add. The DEIR took into consideration all of the changes that are considered as part of the Charleston/Arastradero corridor improvements and this includes the narrowing of some roadway segments as well as the deployment of the signal adaptive system. With regard to the cumulative impacts all of the projects that were referenced today were included in our update of the traffic model either as approved projects for the background condition in 2010 or for the cumulative analysis for 2015. Chair Burt: Steve. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I just wanted to mention that the speaker was Heba E1- Guendy, our City Traffic Engineer, who reviews development projects and traffic engineering reports. Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: A question with regard to the ability of another project developer to use this Draft Environmental Impact Report. I am going off of Penny Ellson’s concerns with regard to making any acceptance or approval of the Environmental Impact Report or any change to the Comp Plan or any amendment to it specific to this project and this developer. Is that a possibility? Mr. C. Williams: The project would have to be pretty close to identical to what is being proposed right for it to be used by someone else otherwise they would have a separate PC application and there would be a new environmental review conducted for the project. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Do you want me to pass it on and ask later questions? Chair Burt: I think everybody can take a couple at a time. Commissioner Bialson: With regard to the hazard assessment and the emergency preparedness I realize that submission would have to be made of sort of a shelter in place and evacuation plan for the residents and that would have to be approved by the Fire Department. Are you aware whether the Fire Department would be looking specifically at this project and the large number City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 19 of 33 1 of seniors that it has being particularly vulnerable health-wise to any hazardous material release 2 plus being a little more difficult than one would anticipate in moving and evacuating? 3 4 Mr. C. Williams: I would like to take that as a comment or a question for us to address and we 5 will talk to the Fire Department about that and be sure that we address that. 6 7 Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so they .... 8 9 Mr. C. Williams: I assume they would but I think we ought to take that down and get a firm 10 response. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so when we are citing to it as a mitigation the fact that it will go to the Fire Department then we are getting more information with regard to how specific and how comprehensive that mitigation device would be? Okay, thank you. I will save the rest of my questions. Chair Burt: Can I follow on to that question? In particular not only do we have Loral next door that is listed as a small quantity generator although in Appendix F of the DEIR they say that none of the facilities with a quarter mile radius are [CalARPP] categorizations which is the California Accidental Release Prevention Program for significant potential emergency releases. The DEIR does not provide Attachment B, which would give the specifics on those conditions. So that was one area that I was interested in looking more specifically at but it just wasn’t available for us tonight. So I guess I would frame that in terms of a request that Staff look quite thoroughly and make sure that these issues have been addressed adequately with the Fire Department. We also have in Table 1 within, not adjacent, but within the overall vicinity primarily in the general manufacturing area on the other side of San Antonio several different large quantity generators of hazardous materials. So that also I think is an important consideration that we need to make sure we have looked at very thoroughly. Lee, follow up? Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Why aren’t the hazardous materials onsite being remediated versus mitigated? Mr. C. Williams: We will take that question and get a response. We are not prepared to answer these questions tonight. Mr. Emslie: Just a brief answer is the hazardous materials are in the groundwater and it takes a significant amount of time to pump and treat that. There is ongoing remediation that is already in place to accommodate that but it is groundwater so it is not something that can be dug up. Chair Burt: Just as a clarification, Lee’s issue has to do with long-term low-level soil contamination and mine has to do with acute release potential. Dan. Commissioner Garber: I have myriad comments however before I get into them I did want to acknowledge the thoughtful letter that the Green Meadow Community Association put together City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 20 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and acknowledge with glee the phrase "the Louis Carroll world of EIR traffic analysis" as an entry into an official report. My comments I will start from the specific and small, I will start there and then pass on my questions to someone else. In the topic of parallel form in the construction of the various sections in the report several of the sections do not have a statement of impact. They do have the mitigations. That is the Biology, Cultural and Geology. I suspect this is because the mitigations that are proposed are proposed on a "what if" basis. Also I note that the blue summary pages of the various mitigations skip Geology in the visual/aesthetic resources, which would nice for those to be included. On page 30, the Project Objectives, I would have expected to find more objectives here that were either in addition to the Comprehensive Plan policies or emphasize important ones. Something more along the lines of integration of the project’s use into the surrounding neighborhood, use of the project to set design precedent for Charleston/San Antonio area or possibly find the appropriate scale, size, etc. transition between the more commercial end of the Charleston Street versus the other end of the street which is more residential. On the Hazardous Materials section actually I believe that some of the areas are being proposed to be remediated. They are small but they appear to be the ones that have intense VOCs, etc. on them. I am not sure to what extent they go through. A footnote, the well number, I know this is really tiny, FB-21 which is noted several times in the section in the Draft EIR it doesn’t actually show up on the map that is included in that section. It is in the backup in the second volume but it is helpful to understand what that discussion is talking about. There is discussion around the potential structural foundation impacts on the groundwater, etc. You have to dig through the technical volume to understand what some of the suggestions the geologist is suggesting, the different types of structural systems that would be used. Almost all of them will have impacts greater than five feet into the soil, which is nominally the threshold that the Draft EIR talks about impacting the existing soil. It is not clear to me where that five feet comes from. It would be interesting to learn if that is project related or if it comes from a best use or what. I didn’t see any reference to it one-way or the other. There is also a lot of potential, looking at the soils report, for movement of the structure up to two and a half inches in some pieces because of the way the structures go together. There are going to be a lot of different structures that are going to be maintained. The geologists are suggesting that remediations be made to accommodate the movement up to two and a half inches. They also make mention that greater movement could be realized during earthquakes. All that presents special issues relative to the entrapment of the vapors coming through the soil and I suspect, at least I would be more interested in a paragraph or something that addresses what those actual remediations would be as opposed to some of the protocols that would be followed. Why don’t I stop there for a moment? City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 21 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Butt: I would like to address a few things under the concept of the least impactful solutions to the potential trip generation. We have the one intersection that is going to have a mitigation to it and that is mitigation to an acceptance of a certain level of automobile trips generated. I am more interested in whether there are other less impactful solutions than merely accommodating the automobile trip generations. The three that I would be the most interested in are a greater bicycle and pedestrian accommodation both getting to and accommodating bikes once they are on the site. Second, the public transportation, we are going to have a lot of seniors here and the ability of those seniors in particular to access basic everyday needs is problematic. Every resident not just the senior but all the residents have to use automobile trips to get just basic everyday needs of milk and bread and whatever. We have no small local serving retail in this whole area. I think that is one of the greatest impacts the lack of having that local small serving retail could be one of the greatest trip impacts. One of the best ways to alleviate that would be to somehow accommodate that. Then with the transit in particular for the seniors if they do need to leave this area we really don’t have good accommodations for them. So I think all three of those are potentially less impactful solutions than merely having the smart signal concept which is a very good improvement to our car trip flow but it is still more impactful to have car trips that flow well than to have perhaps other means that avoid the car trips. Paula, you want to go again? No. Lee? Commissioner Lippert: I had a thought and lost it so if you could give me a moment. Chair Burt: Okay. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have to get to it before I lose the thought too so thank you, Lee. This sort of goes to some of the same points you raised Pat. That is the amount of traffic that is going to be generated by this project and the solutions that I would like to see considered, discussed in the EIR. That would be the use of at the very least improvement of the access to valley transit by building a bus shelter as Sally Probst mentioned and making that a more attractive alternative. Also the use of a shuttle somewhat akin to what the Hyatt is doing with regard to their senior housing. I do not think that people are going to take the walking trip over to Piazza’s, which is about the closest to this project. I think a lot of trips will be generated going to the large supermarkets on San Antonio in Mountain View and that shuttle is also something that certainly can be used for purposes of special event traffic that may be generated. Some parking offsite and I tend to agree with Bob Moss that it probably will not be at Loral but will be at the Jewish elementary school further down or some other location and the shuttle could also be used for that. So I would like to see if there is some way we could get that addressed in the EIR. Again, going on traffic, I am concerned about all the traffic coming onto Fabian. I don’t know whether we addressed what would happen if we did at least allow an egress to San Antonio Road. I think one of the public speakers mentioned that and it is a concern that I had. Could possibly assist in my trying to get my hands around the amount of traffic all flowing on Fabian. Furthermore with respect to the speaker from the Palo Verde Residents Association I agree that it is unavoidable that we are going to have cars going down Louis, Ross and East Meadow. East Meadow was addressed but I don’t think the other two were and whether some traffic calming City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 22 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 measures can be made on those roads and whether there should be some contribution to the residents association. That is all I have for now there will be more. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I am still working on questions here. I am not working on comments yet. With regard to the EIR and its relationship to the Comp Plan Amendment my understanding is that this site originally is zoned within the GM Zone but Council voted to take housing out of the GM Zone which then puts the Comp Plan, from what I understand, out of balance in terms of meeting our housing goals. This now brings the Housing Element back into this site. So what is the relationship that we are looking at here with regard to this document and the Comp Plan Amendment if in fact it is taking housing out and then putting housing back in again? Mr. C. Williams: The Comp Plan Amendment is to go from an industrial designation to a mixed-use designation. The Housing Element of course is a part of the Comp Plan too, which had designated this to be changed through a Comp Plan Amendment as a rezoning to residential. So this is essentially implementing that Housing Element action part of the Comp Plan to make the rest of the Comp Plan consistent with that Housing Element goal. Commissioner Lippert: So does this in any way change the current goals of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of meeting our housing goals? Mr. C. Williams: This is consistent with the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet our housing goals. This is one of the designated housing opportunity sites in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Lippert: But it still requires that we make an amendment to the Comp Plan. Mr. C. Williams: Yes. The Housing Element has several sites that require rezoning or Comp Plan amendments to accommodate that so there is some conflict right now between what is designated for the housing use and like you said some of that changed. In this particular case it was designated for industrial so it clearly has to be changed to a mixed use. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. As a follow up to that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan and meeting our housing goals overall there are no additional things that are really out of line in terms of what the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is right now. Mr. C. Williams: For this site. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Mr. C. Williams: Yes. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I have a question for the environmental consultant. The toxic materials onsite at what point does this become what is considered a Brownfield site? Does it even rise to that threshold or come close? City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 23 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Monette: I think in general a Brownfield is contamination that there are some restrictions on development and the risk management plan addresses measures that need to be implemented to allow the proposed development. ~ Commissioner Lippert: So is this a Brownfield site? Ms. Monette: In terms of a legal definition, Brownfield? It is a site that has contamination. Commissioner Lippert: But does it rise to that level of being a Brownfield? Ms. Monette: I will have to look up and check the definition in terms of if there is a specific meaning other than an urban site with contamination on it. Commissioner Lippert: Does the City Attorney have something to say about that? Ms. Tronquet: If you have a specific question about environmental complaints in terms of this document I think that might help us focus the issues a little bit more. Commissioner Lippert: Well, as I think the consultant said the Brownfields have very specific uses or types of things that can occur on a Brownfield site. My concern is on this site is it or is it not at a Brownfield level and is this use compatible with the site? Ms. Tronquet: I think that is something that they will probably take into consideration when they are responding to the comments. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: one more topic in the Hazardous Materials, Section E. The EIR acknowledges that essentially the entire site, 12.5 acres of it, will be disturbed to a depth of about three feet. There are hazardous materials in the soil. There have been a series of different remediations and protocols that are being requested to be followed. But the amount of earth is gosh something like 60,000 tons of earth that is going to have to be moved and picked up and put someplace else on the site. That represents a tremendous opportunity for a lot of those different chemicals to migrate, airborne, tires, water, etc. The risk plan sets in place a variety of things and it maybe also helpful to consider a soils management plan as opposed to simply, I forget what it was called, risk assessment or something of that sort. The contractor will have to come up with this anyway. Where will they store the various piles of dirt, etc.? How often it gets moved? The emphasis here is really just to emphasize that it be done efficiently without undue moving and pushing it all around. There is a note in the Hydrology section, Section F, which talks about two alternatives for storing storm water one of which is a rock sump. There is no discussion about how that is isolated from the volatile earth, the earth that contains these. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 24 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 All of these comments thus far are from me are really project level. My greater concern is at the program level, the Comprehensive Plan level and that has to do primarily with the section on Visual and Aesthetics, which I believe is Section I. I would have expected pelhaps to see in Part Two of that section under the Purposes of the EIR bullet points that address some of the issues that you would find in the Comprehensive Plan L-5 and L-6, i.e., written differently so that theY fit the purpose of the paragraph. Aesthetic impact is considered significant if the project will cause and abrupt change in scale, will cause a significant impact if the project will not maintain scale and character of the property. Perhaps there is a reason why not. I also didn’t find anywhere in this section general discussion of the impact of the design concepts. They are addressed, however, what I am thinking of specifically here is the fact that the project exists 16 feet above grade and what the impacts are relative to integrating the project into the community. This is part of the conversation we had back in the early fall about just how that is done. As I read through the EIR I am not seeing either by way of the flood plane issues which are real but at the Charleston side of the site the flood plane is at best six inches above grade, ifI am reading the report correctly at least at one end of Charleston at the other end it is perhaps a foot or so below the flood plane, but easily in reach of causing occupancies that would be adjacent to the street to actually be on the street there. Nor does the report indicate any reason why you couldn’t have those occupancies because of the hazardous materials that are in the soil. The report identifies a whole series of mitigations anyway, discussion around that particular topic and the benefit of having that street participate at the street level with occupancies and uses that are adjacent to that street level would be I think important for the community to know and understand. On a similar topic I would have also expected to see some conversation around the topic of the adjacent zones and their attributes relative to what the PC is doing. I am thinking specifically of some of the conversation we had in our previous meeting with Channing House where exceptions were made and we are now coming back to revisit them and there are abrupt changes in scale, there are differences in character, etc. that we have to deal with. If there are ways to mitigate that from the onset of a project this size let’s get into them, what are they, are they things we should be thinking about? Some discussion around that topic would be helpful. That is it for the moment. I will return to this one. Chair Burt: Lee, you have a follow up. Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I have a follow up. Commissioner Garber had sort of jogged my mind a little bit. Again, I go back to this notice of availability and completion. Again, it cites the April 6 ARB hearing. Will the ARB be addressing the aesthetic and visual impacts and when? Mr. Turner: The ARB will be addressing those impact and they would be addressing it through their normal course of the review of this project. Currently we do have a meeting scheduled for the 20th, the salient comments that relate to the ARB’s purview in terms of design and aesthetics City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 25 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .41 42 43 44 45 would be forwarded to them for their consideration and ultimately review and recommendation back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lippert: So in other words we will get those comments from the ARB before we are asked to act on this document? Mr. Turner: That is right. You will receive minutes from the ARB meetings where they make a recommendation back to the Planning Commission and you would be able to see their discussion and their thought processes on the design. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Burt: I have a question regarding the transportation aspects again. Is it correct that there is no current TDM program, Transportation Demand Management program that is intended to be incorporated in either of the two projects basically? Ms. E1-Guendy: Yes, that is correct. The shuttle service that is being proposed is to serve the special events that will be taking place onsite. Chair Burt: Okay. Then I guess I would frame that in terms of a comment related to my earlier ones, which are that I would be interested in whether in fact a TDM program isn’t a less impactful way to address the traffic resulting from the project than intersection mitigations? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: As a follow on to that, that essentially goes to the point I was trying to make with regard to the possible need for a shuttle or some other means to address the needs that seniors and others are going to have to try to achieve their purchases and just general transport. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: This is just a comment in response to Commissioner Bialson’s question or comment there. I don’t think that a mitigation to an impact should be expressed in terms of a public benefit when it comes to the PC process. I think that is particularly important. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: This is sort of a question. All of the points that have been raised by the public by their presentation orally tonight and by written information that was given to Staff and the Commission, all those points will be addressed, is that correct? Mr. C. Williams: Yes. Commissioner Bialson: In line with that I do have a question that would help me right now dealing with some of the school impacts, which I consider very great. Is Hoover School a magnet school and does Staff know whether there was an intention to change it? Is that why it City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 26 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ¯ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 was referred to the way it was? Have we not heard of some change that is in the works with regard to Hoover School? Mr. Andy Coe, Interim Deputy Director: Hoover is a magnet school and I have heard nothing that indicates it is going to be anything but that in the future. Commissioner Bialson: Will the responses to the questions that are raised tonight deal with some of the general concerns about the impact on the local schools? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we will respond to all of those issues. I don’t know what the response will be but we will look into and respond to all of those. Commissioner Bialson: I think a lot of my questions were addressed by the excellent presentation made by all members of Staff but especially Penny Ellson so I won’t go through those. For whatever it is worth I agree with essentially all of them. Chair Burt: I guess another comment I would have concurs with some of the statements that were made earlier and that is that I think that the offsite overflow parking agreements may be necessary to have in place in order to mitigate the special events parking as opposed to viewing them as a prospective alternative. Then a question with the reduction in the housing on the BUILD side and the increase of a lesser amount on the CJL side what are the changes again in the parking impacts from those two? Did BUILD reduce their parking in proportion to the reduction in units and did CJL increase their parking in proportion to the increase in units? Mr. Turner: Under the proposed plan for BUILD they have a slight reduction in the number ot~ spaces that they would be providing on the revised plan. With these changes it means that they are fully parked on the site and there is no need for a sharing agreement between CJL and BUILD as previously was once identified. Chair Burt: Is CJL with those additional units fully parked? Mr. Turner: CJL is anticipated to be fully parked except for the special event periods, which would need an offsite parking agreement. Chair Burt: .Then my next question has to do with park impacts. We have the Quimby Act consideration coming up, would this project prospectively be impacted by the Quimby Act if we adopted it? Mr. Emslie: It is speculative at this point because the Quimby Act Ordinance has not been adopted so we don’t know at what trigger it will be but it is conceivable that the ordinance could be constructed that it would apply. Chair Burt: Lee. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 27 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I think that probably as Chair Burt had mentioned the traffic impacts and how those would be mitigated really doesn’t go far enough. Part of my concern is again people parking in the neighborhood or impacting traffic in the neighborhood by parking along the streets. One possibility is through a traffic demand management program is to assure that simultaneous events do not occur. Part of that might be that for instance if there is a program in the auditorium that some sort of soccer game or event is not happening in the playing field for instance. I think that can be coordinated or done through a designated individual for the Campus for Jewish Life that is able to assure that these events do not happen simultaneously. Chair Burt: Other Commissioners? Dan. Commissioner Garber: I can’t let go of the Visual and Aesthetic Impact Section just yet. This section needs to discuss these various issues because I think it represents the largest challenge to the policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan in my mind. It also raises the larger question, which I recognize is outside the scope of the EIR, which is what is the approach that is to be taken with this area? That gets to some of the public’s conversation about looking at cumulative effects of traffic, schools, jobs, etc. Part of the reason I suspect we are all having trouble with this particular topic is there is not the equivalent of the E1 Camino plan or the SOFA plan or something of that sort that allows us to understand what some of the objectives for the area are and to be able to gauge the right responses against that to determine which ones are right or appropriate. I don’t know how to get to that with this but the reality is the project is going to create precedent, which is going to setup how the surrounding properties are going to be uses, the types of uses that are going to be found there or that are going to be desired. It will attract certain types of uses because of what is there and are those the right ones? You know this stuff better than I do. Perhaps I will just leave it there, discussion of those issues is important. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have a question, it was raised by a couple members of the public and that is the impact on the schools with regard to the turnover of homes as a result of people moving into this project both the senior portion and the BUILD section. Is that turnover which is assumed to result in perhaps more school-age children being brought into the community is that a consideration that is covered by the impact statement? Mr. C. Williams: The issue of schools is covered by it and I think that is part of what we have to look into in terms of school projections and that. My guess is that the school district incorporates that in its analysis to some extent but if they don’t then we are not trying to do their job for them so we would rely on information that they provide. Commissioner Bialson: I think the issue is that they can say what they project the number of students residing in the project might be. I am asking the wider question of do they consider the fact that people will move into the project emptying their homes which then go on to buyers who have school-age children? Does the impact report go out that one level? City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 28 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: We will address the secondary impacts and we know that the school district has a demographer on staffthat has prepared projections. So we will bring that information in and we will make sure that the demographer accounts for secondary impacts of units opening up. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that because I know there was a substantial effect when ¯ Hyatt came in and a lot of the homes in Palo Alto in the school district were leased, so to speak, for more school-age children to come in. Do you want me to allow others to go on? An additional impact and I don’t think it was in any written communication and it was just mentioned I think maybe by Bob Moss and that is the impact on the library, especially the Mitchell Park Library. I assume that is going to be addressed as well and some mitigation dealt with there. Fine, I will think of some more questions. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the general Comprehensive Plan overall look at how this community is going to grow in terms of demographics and its impacts on schools? Mr. Emslie: Yes, as you know though that we are getting close to our projections in the growth predictions of the 1998 EIR for the Comprehensive Plan. Council has directed Staffto prepare an update of that and that update will include revisions to the growth projections. Commissioner Lippert: So in other words, we are generally within the box of what the general Comprehensive Plan says and that if we were to go outside that box we would then have to look at the general Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Emslie: Two things have happened. The growth rate with projects on the boards are predicted at the end of the Comprehensive Plan period which ends in four years, 2010, we are about 400 units over the 2,400 unit projection accounting for current projects that are in various stages of the approval process. Secondly, the growth is happening in different locations than it was predicted. So those two factors along with any other issues related to the update will be analyzed. The Staff is preparing a work plan that is coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council in April and early May of this year. Commissioner Lippert: Well, that raises a very important question which is is it the burden of any one development to address those overgrowth or going beyond the boundary of the general Comprehensive Plan or it on a first come first serve basis? Mr. Emslie: No, as Curtis mentioned earlier that the cumulative impact section of this report based on the comments that we have heard from the Commission this evening will be expanded and adequate for the Commission to be able to consider this effect as it relates to the overall predicted growth in the City. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 29 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: I would just like to add that I am very glad to hear that the demographer for the school district and hopefully then the Staff planning for population demographic changes will begin to address these secondary impacts. I think to my knowledge the discussions that I have listened to from the school demographer and previously within our discussion within the City and the Staffhave focused almost entirely on the primary impacts, those residents of the new development and not being able to attempt to, and this would be imprecise we all recognize, attempt to identify to what degree would it accelerate the demographic trends of turning over those empty nests into full nests. Who would like to go next? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Are you familiar with whether or not in the construction period I know that there are agreements made with regard to how trucks will access the site and the larger vehicles but is there any sort of an agreement made by the contractor with the City with regard to work people on the site and their pickup trucks and commute pattems and use of residential streets and certain shortcuts through the residential areas. I see we have someone walking up. Chair Burt: Heba, for the record, each time could you reintroduce yourself’?. Ms. E1-Guendg: Sure. I am Heba E1-Guendy, Transportation Engineer with the Planning Department. We are in the process now of reviewing the site plans for both projects. Before we issue a Building Permit we receive along with Public Works what is known as the logistics plan. Part of the logistics plan is the traffic plan and it evaluates the parking associated with the construction. It evaluates the materials storage, the truck movements which have to follow the truck routes within the area, so it evaluates the traffic and parking impacts during the construction. Commissioner Bialson: Does it evaluate how workmen get to and from the construction site? Because I know what is a large problem in the area that I reside and that friends do is it is not the large trucks it is the workmen and they are their for 18 months to two years and they have certain patterns. Is there any regulation with respect to how they are going to get to Alma? How they are going to get to San Antonio and 101? Ms. ,E1-Guendv: Yes, we do provide conditions in that regard especially for large-scale projects like this. So it is not just the site-specific improvements but also the traffic circulation whether it is truck related or general construction related within the different neighborhoods. Commissioner Bialson: So the contractor regulates their workmen so that as they commute to the site do not use residential street because I haven’t seen that to be the case? Ms. E1-Guendy: We do provide them with routes, again, especially for large-scale projects. We don’t always dictate it unless it is necessary. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, well I would like my comments .... City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 30 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. E1-Guendy: In this case I assure you that there will be a condition in that regard. Commissioner Bialson: Then if we could have some of the measures that might be used by the contractor to enforce those regulations with respect to their employees. What control do residents have if they find that several electricians continue to use a route that they are not supposed to be using? Who do they contact? Ms. Tronquet: Excuse me, Commissioner. I just want to remind the Commission that tonight you are reviewing the environmental impacts and not specific elements of each project. You will have the opportunity to do that later. Commissioner Bialson: I thought that we were addressing the issue with respect to the adequacy as to how the impacts might be mitigated with respect to the construction period. Mr. Emslie: No, what the hearing tonight would be for the Commission to put out any questions or requests for additional information that would be necessary for the Commission to consider the document adequate for the project. So we are not here to talk about what potential impacts or mitigations that will come when the final document comes to you based on all the questions and clarifications that we have received tonight and all the comments we receive in writing during the comment period. So we can take it as a comment and then we can respond back to you rather than engage in a dialogue here because the hearing hasn’t been advertised for that purpose. Commissioner Bialson: Okay. I appreciate that. What I am looking for is a request that it be specific with regard to your responses to my concerns. Ms. E1-Guendy: If I may add that your concern is noted. This is all evaluated at a later stage in the process. We go through small details like signage and markings and all that, however, for the EIR we are going to expand this section to the extent possible. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I want to bring up one issue that I have not seen in this EIR that I think needs to be addressed and I brought this up at the preliminary review of the original design, which is security measures. A couple of concerns that I have are one, unauthorized vehicles getting into the facility. Number two, its proximity of assembly buildings located close to public rights-of-way. I think that needs to be at least looked at and addressed. Chair Burt: Other Commissioners? Dan. Commissioner Garber: Another topic if there are applicable learnings from say the E1 Camino Guidelines that would be appropriately applied to this site. There may be others I am just using that as an example. Chair Burt: Any others from any other Commissioners? Are we wrapping up here? I think that we greatly appreciate the input from the public tonight. They were very well thought and City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 31 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 considered questions and comments. We look forward to having this return to us at a later date. The approximate timeframe for the Final EIR, what would you estimate? Mr. C. Williams: Probably about 60 days. Chair Burr: Great, thank you, Curtis. So I think that completes this agenda item for tonight. We just have a few wrap up things. Thank you everyone for attending and participating. Chair Burt: We have no minutes for approval tonight. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Burr: Any Reports from Officials or Committees? Annette. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t know if my concern falls under this or Announcements from the Commission Member who is going to be the representative at the City Council. Can I raise it now? I am not going to be available to attend the meeting of the City Council on April 10. At this point in time there are only two items on the Consent Agenda that could have any impact from our recommendation or presence. One is an approval of a contract and an historic designation of a property. Zariah, could these be changed in terms of could something be put on the agenda at this point in time? No. Okay, so I am going to not go to the Council hearing since I will be in Southern California and I don’t think anyone else needs to do so. Okay, so Lee is willing to be on standby. So please distribute to Lee any of the documentation with regard to the City Council. Thank you very much, Lee. Mr. Coe: Commissioner Bialson, we were aware of the April 10th earlier and I am pretty sure there is nothing on the Council calendar. We will double check in case anything does come up at the last minute and we will contact Commissioner Lippert as a backup. Chair Burt: Then I think we have just one schedule change. We have added our Retreat for May 17, 2006 and it would be in the Council Conference Room. Mr. Coe: Correct. Chair Butt: Any other questions, comments or announcements? Paula. COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Commissioner Sandas: Just one. I had the opportunity to attend the League of California City’s Planner’s Conference in Monterey last week. It was a really great conference and I hope that others on the Planning Commission will be able to attend next year’s conference in San Diego. I got a lot out of each of the sessions that I sat in on especially reviewing projects, conditions of approval and findings that was presented by our very own Steve Emslie who shared his knowledge and the flu with everyone that was there. City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 32 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of April 19, 2006. Chair Burt: Thank you. On that note I think we will adjourn. Thank you. ADJOURNED: 9:30 PM City of Palo Alto March 15, 2006 Page 33 of 33 Attachment H Project Background and Description Staff Reports Verbatim Minutes BUILD/BRIDGE Project 901 San Antonio Road Planned Community Zone Change Contents 1.BUILD/BRIDGE Project Background and Description 2.Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- December 1, 2004 3.Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- December 1, 2004 4.Architectural Review Board Staff Report- April 20, 2006 5.Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes- April 20, 2006 6.Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- June 28, 2006 7.Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- June 28, 2006 8.Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- July 26, 2006 9.Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- July 26, 2006 September 5, 2006 Project Background and Description Planned Community District Request : BUILD 901 San Antonio Road / File Nos. 06PLN-00041 Project Location- BUILD and TKCJL The project area is located at 901 San Antonio Road. The project area is bounded by San Antonio Road to the east, Charleston Road to the south, Fabian Way to the west, and the Space Systems/Loral facility to the north, as shown on the projectlocation map in Attachment A. The existing site contains a five-story, 260,000 square foot, vacant office building, previously occupied by Sun Microsystems. An at-grade parking surrounds the building and contains parking lot trees and giound level landscaping. The northern four-acre parcel or BUILD site is owned by BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD), and the southern 8.2-acre parcel is owned by Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL). The original 12.2-acre parcel was approved for subdivision by the City Council; with recommendation from the Planning & Transportation Commission, on March 3, 2003. City records, such as the Record of Land Use Action and previous staff reports pertaining to the decision, are available for review upon request. BRIDGE Housing Corporation and BRIDGE Urban Infill Land.Development, LLC The owner of the project is BRIDGE Urban Infitl Land Development, known by the acronym, "BUILD". BUILD is a subsidiary of the BRIDGE Housing Corporation that was formed as a for-profit investment partnership between BRIDGE and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). BUILD oversees a capital investment from CalPERS and focuses on the development and redevelopment of urban infill sites, acting as a developer and/or investor. Although BUILD is the owner ofrec0rd for the PC zone change, Comprehensive Plan amendment and the other project components, ultimate responsibility for the development of each project component will be separated between BRIDGE Housing Corporation and BUILD, LLC. BRIDGE Housing Corporation will develop the senior housing project component. BUILD, LLC will develop the townhouse project component. Collectively, the project is known as BUILD. Development Plan The project contains two separate components: The senior housing component, to be developed by BRIDGE Housing Corporation, is a four story building containing three studio units, 52 one bedroom, one bath units and a single two bedroom, one bath unit for the on-site manager. The units will range in size from 475 square feet for the studios to 650 square feet for the one bedroom units. The building will have a total floor area of approximately 53,331 square feet. Each unit will Attachment H Page H- 1 have at least 63square feet of private open space in the form of a balcony orpatio. A large, approximately 4,000 square foot landscaped patio will provide common open space areas for all residents. A single elevator and stair tower, located near the southwest comer will serve all levels of the building, including the parking garage. This tower would be thetallest portion of the building at approximately 60 feet above grade. Although the maximum height in a PC district is 50’, there is a 15’ allowance for elevator equipment and shafts. Common walkways, ADA accessible ramps, and stairways will connect the senior building with the for-sale townhouse component, the adjacent CJL project and the public streets and sidewalks. The townhouse component, to be developed by BUILD, LLC, will contain 103 for-sale units and a 303 parking space garage, constructed at-gradei The townhouse units will be clustered in six "buildings", shown as buildings A-F on the project plans (technically, the garage and all units for this component are considered as one building per building code regulations). Nearly all of the townhomes will be constructed above the garage. The area above the garage is known as the "podium", which will be approximately 16 feet above grade at Fabian Way. The townhomes will range in size from 700 square feet to 1,900 square feet in one, two and three bedroom configurations. Each unit will have a private open space area of at least 180 square feet in the form of an enclosed front or back yard patio. The total floor area of the to.wnhomes would be approximately 154,000 square feet. The maximum height of the buildings, as measured to the midpoint of the proposed shed roofs, is approximately 27 to 32 feet above the podium and approximately 43 to 48 feet above grade. Common walkways, ADA accessible ramps, and stairways will connect the townhomes at the podium level with the senior building, the adjacent TKCJL project and the public streets and sidewalks. Parking Garage Automobile parking for the townhomes and the senior housing is in the garage, as is the trash and recycling facilities, mail delivery, bicycle storage, and electrical/mechanical equipment. The garage would contain approximately 303 parking spaces, including eight accessible spaces and 54 guest parking spaces. The senior component would be allocated approximately 42 parking spaces, which results in 0.7 spaces per senior unit. This ratio is acceptable as the parking ratio for senior affordable housing is 0.5, based on statistics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Approximately 188 bicycle parking spaces would be provided for residents and guests. Pedestrian access from the townhomes to the garage will be available at three locations at the podium level via stairs and elevators. Vehicular traffic will enter and exit the garage from the BUILD/TKCJL shared driveway that provides access to Fabian Way. Each townhouse unit would have two reserved parking spaces. Approximately 54 of these spaces would be tandem- oriented spaces. The following is a table that summarizes the project components: Attachment H Page H- 2 ~Summa~- June 2006 Senior Housing 56 Townhomes 103 Total 159 units *For the entire four acre site 52,931 0.30 37. 163,826 0.94 215 54 Guest 216,757 1.24 303 spaces Landscaping The landscape plan for the podium has been designed to be the focal point of the townhome project..Special de;ign considerations were implemented in such a way to achieve the look of a vibrant, natural landscape on top of the concrete podium. This intent was achieved by using raised planter beds, meandering walkways, and the placement of large common areas that would take advantage of all the available natural light. Landscape design at the perimeter was designed with specific purposes. A line of trees at the north property line would screen views from the residences adjacent to the Loral industrial facilities. The planting of terraces along the shared drive would help define a residential street quality and would reinforce the formal TKCJL entry experience. The planting along the east side of the site would unify the entire San Antonio Road frontage with landscaping that would suggest a gateway feature to from the Highway 101 freeway into Palo Alto. The Fabian Way landscaping would utilize the existing street trees, and supplemented with private landscaping including ground cover, shrubs and trees. All proposed landscaping would be of a drought-tolerant variety that would minimize on-site water use. Total common open space area would be approximately 64,291 square feet, which is approximately 37% of the site area. This area is located on top of the parking garage podium. Total site coverage, including the garage and residential buildings approaches 94% Although most of the project is currently covered with buildings and pavement, redevelopment of the site with buildings on podium structures would increase the area covered with impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff could increase. Program controls would be required to detaining the additional runoff on the project site through the use of oversized pipes and similar measures that provide adequate storage to detain the additional runoff. Integration with Campus for Jewish Life. The design development of BUILD and the TKCJL projects have followed similar paths and timelines. BUILD and TKCJL were involved in the initial Tentative Map process (completed in 2003) to divide the site into two parcels. Steinberg Architects, the architects for both projects, has been 0n-board since the City Council prescreening in 2004. In addition, the DEIR was developed to analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of both projects. As a result if this early integration, the projects have. been developed cooperatively with special attention given to the shared space between the two projects. The two elements that would define this shared space are the vehicular entry A~achment H Page H-3 driveway from Fabian Way and the Building A for-sale townhomes that are located at the edge of the shared space. - The intent of the Fabian Way driveway is to provide a shared vehicular entry way, which would also function as the symbolic formal entry for both projects. The driveway consists of a two-way, two-lane "road", including a pick-up and drop-off turnaround area. A third lane is located at the inbound side of the driveway for security purposes. Visitors needing security services would use this land before proceeding further into the site. A landscaped median would reinforce the formal entry. Immediately adjacent to the east of the pick-up and drop-off spaces is a pedestrian waiting area, shown on the site plans as a semi- circular area. This area is required for Fire Department access to the interior areas of both projects. During a typical operating day, this area would be used as a gathering area for visitors who are being pick-up or dropped offto the project. A wide stairway would extend down from the podium level of the BUILD project to the waiting area. The TKCJL project would also have a wide staircase from the parking podium on their site to the waiting area. This area will be a highly trafficked and lively area once both projects are developed and operating normally.. The BUILD townhomes in Building A would be oriented along the shared driveway. The intent of the Building A design is to bring a residential neighborhood and pedestrian scaled experience to the vehicular driveway. These units would be one and two-level townhomes. Townhomes oriented at the shared driveway will be single-level homes with main entrances located at the shared driveway. The two-level townhomes would have main entrances accessible from the podium level. Stoops would be located at the driveway level that would lead to the private patios. The sidewalks would be lined with trees along the Building A frontage. Secondary and Service Entrances The main vehicular entry to the BUILD parking garage will be access from the shared driveway. A break in the center median at the BUILD garage entrance would allow residents and visitors to make a left turn from the driveway into the garage. Outbound traffic would make a right turn from the BUILD garage on to the driveway, which would lead to Fabian Way. A secondary driveway for the BUILD project is located on Fabian Way. This driveway will also serve the parking garagel A service driveway to the north of the secondary drive will allow PASCO access to the trash and recycling pick-up areas, as well as City of Palo Alto Utilities access to the mechanical and equipment rooms of the project. Green Building Goals The applicant has utilized Alameda County’s Green Building/Green Points checklist for multiple-family dwelling projects to plan and develop their green building and energy efficiency program. Copies of the completed checklists are contained in the Supplemental Design Details binder, Sections 5 and 8. At a minimum, the project would be required to meet the State of California Title 24 energy requirements, as Well as the City of Palo Alto Construction and Demolition Attachment H Page H- 4 program requirements for the removal and recycling of construction and demolition debris for the existing buildings on the site. The applicant has also committed to investigate specific design features, construction methods, energy saving equipment, recycled products that could be incorporated into the project. Planned Community and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request In accordance with the requirement of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18.68 (Planned Community districts), the applicant has submitted a development program statement, development schedule, and the proposed findings for the establishment of a PC district. These materials are contained in Attachment D. The findings include a description of the proposed public benefits, which include the senior housing project component containing 56 low and below market rate rental units. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same .building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Proiect Timeline The BUILD and TKCJL projects have received discretionary approvals and preliminary reviews from boards, commissions and the City Council for specific project components. The following is a timeline of significant review milestones for the BUILD project: March 3, 2003 City Council Approval of Tentative Map, creating the BUILD and TKCJL parcels June 14,2004 City Council Prescreening Meeting for BUILD and TKCJL December 1, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Initial Review. December 2, 2004 December 15, 2005 Architectural Review Board Meeting Preliminary Review of the BUILD’s initial design Architectural Review Board Meeting Preliminary Review of the BUILD’s revised design Attachment H Page H- 5 February 17, 2006 Release of the DEIR for TKCJL and BUILD projects for a 45-day public review period March 16, 2006 Architectural Review Board Formal Review MeEting #1 March 29, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report April 20, 2006 Architectural Review Board Formal Review Meeting #2 June 28, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Second Formal Review of the PC Application Planning and Transportation Commission, Initial Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) completed their initial review of the PC application on December 1, 2004. The PTC reviewed the applicant’s development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule in accordance with PAMC 18.86.065. The development plans included preliminary drawings of the plot plans, landscape development plan, and design plan for the residential structures and the parking garage. Verbatim minutes of the meeting are contained in this attachment. Previous Project Table- 2004 Senior Housing 67 Townhomes 160 Total Design 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. *For the 227 units 312,230 1.79 Highlights: 52 266 7 Guest 325 spaces Senior apartment building located at San Antonio Road Senior apartments all low- or below-market rate (BMR) No below market rate units at the townhomes. Maximum height of livable area at 56’6" Required a shared parking agreement with TKCJL project to provide enough parking spaces entire four acre site The PTC recommended that a detailed development plan be submitted to the ARB for their review and directed the ARB to make a recommendation on the design of the plan to the PTC based upon the adopted architectural review findings contained in PAMC 18.76.020. In their testimony, the PTC provided the following comments to the applicant and staff: Proposed density on the site is acceptable. 0.7 per unit parking ratio is acceptable. A shared parking agreement, if ultimately needed, could be supported. Low-market/Below-market rate senior housing is appreciated as a public benefit. Attachment H Page H- 6 Comfortable with the 50’ height exception, but try to minimize the height as much as possible. It would be better to place the taller buildings adjacent to the Loral - site. The Draft EIR should analysis vehicular circulation patterns and ways to minimize traffic impacts, such as the use of the City shuttle and the placement of retail space on the project site. Concern about the senior apartments at San Antonio Road being isolated from the rest of the project. Special design attention shall be given to the design of the buildings on the podium. Detail how the BUILD and CJL site would integrate uses and/or services. Covenants and restricts between BUILD and TKCJL should be clearly explained prior to the decision to rezone. Planning and Transportation Commission, Environmental Review The Commission held a public hearing on March 29, 2006 to accept public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was made available for a public review period from February 17 to April 3, 2006. The Commission and members of the public provided oral and written comments and questions to staff regarding the information contained in the report. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was made. available on June 15, 2006, addresses each comment and question received during the public review period. The report contains the verbatim minutes from the March 29, 2006 meeting. This report was .distributed to each agency that provided comments, each board member and commissioner from the ARB and the Commission, the City Council and interested members of the public. Architectural Review Board, Formal Reviews ARB reviewed the Development Plan at two meetings on March 16 and April 20, 2006. The reviews focused on the design of the individual buildings, the contextual relationships between the projects and the adjacent TKCJL projects, and other adjacent properties, the landscape plan, colors and materials, and on-site automobile and pedestrian circulation. The ARB voted to recommend approval of the project to the Commission and the City Council subject to additional design review of specific project details. The ARB responded to the Commission’s comments regarding design.and compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods. A summary of the ARB’s responses is contained in the Summary of Key Issues section of the June 28, 2006 staff report. The verbatim minutes from the April 20, 2006 ARB, at which date the formal recommendation on the project was made to the Commission and City Council, is provided in this attachment. Attachment H Page H- 7 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Chris Magnusson Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: December 1, 2004 SUBJECT:901 San Antonio Road [04-PC-01; 04-CPA-02; 04-DEE-01; 04- PM-02; 04-EIA-06|: Request by Joseph McCarthy of BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for initial review of the proposed project involving the development of approximately 227 housing.units (160 market rate condominiums and 67 below-market rate rental units) within the 4-acre parcel owned by BUILD. Review processes to implement this project would involve the rezoning of the existing 4-acre parcel to a Planned Community (PC) District; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Mixed Use; a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create Condominium units; a Design Enhancement Exception or Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit within the proposed PC zone district; a potential Variance to the Special Setbacks along Fabian Way and San Antonio Road; approval for demolition of the existing office building; and the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This project concept was previously reviewed by the City Council. No environmental assessment is required for this initial review. A draft EIR would be required for Continued Commission review. Existing Zone District: GM. Proposed Zone District: PC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) comment on the proposed residential development in this initial review and recommend the site’ s environmental analysis continue and the application be forwarded to the Architectural City of Palo Alto Page 1 Review Board (ARB) for formal review, following the completion of a draft EIR. This request is made in conformance with the Planning Community District regulations (PAMC Section 18.68.065[b]). Staff has summarized key issues to provide ~ framework for comments. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: In addition to the overall request for the establishment of a Planned Community (PC) District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as detailed in Attachment F, staff has identified the following issues for the Commission’s specific consideration and comment: proposed building height, site access, circulation pattern, and parking layout, building setbacks, and compatibility with surrounding land uses including the adjacent Campus for Jewish Life parcel. There is also a proposal for the subdivision of the parcel, in order to separate the for- sale housing units from the senior housing and create condominiums, and the demolition of the existing office building. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting, to provide the total number of parking spaces for the senior rental complex based on a factor 0.7% of total number of units versus the City’s ordinance (Chapter 18.83), which requires 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit. In order to assist in commenting on the issues indicated above, the applicant’s Project Description Letter has been provided as Attachment C, which describes the project’s compliance with the required findings for the PC District and Design Enhancement Exception. The Development Program Statement has been provided as Attachment D and details the proposed uses, unit information, development schedule, and relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. In addition to the preliminary set of drawings (Attachment I), a zoning compliance table, project background section, and letter of support have also been provided as Attachments E, F, and H. This project is also scheduled for review by the ARB on December 2, 2004 as a Preliminary Review and not a formal review for recommendation. This meeting has been scheduled in a similar manner to this initial review, in order for the applicant to obtain general feedback on the proposed project. ~TIMELINE: Pre Application Submittal Action: Approved Subdivision of 12.2-acre Parcel Preliminary Review Meeting with City Council Date: March 3, 2003 June 14, 2004 Post Application Submittal Action:Date: City of Palo Alto Page 2 Application Received: EIR Consultant Selected/Contract Date: Application Deemed Complete: P&TC Initial Review Meeting ARB Preliminary Review Meeting: ARB Formal Hearing: P&TC Formal Meeting: Required Action by Council: July 30, 2004 August 16, 2004 August-29, 2004 December 1, 2004 December 2, 2004 To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has determined that an EIR is required for this project under the California . Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Considering this is an initial review of the project, no environmental document is required at this time. A draft EIR would be required at such time the project returns to .the Commission for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. A draft EIR would also be required for formal review by the Architectural Review Board. A consultant has been hired and is currently working toward the completion of a draft EIR. ATTACHMENTS: Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Aerial Photo BUILD Site Location Map Applicant’s Project Description Letter Applicant’s Development Program Statement~ Zoning Compliance Table Background City Council Preliminary Meeting Minutes (Commission Members Only) Correspondence Project Plan Set (Commission Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Rob Steinberg, The Steinberg Group Randy Popp, The Steinberg Group James Baer, Premier Properties Patrick McGaraghan, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stern, Campus for Jewish Life Terezia Nemeth, BUILD Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph McCarthy, BUILD City of Palo Alto Page 3 Jacob H.V. Foraker, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Peggy Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Jeremie Maehr, Geomatrix Consultants Lester Feldman, Geomatrix Consultants Bob Whitehair, Allana-Lippert Betsy Allyn, Resident Jean Wilcox, Charleston Gardens Association Cathy Swan, Resident Lanie Wheeler, Greenmeadow Community Association Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Community Association Deborah Ju, Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Tom Vician,.Fairmeadow Neighborhood Association Tom Crystal, Walnut Grove Homeowners Association Adam Samuels, Rosewalk Homeowners Association Chris Graham, Greenmeadow Community Association Nola Mae McBain, Monta Loma Neighborhood Gloria Jackson, Monta Loma Neighborhood Preservation Group Herman Ranes, Resident Edie Keating, Resident Larry Mitchell, Resident Robert Moss, Resident Herb Borock, Resident Dorothy Bender, Resident Stephanie Munoz, Resident Toni Stein, Resident Prepared by: Chris Magnusson, Planner’s, Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning ~d~ Department/Division Head Approval: ~~~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: Attachment G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ROLL CALL: 7:00p.m. Commissioners: Phyllis Cassel- Chair Bonnie Packer - Vice-Chair Karen Holman - absent Patrick Burt Michael Griffin Annette Bialson Lee _f. Lippert Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 7:00PM SPECIAL MEETING City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys Lisa Grote, chief Planning Official Chris Magnusson, Planner Diana Tamale, Staff Secretary AGENDIZED ITEM: 1. 901 San Antonio Road Chair Cassel: May I call the meeting to order, please? Thank you. This is the Special Meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission of December 1, 2004. Would the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Oral Communications, ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Cassel: I have no cards and that will complete that item. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items wiltbe voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 1 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Cassel: There are no items on the Consent Calendar. A GENOA CH~INGES~ ADDITiO~Vs AND DELETIONS." The agenda r~; ha:,~ additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Cassel: There are no additions, changes or deletions and there is no old or continued business. Tonight we are holding a public hearing to review a proposed Planned Community zone located at 901 San Antonio Road. The request has been filed by Joseph McCarthy of BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development for initial review of the proposed PC involving the development of approximately 227 housing units within a 4-acre parcel. Would the Staff please make a report? NE ~V B USINESS: Public Hearing: 901 San Antonio Road [04-PC-02; 04-DEE-01; 04-PM-02; 04-EIA-06]: Request by Joseph McCarthy of BRIDGE Urban In fill Land Development (BUILD) for initial review of the proposed project involving the development of approximately 227 housing units (160 market rate condominiums and 67 below market rate rental units) within the 4-acre parcel owned by BUILD. Review processes to implement this project would involve the rezoning of the existing 4-acre parcel to a Planned Community (PC) District; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Mixed Use; a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units; a Design Enhancement Exception or Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit within the proposed PC zone district; a potential Variance to the Special Setbacks along Fabian Way and San Antonio Road; approval for demolition of the existing office building; and the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).. This project concept was previously reviewed by the City Council. No environmental assessment is required for this initial review. A draft EIR would be required for continued Commission review. Existing Zone District: GM. Proposed Zone District: PC. SR Weblink: http://199.33.43.1/portal/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation-meetings/3955.pdf Mr. Chris Magnusson, Planner: Thank you and good evening Chair Cassel and members of the Commission. At the City Council meeting in mid June of this year BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development, also known as BUILD, in conjunction with the Campus for Jewish Life, also known as CJL, presented their development concepts for the redevelopment of the prior Sun Microsystems site at 901 San Antonio Road. This meeting was conducted as a preliminary review of the project concepts in order for the applicants to introduce an overview of the concepts to the City Council and members of the public and obtain their feedbackin preparation of future formal development applications for both parcels. In July of this year BUILD proceeded with an application for rezoning of their parcel and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the entire 12-acre site. As a first step in the PC district review process an initial review of the project’s preliminary drawings by the Commission is required by City Ordinance and the reason we are in attendance this evening. Specifically this initial review of BUILD’s PC district application is required in order to comment on the proposed residential development and recommend whether or not the City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 2 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 project development should continue along with the site’s environmental analysis and preparation for a future formal review by the Architectural Review Board after the completion of a Draft EIR. - Although still general in nature this initial hearing tonight differs fiom the June pr-escreen]n~ meeting with the City Council in that this is the first of two hearings required for a PC application. The City Council prescreening was an elective hearing designed to bring forward any large policy questions or issues with the potential application. This proposed project involves the development of approximately 226 housing units, 160 market rate condominiums and 66 below market rate rental units within the four-acre parcel owned by BUILD. Review processes to implement this project would involve the rezoning of the existing four acre parcel to a Planned Community district, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Mixed Use for the entire 12 acre area, a Tentative Map to subdivide the BUILD parcel and create condominium units, a Design Enhancement Exception.or Variance to exceed the 50 foot height limit within the proposed PC zone district, a potential Variance to special setbacks along Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, approval for demolition of the existing office building and the certification of an Environmental Impact Report. No environmental assessment is required for this initial review meeting however, a Draft EIR is required to be completed prior to formal ARB review and the second Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. The site’s existing zone district is currently designated as GM or General Manufacturing. This proposed development was included in the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Plan and the applicant has indicated they will pay their fair share of the transportation improvements called for in that plan. Housing Sites Inventory for the designation of 200 future dwelling units to be generated from 6.5 acres of the total 12-acre area is also required. Currently the unmet housing need is 453 units most of which need to be in the moderate-income range. These 453 units are all that remain of the original 1,397 total need. Considering the site is entirely residential and the entire senior rental complex is considered affordable housing the primary public benefit proposed is the designation of 31 below market rate units beyond the site’s 15% requirement, which would equal 34 Units. Ultimately Bridge Housing Corporation would control the operation of this complex and build a for-profit subsidiary of Bridge Housing Corporation would oversee the market rate housing as a proposal to subdivide the four acre parcel of purposes of separate ownership. The site’s proposed open space is designated above the parking garages within decks, private balconies and a landscape emergency vehicle access area. The total square footage has been provided in the Zoning Compliance Table of your packet. Information related to noise from the adjacent Loral property or elsewhere will be addressed as a component of the project’s EI2~ in addition to other potentially significant impacts. A tree evaluation and inventory has been prepared by certified arborists and covers an analysis of the entire 12-acre area. This document will also be analyzed as part of the project’s EIR. In terms of the building height the existing building on the site is approximately 96 feet tall. Current Zoning standards do not permit a building height greater than 50 feet in either the existing GM or the proposed PC zc~ning districts. The site is located in a flood plane that is not suitable for underground parking. BUILD proposes to construct under-building or podium parking and buildings with articulated roofs up to a maximum of 56.5 feet at the tallest portion. Because the site is large, next to a freeway, near industrial uses and currently occupied by a building much taller than the proposed buildings that have portions higher than 50 feet may not City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 3 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 have adverse impacts. This will be evaluated in detail in the Environment Impact Report. The City’s ordinance required the building height be measured from the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation of the finished su~’face of the grdund paving oi: sidewMk between the building and the line five feet from the building. Sheet A3.5 of the applicant’s plan set delineates this measurement with the tallest case scenario. The applicant’s presentation will inclui]e specffig information as to how bi~ilding height varies across the site and within both structures. Staff has received two written documents from the public since the hearing notices were mailed and has provided you with copies as well as with copies of the new zoning district comparison chart which provides a further comparison of the requirements of the PC district and the applicant’s proposed figures with the regulations of the RM-30 and RM-40 Multi Family Residential districts. Finally, Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission comment on the proposed residential development in this initial review meeting and recommend that the site’s environmental analysis continue and the application be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for formal review following the completion of a Draft EIR. This is request is made in conformance with the Planned Community district regulations as indicated in the Municipal Code Section 18.68.065B. Staff has summarized key issues to provide a framework for comments as indicated in the Staff Report. The applicant is here to make a presentation on the BUILD site as well as a brief presentation on the CJL site to supplement information, address how the two site edges meet and provide a greater context for the BUILD parcel. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Does anyone else on the Staff wish to make any comments? Thank you. Does anyone here have any clarifying questions they wish to ask from Staff at this time? No? Then we will proceed to the applicant. If anyone would like to speak on this item they should complete a card, which can be obtained from the Secretary. Complete it and turn it in to her. Thank you very much. Would the applicant care to speak? I granted the applicant ahead of time 20 minutes to talk because I thought there was a great deal to talk about. You obviously don’t need to use that time if you don’t wish to. Ms. Lydia Tan, Applicant4 360 W. Charleston Road, Palo Alto: Thank you very much for allowing us to make this presentation to you tonight. My name is Lydia Tan I am with Bridge Housing Corporation and with BUILD as well. I just wanted to introduce some other folks from the Bridge and BUILD team who may be helpful as you ask questions tonight. The first is Tritzi Nemith who is Director of Development Investment for BUILD. Also Joe McCarthy is a Project Manager for BUILD. Ben Metcalfwho is a Project Manager for Bridge Housing Corporation and Ben will be working on the affordable senior project. So that is the Bridge and BUILD team here tonight. What we will talk about tonight is a little bit about who we are and what we are planning, a little bit about the history of the project to date. Then Rob Steinberg from the Steinberg Group, our architects, is going to talk more about the .actual proposal and the public benefits that we are planning on providing for the project. So first about Bridge Housing Corporation if you are not familiar with us we are a non-profit housing corporation. We are based in San Francisco but we are established to address the affordable housing crisis throughout the Bay Area. Since then our mission has expanded to City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 4 of 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 pretty much all the high cost areas in California. We are down in S6uthern California and in the nine Bay Area Counties as well. In the 21 years we have been in existence we have built about 11,000 homes. We currently house about 30,000 residents in all of our homes and tl~e build-of those units are affordable at low, very low and moderate income ranges. So it is really very important to us to make sure that we are continuing to help with the affordability crisis in the- Bay Area in a very highquality way. Sites like the Sun Microsystems site are ideal for what we are doing in that there is already infrastructure in place. There are great community benefits. There are great recreational opportunities and being right next to what the CJL is planning on providing on their site is exactly the kind of project Bridge likes to be involved with. Since our beginning we have managed to be very successful at what we do and because of that we were asked by CalPers, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to become an investment manager for them. Our mission with CalPers is a little bit different. CalPers was interested in investing in urban infill situations, development opportunities within California and we felt that worked really well with what we were trying to do which is to provide some affordability in those sorts of development opportunities that wouldn’t otherwise be provided. So I think you will see that in the proposal that we are providing. Just very quickly on the background of this particular project we became involved with this site back in the spring of 2002 when the Campus for Jewish Life approached us about providing some financing to help them acquire the property which was ultimately acquired in May of 2002. You might recall that we ended up coming through the City Council process for a subdivision and it ended up acquiring a four-acre parcel that we are here with you tonight on earlier this year, March of 2004. As you can see since 2002 we have been having regular conversations both with the City in terms of Staff, City Council, we have also had a number of community meetings as well small group and also very large group community meetings starting back in the fall of 2002 we had our first meeting at the Green Meadows Neighborhood Association. This past summer we had a whole series of community meetings that were advertised at large and we had some great turnout, we had some fabulous input to some of the concepts that we will be presenting here today and certainly that input has helped inform what we are proposing to you tonight. You will also notice that we have been doing some work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and earlier this year, in April of this year, we were removed from the Board order that was on the rest of the Sun Microsystems site. So we are no longer subject to any sort of action with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and that is subject to our following a mitigation plan, which I think we will talk about a little bit more later on but that will also be reviewed as part of the CEQA process as well. So with that just in terms of the background I think I will turn it over to Rob who will talk a little bit more about our specific proposal. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Architect, 1130 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Good evening Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Rob Steinberg I am President of the Steinberg Group Architects. I am very happy to be with you this evening. This is a large complex planning project and what I would like to do is to give you an overview of the whole site and then really primarily focus my comments on the BUILD proposal. The entire site is made up of 12 acres and it is broken really into two pieces, the Campus for Jewish Life that has approximately eight acres and there are two uses on those eight acres. There is a community center component about 150,000 square feet and there is a senior retirement community of about 275,000 square feet. Then there also is the project that we really want to City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 5 of 37 1 2 3 4_ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 focus on this evening, which is four acres it is the BRIDGE residential and that also has two components to it. It has a for sale component and it has an affordable senior apartments. The site just to get everybody oriented is bounded by San Antonio.Road, East Charleston gn._d Fabian. It is just off Highway 101. There is an out parcel here on the comer and there is another parcel here. The four acres that we want to focus on tonight for BUILD is right here. You can see the existing building that Staff mentioned is almost 92 feet tall. That building as part of our proposal would come down. This is the site looking directly down on it and I wanted to show you this view because you can see that the site is really surrounded and is on the edge of an industrial area. There is residential nearby but not tangent to it and this is the 12-acre site. The BUILD site, the four acres that we want to talk about tonight, is right here and this is the footprint of that existing taller building. I thought it might be helpful to just show you a few images across the street on San Antonio, across the street on Fabian, this is the out parcel, and we refer to it as the Kentucky Fried Chicken Site. You can see that it is a combination of one two-story buildings, I would say fairly nondescript architecture. Next. This is actually off-site looking back into our site. This is San Antonio Road looking north towards 101. You can.see that there is pretty good landscape and screening along the edge. This is a view again looking north on Fabian into the site with the existing building. Actually when you stand on the site itself it is almost its own little island there because it does have landscaping that kind of buffers that from its edges and its neighbors. I would like to in terms of just setting the context for this start by talking about the Campus for Jewish Life, which is eight acres of the 12-acre site. I thought that would be helpful to really focus in on the BUILD parcel. The community centerpiece is about 115,000 square feet and the largest components of it are cultural spaces, fitness and preschool. There are a variety of other school age, teens and community agencies that are on this site but those are really the three major components. Then there also is a retirement community proposed that is a combination of both independent and assisted living. It would be approximately 165 units but I will tell you this is kind of a moving target we are early on and we wanted to get in front of you and share with you our thoughts as the project was developing not at the end of the process. So if we come back to you and these numbers are a little different I want to point that out to you. There also would be approximately 40,000 square feet of commons and dining and community support for the seniors. This is an early illustrative site plan that shows the entire 12-acre site. San Antonio Road is up at the top, this is Charleston and Fabian and the four acres that we want to focus on tonight is BUILD but we can take one second and talk about the eight acres for the Campus for Jewish Life. It is organized that the senior housing component is primarily here and the community center component works into this area. There is a formal sort of a ceremonial formal front door on Charleston that attempts to reach out and integrate to the community. Really at Fabian and Charleston where there is a stop light this is what we are envisioning is our primary front door. It is a shared drive that comes into the site that gives access both to the JCC as well as to the BUILD parcel. There is a town square and pedestrian streets that link a series of gardens and outdoor spaces as part of that project. So hopefully that has given you a little framework now I would like to really focus in on our subject for this evening, which is the four-acre parcel for BUILD..That as I mentioned has two components to it. It has a for sale component that is combination of one, two and three bedroom both flats and townhouses because we want to have a nice variety of li.ving options. The project City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 6 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 is proposed to be built in two phases..As you heard a moment ago from Lydia the target here is attainable sales prices not the high-end range of the market but attainable sales prices. Parking is going to be provided both on garages on the site as well as shared use agreements with the - adjacent Campus for Jewish Life. There also is a senior affordable rental component, about 66 units. This includes development of the affordable component, thel 5% affordabl~ compdn~nt, about 34 units but in addition to that there are another 31 units beyond that 15% required below market rate component. So this is a view of the four-acre parcel. San Antonio is here, the Campus for Jewish Life that we just talked about is adjacent to it here, this is Fabian and there are two points of entry into the site this shared driveway with the Campus for Jewish Life that allows people to come from the stop light at Fabian and underneath the building there is a parking structure underneath all of this. There also is a secondary access that separates the project like a frontage road from Loral, which is located, you can see the edge of it, here to the north. That provides again access below the building to parking garage as well as a drop off for the senior component. A couple of things that I would like to point out to you are there really are three distinct neighborhoods. There is a for sale neighborhood here, a second one here and the senior component here. Each one of these neighborhoods has slightly different massing. The elements to the south always step down so that we are maximizing the light into the courtyards. If you look carefully at the plan you can see that there are single loaded buildings here just with hallways where everybody is facing away from Loral, the same thing here where there is a lower element and all the units are facing towards the western foothills. Then where the Loral building steps then there are some units oriented in the other direction. So we are trying to be very sensitive to our relationship with Loral. There are stoops and entrances and front doors that address the street on Fabian and on our shared driveway. I wanted to just let you know that there also is both public and private open space that exceeds the standard requirements. There are some really wonderful opportunities on a site like this. The ability to redevelop a site that does not have very sensitive residential neighborhoods is an unusual opportunity here in Palo Alto. We are actually reducing the traffic from the previous use and to be able to take advantage of existing infrastructure is a very unique opportunity. But it would be fair to say that there are also some challenges that we have to deal with as well. You heard a little bit about those from Chris in the Staff Report. FEMA, the flood plane requires that the first floor of the units be elevated above where existing grade is so that kind of pushes our building out of the ground. The second thing that we are wrestling with a little bit is the Regional Water Quality Control Board says that because of the site conditions we cannot, which you would normally think of on a site like this, we cannot excavate to put the garage below grade. The garage has to be on top of existing grade. So again that is putting some upward pressure on the height of the building, which is a little bit unusual. Then I think it would be fair to say that with the adjacent industrial uses we have to be thoughtful in how we deal with that. So this sort of a diagrammatic building section. Existing grade is here where the gray line is but the flood plane is up several. feet. So we have to elevate the first floor of the building and in fact we have to elevate the garage as well. So in order to respond to what we feel are pretty extraordinary circumstances from both FEMA and the Water Quality Control Board we are going to ask for consideration for either a Design Enhancement Exception or a Variance in order to design a project that we think is going to be the most sensitive and the most thoughtful and the most aesthetic building that we can do. What that will do is allow us to enhance the design by having the ability to manipulate City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 7 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 the roof forms a little bit, to vary the massing and I think it is fair to say that we have met in a study session similar to this with the Council and there was a level of receptiveness to explo_ring that possibility because of these conditions that I am sharing with you. Before we go to far I ju.st wanted to tell you that we are not asking for the entire site to be .... excepted but we are asking for exceptions in limited and individual areas. On Fabian for example our heights are within the 50 feet. On San Antonio Road again our heights are within the 50 feet. But we do have a condition on this part of our site adjacent between one of our neighborhoods where we are pressed on our height and we have a second condition again internal to our site that is pressing the height limit and we have two modest Conditions backing up to Loral again where we are pressed with our height requirements. Part of the reason that you see the height requirements where we are struggling at that end of the site is the site is sloping from the south, which is over here to this edge. So that puts additional pressure on that part of the site. I wanted to just take one more minute ifI may and tell you that we have looked very carefully at the Comprehensive Plan and we wanted to tell you that we believe that the proposal that we have in front of you this evening is consistent with we believe at least 30 if not more goals, policies and programs from our Comprehensive Plan. I just wanted to touch on one or two for you. I wanted to tell you that one of the policies identifies and asks to implement a variety of strategies for housing densities and diversities in appropriate locations, emphasizing and encouraging affordable and attainable housing. H-3, promote opportunities for a diverse population including low, very low, moderate income residents particularly with special needs. Encourage creative integration of parking by providing for shared use of parking, which we are also doing. Finally, I just wanted to say that I think that there are a variety of public benefits that this proposal has incorporated that we think have merit that I also wanted to share with you. I wanted to tell you that we are promoting a variety of housing types geared specifically towards entry level and affordable seniors. The magnitude of this house we believe will help alleviate the jobs/housing imbalance, minimizing traffic, reducing the traffic from what was previously on the site. We believe the increased affordability beyond the requirements of the 65 very low income 31 additional units is significant. In fact, so significant that is going to resolve almost 60% of the City’s unmet need for very low affordable units. This is my last slide. We fully intend to pay our share of the fees for the Charleston/Arastradero improvements. We believe the idea of smart growth developing existing sites with infrastructure has tremendous merit. So this is our proposal, we are very proud of it and we very much appreciate the opportunity to share this with you this evening. Chair Cassel: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I have one question for you since we do have to address the issue of site access. Will you have any other access besides those two driveways you showed? Is there some way that people can go through the Center for Jewish Life through the entrance from Charleston onto your site? In other words, is there some access to the circle you have there? Mr. Steinberg: The primary access points will be here and along here. We are trying to limit the amount of vehicular access from Charleston because it is a short block, left turns in we are concerned are going to raise issues and so quite honestly we are trying to take advantage of the City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 8 of 3"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 stop light not only for BUILD but for the Campus for Jewish Life as well to move the traffic off and around. There is shared parking. There will be approximately 100 cars of shared parking under the CJL and there is an entrance that will lead you into that parking garage. So to answer your question, yes, there is access there but I think we want to work with the environmental people and we want to be sensitive. The last thing in the world we want to do is to-create ~i Problem on Charleston. Commissioner Bialson: So there is access off Charleston into the garage. Is there also access to that circular area that you are showing? In Other words, could someone come off Charleston-and you could get to that area? Mr. Steinberg: You could conceivably come off of Charleston, go in the underground garage, travel underneath the podium and get out here and go out this way and you could conceivably come in Charleston underneath the podium, under the underground garage and we are exploring with the City and the traffic the possibility 0f an exit out onto San Antonio as well. There is not currently that option available but we certainly would like to pursue that as well. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: You said there would be an underground garage under CJL facilities but there cannot be an underground garage on the BUILD or is it the podium garage under CJL and where would that be if we know that yet? Mr. Steinberg: Pardon me I used my words loosely. There is parking underneath the CJL at grade. So the CJL is up on a podium and the same thing is there is parking under BUILD and that is also up on a podium. So there is no underground parking, excuse me. Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have a question for the applicant? Thank you very much. Wait, Bonnie has another question for you. Vice Chair Packer: I had another question. In the drawings when I looked at parking plan and it still may be very rough but it looked like tandem parking was being contemplated. Was my analysis correct? And could you also speak to the parking ratios that you are proposing? Mr. Steinberg: Yes I can. We are exploring a variety of parking options currently. We are exploring tandem at the CJL for the senior component we are actually exploring valet parking. That is something that is being done at Classic Residents by Hyatt now and they think that there is some real merit to that for safety reasons as well as efficiency. So we are exploring a whole host of parking options. The parking requirement for the for sale housing I was going to do it in my general numbers but I appreciate your assistance too. We are meeting the parking requirement. Let’s start with a global picture. There are 429 cars required including guest parking for the project, 429. We are providing 325 on site and 96 shared. The parking for the for sale housing is consistent with the City standards. The parking that we are asking for on the senior is seven-tenths of a car per unit. That is not a number that we dreamed up because that is what fit but through a long history of doing projects of this nature for the senior of what is actually been required. City of Palo Alto December I, 2004 Page !) of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I am under the impression that although we are seeing a building description there for the below rate housing that is not yet something that we have financing for. Is that something that w.e are going to be building after or what is the sequence because I .... understood this was a phased project? Ms. Tan: It is and the financing for the below market rate affordable senior piece is not as current as the financing for the attainable for sale piece. The attainable for sale piece will be conventionally financed. We will use CalPers dollars as equity and we will go out and get a commercial bank loan. That is very easy to do. The for sale piece will be contributing a significant amount of financing needed to make the affordable piece work but there are also funds outside of BUILD that we will also have to go after. There is something called low income housing tax credits, there is funding from HUD specifically for very low income seniors, there is a number of other local and county sources as well that we are going to try to use to help augment what BUILD is contributing towards the project. So it will take a little bit more time for us to get that together. Commissioner Bialson: Are you ready to commit that you would actually accomplish that financing and make those buildings a reality for us? Ms. Tan: We are, the model that we are proposing we have talked to Staff a little bit about, it is the same model that was used for the medical center where there was a site that was deed restricted, was donated to a non-profit, the non-profit went out and got additional funding to make the project happen and it is happening. So that would be a similar model that we are proposing here. Chair Cassel: Are there any questions? Lee, did you have a question? Commissioner Lippert: Yes. The BMR units, the additional ones that we have beyond the required number are those being used to augment or supplement the units that would be required for the CJL site? Ms. Tan: They are not. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so those would be on their own for the four acre site. Ms. Tan: Right. We are each taking care of our own requirements. Chair Cassel: Let me get a clarification. I thought we were asking questions of the applicant. Does everyone want to wait to ask questions of the applicant until later as well as the Staff?. Commissioner Griffin: I guess my question is how do you distinguish which ones you ask of Staff and which of the applicants. I am really not caring too much who answers the question as long as I get an answer. Chair Cassel: If you have a specific question you know is for the applicant go ahead and ask it now. City of Palo Alto December I, 2004 Page 10 of 31 1 2 Commissioner Griffin: All right I shall. 3 4 Chair Cassel: If you don’t we will go back and ask them later. 5 6 Commissioner Griffin: I would like to know what is the actually maximum height of the 7 structure, the actual ridge top height, as opposed to the 50% number. In other words, we 8 measure height to the center of the slope of the roof and what I am asking for is the height of the 9 ridge, the maximum. 10 11 Ms. Tan: I am hearing it is 62 feet. 12 13 Commissioner Griffin: I am sorry I can’t hear you. 14 15 Ms. Tan: I am hearing that it is 62 feet at the highest point. 16 17 Commissioner Griffin: Fifty-two feet. 18 19 Ms. Tan: Sixty-two. You remember the diagram that Rob Showed you earlier that the ridge 20 heights are all different so that 62 would occur at the very highest point not throughout the 21 building. 22 23 Commissioner Griffin: I appreciate that. One of you mentioned that the site sloped from the 24 high point on the southerly side of the property and it slopes towards the Bay and therefore most 25 of the high elevations that we are looking at are on the north side against the Loral property. Am 26 I saying that right? 27 28 Mr. Steinberg: Yes. 29 30 Commissioner Griffin: Have you explored other solutions to solve penetrating our. 50-foot 31 height limit? That is a leading question because I am confident that you have. Would you mind 32 sharing some of the alternatives that you have looked at to try to avoid going beyond the 50-foot 33 level? 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Steinberg: To answer your question yes we have looked at different alternatives. One alternative would be to put flat roofs on these buildings. I think that there are aesthetic issues related to that. There are issues of getting a positive water drainage off of those roofs with a for sale product that is a serious issue to us. We have looked at lowering the floor-to-floor heights for this produce to less than what typically would be built in the market, which we weren’t keen on. The fact that we are providing attainable housing it is our preference not to provide anything less or with less dignity than market rate housing. So we have been resisting that but that is an alternative. We have looked at the alternative of working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to penetrate the ground level and that doesn’t seem to be an option. We have looked at the option of taking floors’ off of the building, which have serious consequences to the viability of the project. So we are exploring, we are continuing to explore but our options are beginning to narrow down as we look at them. Chair Cassel: Pat. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 11 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bu.rt: How many feet does the flood plane cause you to elevate your foundation from the adjacent grade? Mr. Steinberg: It varies, because the grades vary but in the range offour to five fee~. If you at what our problem is it is in the range of four to five feet. Commissioner Burt: When you were talking about reducing the height from floor to floor was that looking at reducing the ceiling height within the units or was it looking at are there alternatives on going to other structural materials or designs that would reduce the floor to floor without reducing the ceiling height? Mr. Steinberg: Not if we were to stay focused on our goal to provide attainable housing. So yes we could do all this in concrete, which would give us a lower floor-to-floor height, but it would raise our costs so dramatically that it would negate the whole mission of the project. So no is the answer to your question. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now I think we will try to go to the rest of the public hearing. I believe that the Secretary would like to have the applicant also complete one of these cards. I think they would like those of you who spoke to also ’complete a card for them. I have four cards at the present time. If there is anyone here who would like to speak would you please go to the Secretary, ask for a card and complete it. She will give it to me and then I will announce your name. There are four people who would like to speak you have up to five minutes to speak if you wish to speak. The first person is Jean Wilcox and the second will be Robert Moss. Ms. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Southerland Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, which is adjacent to the new project. Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, I would like to welcome Bridge Housing to my neighborhood and look forward to working with you as you move forward with the planning process. Although I feel very positive about the proposal I do have some reservations which I hope can be addressed during the approval process. Because of groundwater problems Bridge will need to request a Variance, which will allow them to build over the City’s 50-foot height limit. This however is not the only height problem. Elevator shafts and air conditioning equipment may take some areas of these buildings up to and exceeding 60 feet. I understand that height generated by such infrastructures is legal under our Municipal Code but I would like the Planning and Transportation Commission to be aware of exactly how high these buildings may go bearing in mind they are adjacent to single story neighborhoods. Comparisons have been made to the present Sun building, which is 96 feet high. This building was controversial and unpopular at the time it was built. Palo Alto has had a 50-foot height limit since the mid 1960’s. Bear in mind that Bridge Development may only be the first of several requests to exceed the 50-foot height limit and therefore your decision on this issue will be watched very closely. It has already been disclosed that the new police building will exceed the 50-foot height limit and there are future proposals to build along Fabian Way on several former Loral sites. These sites have the same plumes of groundwater above which they will have to build. Granting Bridge their height Variance sets a huge example of where our City intends to go with regard to its 50-foot height limit in the future. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 12 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Our neighborhood is also concerned about the reduced number of parking spaces requested. We are so close to the new housing development and CJL’s proposed theater that our neighborl~ood streets may be used for parking particularly for evening events when the shared pa_rking on t_h.e Bridge buildings and CJL buildings is not available. Increased traffic will cut through our residential neighborhoc~d. We know this because when it was Sun Microsystems traffic going east on San Antonio Road would avoid the lights at Leghorn and Charleston by turning left onto Middlefield then right onto Montrose. To help alleviate the inci:eased traffic on both Charleston and nearby local residential neighborhood streets I would like to support the request of both Bridge Housing and the CJL for an entrance and exit on San Antonio Road to accommodate at least westbound traffic. This will help mitigate the impacts of increased traffic on both Charleston and the nearby residential neighborhoods. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Robert Moss to be followed by Ellen Fletcher. Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Cassel and Commissioners. The proposal before you tonight has a number of major problems but fortunately there are solutions if you are willing to require that the development be built for the good of the community and not to mostly enrich the developer. Most of the relaxations that they require are frankly designed to maximize profit and to damage the community and the environment. I will give you a couple of examples. When that property, which I am extremely familiar with, was used for industrial use there were four entrances one on San Antonio, two on Charleston and on Fabian. The proposal to have all of the entrances on Fabian is a guaranteed traffic disaster. It means that everybody approaching from 101 is forced to go down Charleston and down Fabian in order to get in. There should be an absolute requirement to have an access road from San Antonio. There should be an absolute requirement to have an access road from Charleston. No dispute, no argument with the developer just require it. The density is excessive 1.8 FAR is far more than the community and the neighborhood can handle. Fortunately there is an easy way to eliminate the excess density. Remove the fourth floor, the top floor of the building reducing the density by approximately 25% and eliminating the encroachment above our sacrosanct 50-foot height limit. This also will reduce traffic and will allow adequate parking because the proposal to have under parking by 100 spaces and 96 shared parking spaces is an absolute guarantee for parking and traffic disaster. When JCC was at Terman every time they had an event without exception there was overflow parking into the neighborhood. The only place you can have overflow parking from this site is to go across Fabian or across Charleston into residential neighborhoods. This site is adjacent to two residential neighborhoods, which will be severely impacted by the overflow parking. One of the things I find most objectionable and I go back a long time on this, is having all of the BMR units, 100% of them, for seniors only. The basic principle of BMRs in Palo Alto at one time was all developments shall have similar BMRS throughout the development. You were not supposed to have the BMR units segregated. You were not supposed to have them all one bedroom or studios and the market rate units something else. The BMR units should be distributed between the senior units and the other units. Otherwise we are unfairly burdening the community and we are not getting the job/housing imbalance that we are looking for because you are not creating low cost housing for workers. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 13 of 3~l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 One of the points that was raised was do they have financing for the BMR units. The way it is structured now with all of the BMR units being built if and when they can get financing if you give them a PC and allow them to violate the existing zone and the.y, come back lat_er and s.ay.. sorry folks we can’t get. financing the City is basically screwed because we have given them something that they are not entitled to under the existing zoning and they are not giving us back the BMRs because they can’t raise the money. How are we going to recover that? Are we going to make them tear down some of the existing buildings in order to get back with the zoning? I don’t think so. If you are going to allow anything like that then you have to insist that the BMR units be built simultaneously and that should be a condition of any approvals. Finally, it is important that when we have a project like this built we look at the entire not just the four acres but the entire 12 acres and how it is going to interact with the Campus for Jewish Life, their parking and their traffic problems. Don’t look at this in a void. Look at it as an entity and look at the other developments that are going on in the Charleston corridor and how that is going to impact traffic. We have to look at this as a system not as an individual piece. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Ellen Fletcher to be followed by Sally Hamilton. Ms. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto: Hi, this is my neighborhood. I just have one comment about analyzing the traffic impacts. I hope what will be .used as a base is what the traffic was when those buildings were all occupied and the fact that the trafficthen was concentrated in the commute hours morning and evening and it had severe impacts. This project will generate trips I am sure throughout the day so it won’t be concentrated like it had been before. So I look forward to this project going in it sounds like agreat project. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Sally Hamilton to be followed by Michael Lyzwa. Ms. Sally Hamilton, 183 Ferne Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am delivering a statement for the Green Meadow Community Association that has been approved by our elected Board. Our Association has taken no position for or against this project. We are very interested, as you know, in understanding the ag~egate impacts of this project and multiple other high-density projects that have been proposed or are projected in South Palo Alto and the neighboring portions of Mountain View. To this end we would like to ask that the following information be included in the proposed Draft EIR for this project specifically an origin-destination study for all the trips to and from the CJL and BUILD residences. This is of particular concem because we understand the majority of CJL current membership comes from Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto and Mountain View, in other words west of 101 and it is not likely these commuters are going to use the 101 to get to CJL or BUILD. They are more likely to travel via San Antonio and Charleston/Arastradero. In addition we need to keep in mind that funding for the overall Charleston/Arastradero Corridor is not a certainty and neither is approval of the plan beyond the current trial even if funding becomes available. Citing this plan and payment against this plan for mitigation will work only if the plan is implemented in full therefore there should be alternate mitigations proposed if the Charleston/Arastradero plan fails to move forward for any reason. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 14 of 3 7 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 We would like the EIR to analyze impacts on certain intersections;’San Antonio/Charleston, San Antonio/Middlefield, Charleston/Middlefield, Charleston/Alma, San Antonio/Central and E1 Camino/San Antonio. In addition we believe that we need to look at the impacts on public" schools. Unlike some older parts of Palo Alto housing in our South Palo Alto neighborhoods was developed in the mid to late 1950s. The young couples and families that mov4d thereoger 40 years ago and put their kids in the school there no longer have school age children and many of the homes we think will turn over to the next generation of users of the school system. Our analysis of the last Census of 1990-2000 reflects the bubble of coming household transition because of the distribution age shift towards older head of households. Overall households only went up about 3.5% in our zip code but growth in households 75 and up went up about 20% over that same ten-year period. We don’t think it is going to get any less. As a result this is a strong indicator of potential higher rates of future turnover due to the aging demographics and a corresponding likely influx of families. It is unclear whether or not the current Palo Alto School District projections incorporate this impending demographic shockwave and if the school district has not we may have significantly overestimated the existing excess capacity in South Palo Alto which will have an impact on children there and others moving into the community. With so many people reaching the age when a single family home may become a burden it is really good that developers like BUILD and CJL are proposing residential projects with support facilities that specifically target this demographic however, it is reasonable to assume that those same factors could trigger a larger number of single family home sales which could exacerbate this bubble effect. We hope that the EI~R will investigate this possibility in detail. Thank you for giving our concerns your consideration. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Michael Lyzwa to be followed by Joy Ogawa. Mr. Michael Lyzwa, 144 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto: First of all I am very taken by the proposal tonight. I think the architect and applicant have done a very creative and compatible job in providing a wonderful solution for housing in a mixed-use proposal. I think that Palo Alto is in great need of housing. I know my wife and I would pretty much like to welcome the JCC and this solution to our area. We think that attainable housing is appropriate on this site. We believe that the proposal of removing a 93-foot building is a wonderful solution and the fact that they are exceeding the 50-foot height limit as a consequence of flood plane is not a problem whatsoever. I think that the system as proposed by them is a very good solution and I think it will provide a lot of the needed housing that we are in such desperation to have in our community. So I would urge you to support it and I think that the applicant has done an excellent job in this proposal. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joy Ogawa. Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Sorry I don’t have anything prepared so it is not going to read very smoothly. I do have one question to start with and that is there is something about an amendment, a Comprehensiye Plan amendment, to make it mixed use and I just wondered what it is about this project that is mixed use. It is jut not clear to me. So maybe somebody can clarify that for me. One thing that popped out at me, Bob Moss made some really good points that I obviously haven’t thought of myself because I haven’t had a chance to really read the Staff Report. One thing that concerns me is the 0.7 parking spaces per unit for the senior rental housing. That is City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 15 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 extremely under,parked. The problem that I see is that this is not near transit. It is really not near transit. So the things that you can point out for something like Alma Place where they can get away with lesser parking and the applicant said something about at their other projects 017 worked. Well, where are these other projects located? Are they located where there is public transit? This is really no.t a public transit oriented place. I know that if I were livin~ there ~ Would want my car and I can’t get along with 0.7 parking spac.~s for my car. I need one parking space for my car. They have pointed out that they have this 96 spaces of shared parking but that depends a lot upon what the Campus for Jewish Life’s parking is going to be like. Are they going to be under-parked? Are they going to be fully parked? Are they going to provide extra parking? So the dynamic there makes a big difference as to how that shared parking is really going to work. I think it is hard to evaluate it separately in.this project. Maybe they are planning on having a 24-hour shuttle or something that shuttles the seniors around but if that is the case that needs to get fleshed out and somehow be a condition if you are going to be under-parked by that much. Maybe Campus for Jewish Life is going to have a shuttle for their seniors. Are they going to let Bridge Housing senior use that free? Is it going to be available for Bridge Housing seniors as well? These are questions that I think need to get fleshed out before you can authorize an 0.7 per unit parking when in fact it is 1.5 or more that is required. That is way under-parked for some place that is not transit oriented. I hope you give this a lot of thought and can come up with some good answers. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to have a three-minute summary to comment on anything or a closing comment? Ms. Tan: Thanks. I really don’t want to add much to the presentation. I didn’t realize we were going to get three minutes so thank you. Just a couple of things. I just want to reiterate we really are trying to provide the most amount of attainable and affordable housing as possible on the site. It is part of our mission as Bridge. It is certainly part of our agreement with CalPers. We feel like we have done a really good job of trying to listen to what the community has asked for, deal with our site constraints and come up with a proposal that we think is going to be a very high quality of life onsite but also meet a lot of the goals that the City has outlined in the Comp Plan and the Housing Element. Just very quickly on the parking issue it is a question that the Staff has asked of us in terms of the .7 ratio that is only on the senior housing piece, the affordable senior housing piece, Bridge has developed and owns and manages about 1,300 units of housing that is specifically for exactly this target income population in Northern Californim We have properties certainly in high transit areas like San Francisco and Oakland but we also have a number of projects in areas that are similar to Palo Alto, Foster City, San Jose even more suburban places like Walnut Creek and Pinole and Hercules where there is really no transit at all. We find that this particular income group and age group starts to give Up their cars at a fairly early rate and they find other ways of accessing services that they need. Certainly providing that kind of hard data as to what our experience has been in similar situations is something we have provided to Staff and I sure will come through during the environmental review process. So thank you very much for your time. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Let me bring it back to the Commission. Do we have questions of Staff or any other questions we want to work with? Shall I start with you, Lee? Commissioner Lippert: I guess it is really for the applicant even though you said Staff.. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 16 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Cassel: All right, Ididn’t close the public hearing on purpose. Go ahead. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the possibility of a shuttle bus a lot of the senior housing in the Downtown area even though it is near transit has a shuttle bus and the City even has a shuttle bus that they use. Is it within the realm of possibility that there would be a jointly .... operated shuttlebus for the Bridge housing and the Campus for Jewish Life? Ms. Tan: Well, it is something we have talked on and off about with CJL but there have been absolutely no commitments. So it is certainly something we will continue to have a conversation with the Campus for Jewish Life about. I do know that there are other transit services that are available to low income seniors in Palo Alto that we would certainly want our residents to take advantage of. We have had a number of conversations with the City about the possibility of extending the City shuttle it sounds like a remote possibility but something we will continue to have conversations with the City about. We have also talked to the City about going and talking to VTA about extending bus service back to the site which is something that.went away about a year or so ago. The bus has been rerouted off of Fabian but once we get a little bit closer the City thinks that given the amount of residents that will be at this particular parcel we have a really good chance of getting the bus to come back on Fabian. Commissioner Lippert: What about financing it through the condominium building through the condominium fees that would be paid and then on the rental Units including a portion that would be included in the rental of those units. Ms. Tan: Well we can look at anything. It is pretty expensive to run a shuttle. If you look at the City’s budget as to what they use to run their shuttle just up and down Charleston it is a pretty big number. So anything that we do to end up burdening either the homeowners or the senior rents are simply going to have a detrimental impact on our ability to provide affordability. It is something we will definitely take a look at though. Chair Cassel: Pat, do you have a question? Commissioner Burt: Yes, I will ask a couple and then maybe if it loops back I will have some more. First, can Staff at this time give any comparisons of the formulaic trip generations from the existing structure if it were fully occupied versus what we anticipate from these two adjacent uses? Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: We don’t have the detail of that but that is something that would be looked at closely in the Environmental Impact Report. We will be looking at the trip generation rates, the parking requirements for the circulation pattern of the building that has been there on the site and then comparing that to the proposed developments on the site. Commissioner Burt: At this time we don’t have anything based upon just standard formulas that give us seat of the pants sort of notion? Ms. Grote: We don’t have that in front of us tonight. Commissioner Burt: Okay. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 17 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16- .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Cassel: Shall we go around with one question each that we agreed to? Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: Maybe this question will be for Staff. In terms of when we look at this project in the future I understand the two sites are going to have separate applicatiqns and .w.i_l.1 be looked at at separate times but will there be an opportunity for us to figure out, well let me put it this way. If we are goir~g to have to make a decision in the future on the BUILD project without knowing what is going to happen at CJL and there is going to be issues like shared parking or other kinds of sharing that goes on how are we going to look at this together and get a sense of the commitment of one property owner to another property owners? Ms. Grote: We do anticipate that CJL will be making a Planned Community application in the future. In the meantime the Environmental Impact Report will be looking at the BUILD site in detail and will be looking at the CJL site at what is called a program level. So it is less specific but it does take into account at least to date known square footages for the community facility, known, square footages for the childcare facility and other square footages for what is known now. That would be analyzed at a program level so that there can be the two pieces of the site fitted together. It is anticipated that there may be some additional environmental review on the CJL portion once that application is made so we would be following up with additional review. Vice Chair Packer: Ms. Tan, did you want to help respond to that question? Ms. Tan: It doesn’t help you with that kind of overall picture question but I just want to let you know that as part of our acquisition of the four acre parcel that the CJL site right now has deed restriction easements on it which allow us both the shared parking and shared access for the driveway. So I just want to let you know that right now there is a legal binding agreement between the two of us. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Michael. Did someone down there want to say something? Did someone on the Staff want to make a comment? Ms. Grote: Yes we do. We have been provided with some very preliminary traffic trip generation numbers so I wanted to look those over and then give those to you. It is based on what was presented to the City Council so some of these numbers have changed a bit but it would give you a ballpark. Chair Cassel: Thank you. You have a question, Michael? Commissioner Griffin: I would like to also express frustration at trying to give this project proper review without having access to a better understanding of exactly what the JCC is proposing. Other Commissioners and members of the public have talked about this. I feel strongly that we would benefit up here particularly in trying to analyze the parking situation if we had a better feel for what is going to be proposed next door. That is a comment. I will move on to my question. The applicant is asking for mixed-use land designation, which would permit office, commercial, retail in addition to housing. I am presuming that some of these non- residential uses are going to be for administrative offices for the building itself but what would you be thinking of in terms of commercial? I noticed in the applicant’s presentation you had reserved 7,000 square feet for commercial. Could you share with us a little bit what your thoughts might be? A grocery store or something of that nature? I won’t lead you. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 18 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1-6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Steinber,~: That was for the CJL component of the site. I want to make that clear number one. Number two, the current thinking for that is two things we have in mind one is a caf~,-some sort of food service, restaurant to be determined and the second would be a modest or small gift store as part of the community Center/cultural center. That is the ciirrent thinking. -There liag been discussion in cormection with the food service that there might be some sort of take-out food service but these are very preliminary thoughts at this time. Chair Cassel: Annette. Ms. Sandy Sloan, 1100 Alma Street, Menlo Park: I am Sandy Sloan, the attorney for CJL and BUILD. The Staff can elaborate on this but the mixed-use designation under the Comp Plan I believe says that is mixed use for mixed uses within a site or adjacent sites. After discussing this with Staff, Staff felt it was appropriate to have both sites changed on the Comprehensive Plan diagram to. mixed use. The EIR at the programmatic level is addressing the Comp Plan change for both sites to mixed use and then two PC zones under the mixed-use designation. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Annette. Go ahead, Lisa. Ms. Grote: Thank you. That is exactly right. We are recommending that the sites be looked at together and that they both have their Comprehensive Plan Land Use changed to mixed use. In response to Commissioner Burt’s question about the trip generation rates in the report that was presented to the Council the existing use AM peak hour number of trips would be reduced by 176 trips. It would go from 457 trips to 281 on the overall site in the AM peak. In the PM peak it would be reduced by 61 trips from 433 to 372 so a reduction of 61 trips overall. Commissioner Bialson: With regard to the other adjacent use, which is the Loral building, do we know what the building is used for? Is it office or is there research that goes on there? Ms. Grote: It is a combination of 0ffice and research and development. One of the topics in the EIa~ will be any impact from noise that is generated from Loral onto these new uses on this site and also any vibration that would occur during construction that might affect the existing uses at Loral and how to mitigate those. Chair Cassel: Lee. Pat. Commissioner Burt: What would be the locations or prospective locations of the elevator shafts and HVACs and would they increase the building height beyond that that is created by the roofline? Ms. Grote: Chris probably has a little more detail on the exact locations but the zoning ordinance does allow for up to 15 feet of additional height for elevator towers, stair towers, and mechanical equipment. So it is possible that, again we do measure the height from the midpoint of a pitched roof in an industrial district or multi-family district so it could extend portions of the building up to 15 feet. Chris probably has some more specific detail. Commissioner Burt: I will even point you in the direction I am going to be inquiring which is given that not all of the roof height is being proposed to exceed our 50 foot limit are there ways City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 19 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 in which those additional protrusions beyond the 50 foot limit could be located to minimize the additional height that they would provide?_ Ms. Grote: Again the applicant may have some additional information but let us lo_ok at the._. plans and see. Chair Cassel: While they do that, Bonnie do you have another question? Vice Chair Packer: I do but Lisa is concentrating on something else. I have a question about the BMR issue that was raised. There are two things one it was mentioned that this model is kind of like what happened in the SOFA I area where one parcel was developed as fully affordable and the condos did not have the BMR. So the BMR was shifted into one place. Is that concept consistent with the City’s position on how BMRs should happen? Ms. Grote: I think BMRs have been approached in a number of ways over the years. Certainly they have been concentrated in one location most recently in Oak Court which is in SOFA I and then also they will be concentrated in the Opportunity Center which provides a variety of services as well as below market rate units. They were certainly concentrated in the SRO, Single Room Occupancy, facility that is on Alma. So they have been concentrated together in one place in a number of projects. There are other ways to approach BMRs and that is to disburse them throughout a development that is another option but it is not unusual to see them concentrated in one location. Frequently it makes it easier to manage when they are in one location. So there are proponents of that approach. Chair Cassel: Lisa, can I follow up on that? I think some of this is not comparing like items. The Opportunity Center was built specifically as a low and very low income project and not as a mitigation for some other project. So I would not have considered that a BMR concentration in that same way as if you are building a development of 100 units and a certain percentage of them are within that unit then they have usually been scattered but not always. Obviously the Palo Alto Medical Foundation site was an example where a different kind of mitigation has taken place. I think there are other situations, we did a senior high income community on Middlefield Road and in that case bought a site offsite where we got more units by doing that. So because we have gotten more units we sometimes have done something else. Ms. Grote: That is true. Also when the Planned Community was approved on Everett which was I think 24 or 27 single family homes the four below market rate units associated with that project were located across the street together but in a separate building and it was specifically designed for those units. So there have been a variety of approaches to below market rate units. Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up really on Pat’s question. In residential neighborhoods we do allow for certain projections into daylight plane when it is in a flood plane area, when a house needs to be currently raised up. So would this not be consistent with what we allow in other residential areas? Ms. Grote: I think the concept is the same. Currently in R,1 areas you can have half of the height that is required to meet the flood plane requirement in additional height. So if you have to City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 20 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 raise the elevation or raise your building by three feet you can have an additional foot and a half to accommodate that. So it is kind of splitting the difference. The concept is like that in this case. I don’t know that the values are absolutely the same but the concept is the same and v~e still are looking at location of elevator shafts and stair towers. Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: All right. Commissioner Bialson has already paved the way on this item but I am going to ask the applicant again to clarify the issue involving financing for the senior housing. If we do approve the zoning request and the project does go forward is there a possibility that you would build two of the components and not the senior component of your project if financing doesn’t come through? I guess I am understanding that the answer to that is that you would not. Ms. Sloan: I will take a crack at that and maybe Lydia will want t0 add something. I also worked on the community working group project and if any of you are familiar with low income housing projects putting the financing together is an amazing piece of work. I mean for community working group for example there was money from the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, HUD, tax credits, the State of California and the documents were flying. Sometimes you have to apply and then immediately build but you have to bring all these different pieces together. So I think the model of SOFA I and Oak Court is a perfect one which is that the project was allowed to proceed as long as the Oak Court site was deed restricted for affordable housing only and I believe, correct me ifI am wrong Staff, that it was even deeded to the City or the Palo Alto Housing Corporation so nothing else could have been built there except below market rate housing. Yes the development lagged but the people that owned that parcel were committed to low income housing and. committed to finding the financing but you cannot find that financing overnight. I don’t think it makes sense to us to without hold development of needed housing and attainable housing while you are searching for the financing for that. We expect to lag only about six months or a year. Chair Cassel: Bonnie has a follow up question to that. Vice Chair Packer: A follow up for you Ms. Sloan. One of the items that are going to come forward is the subdivision for the condominium air spaces. At that time you mentioned the deed restriction for affordable housing that applied to Oak Court. Would it make sense at that time to add a similar deed restriction for the part that is going to be for the senior affordable housing? Would that be one way to satisfy these concerns? Is that legally doable? Ms. Sloan: Yes I think it is. Right. Good idea. Chair Cassel: Annette, do you have another question? Lee, do you have another question? Commissioner Lippert: I had a question for the architect, Rob. You had mentioned that the parking would have to be elevated up out of the flood plane as well. Is that correct? Mr. Steinberg: The parking has to be protected and so there are a variety of different ways to that but the parking cannot be open and susceptible to flooding. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 21 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Lippert: How is that going to be achieved? Is it goin~:to be elevated or is it going to be built out of imperious material? Mr. Steinberg: We are looking at raising the enclosed part of the garage above the flood plane and bringing the ramp u.p to a height that exceeds the flood plane and then ramping-back d~)V~n. So there are a number of ways to accomplish that and that is what our current thinking is at the moment. Commissioner Lippert: As a follow up to that is it possible to actually put some of the parking out from under the building, in other words build out as surface parking, it all doesn’t need to be covered parking, correct? And actually build some of the units above the base flood elevation at .grade level thereby reducing the building mass in some places. Mr. Steinber,~: Because of the soil’s condition we cannot build at grade. We are required to have an interstitial space between the ground and the units of approximately three feet. So we have half a garage that we are paying for for openers. So to pay for that cost and then to go in another direction doesn’t really make a lot of sense in this particular case. It is a very unique site that is caught in this conundrum between the flood plane and the soil’s condition and not being able to build on grade: All of these make this really pretty unique. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Can Staff comment on the public and private open space elements? I think it was alluded to that they exceed the City requirements and when I look at these I am not following it unless the housing segment is being integrated with the CJL elements for open space. Ms. Grote: At this preliminary stage it appears that they are proposing close to 65,000 square feet of open space and it is actually 64,886. So that would be in a combination of rooftop areas, ground level areas, private patios and some decks. The requirement would be approximately 52,000 if you were developing under a standard RM-30, 30 units per acre, zoning district. In the PC, in the Planned Community, zone district there is not an open space requirement. So when we compare it to RM-30 or RM:40, which is slightly less, it is only 35,000 square feet of open space we do that for comparative purposes because in a PC there isn’t a required usable open space. Commissioner Burt: If you were to compare the density of development in what would be allowed in the RM-30 and the corresponding open space that is required for an RM-30 how does this project compare and have you looked at ess.entially the quality of the proposed open space when you are talking about rooftops and things like that? Has Staff really looked at what that is going to mean in terms of the usability of that space? Ms. Grote: Again, at this preliminary level we haven’t done that detailed analysis but we will be doing that analysis partially in the EIR and then also as part of our more complete review that comes to you and to the Architectural Review Board after the Environmental Impact Report is complete. The 30 units per acre are what are required for 52,000 square feet of open space. This proposal is at 56 units per acre roughly and that is with 65,000 square feet of open space. So we would need to do that comparison in more detail. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 22 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burr: That will be part of your follow up? Ms. Grote: Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Ms. Grote: Also in response to your previous question about the stair towers it appears that there are three of them. Again these are preliminary plans but it appears that there are three of them that are in areas of the building that would exceed the 50-foot height limit. As part of a design solution we can discuss that with the applicant and see if there is some way to relocate those or modify them somehow. Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: This is a question for the applicant. In at least two places in the materials that we read for this evening you make mention of the fact that this is a noisy location and that one of the benefits of your project would be the fact that the project would block the noise to the neighborhood. You didn’t mention the source of the noise and I am wondering if you could elaborate on that. Ms. Tan: The source of the noise is actually Loral. When they are moving their satellites and doing some of the other work that they do there they have received complaints from some of the neighbors in the area. They have actually expressed that concern to us as one of their concerns they wanted to make sure we addressed when we looked at the design of our project. So as Rob pointed out we have single loaded corridors and since we are mindful of this issue we are making sure that both design and materials provide that real acoustic barrier. Vice Chair Packer: Lydia, I have a question on that. One of the noisy areas of Loral is right next to where the senior housing is proposed. Have you thought about putting the senior housing near Fabian or what are the mitigations to deal with that noisy comer where there seems to be generators and steam and all kinds of stuff coming from Loral? Ms. Tan: The senior building has been all over the site. It has been on Fabian. It has been in the middle. It has been on San Antonio. We sort of settled on San Antonio as being the ideal solution to the puzzle that we have been trying to work with. So we have looked at all areas of the site. I think whether it is senior or the for sale housing for families they are all going to have the same issues around noise and so we really do think that whatever is in that comer site has to have the right design and the right materials used to make sure they are acoustically protected. Chair Cassel: I have a question that dealt with the seniors being in the back comer. That has to do with social isolation and it has to do with pedestrian access. If they are in the back comer if you do get any kind of public transit that is a long ways for them to walk. If you don’t it is still a long ways for them to walk to get to any place and it seems more isolating. I couldn’t quite understand why they would be put in the back comer. Mr. Steinberg: As Lydia mentioned we have explored all different places. One of the key reasons that we have chosen to .locate them in that location is that permits them at that podium City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 23 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 level to come directly over to the JCC and take advantage of all of the programs, all of the services without having to go down and cross that shared driveway and come back up. So i_t was that pedestrian connection to the community center functions that we felt was a huge plus to locate them in that location. That is number one. Number two the. amount of trips_and car_ activity from the seniors we think will be less than the market rate or the attainable. So to locate them on the front of the site and to have everybody and their cars constantly going past them to get to their homes was a second reason that we began to shift them to that location. So it really primarily the major driver was we wanted the seniors to be able to at a pedestrian, convenient way go directly across and be able to take advantage of all of the community center services. Chair Cassel: Will they have access to food services over there? You have another senior program on the other side. Mr. Steinberg: The relationship of food service and what access to which programs is something that we will get worked out between the two applicants in those two projects but that certainly is something under discussion. What we wanted from a physical point of view is to encourage the mix of these uses from a physical point of view as much as possible. Commissioner Griffin: Could Staff help me with access to the Sun site off of San Antonio Road? At one time I thought there was a dedicated lane that you could take in the southbound direction that would allow you to access the Sun site directly off of San Antonio Road. Is that still there? Is that still operating? Ms. Grote: It has been closed. It used to be there and it is now.closed. Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering what the proximity of that preexisting entry ramp and the private drive that the applicant has indicated would be constructed or otherwise allowed for that separates the Loral property from their site. Where all of this is going is that I too share the concern about lack of access from San Antonio Road and the resulting extra traffic circulation required to turn the block at Charleston and then again at Fabian. Am I clear in what I am trying to get at here? Chair Cassel: You can see up there it looks like it wasn’t exactly next to the project. When I went out there this morning it farther over onto the CJL site. Commissioner Griffin: Perhaps the applicant could point out the location of the private drive for starters. Chair Cassel: Are you a little confused about the question? Mr. Steinberg: Perhaps. Chair Cassel: I think let’s see ifI can phrase this for you, Michael. You want to know where the current drive is in relationship to what is proposed up there and what they are proposing where that is where there would be access to go underneath if they could develop it. Commissioner Griffin: I am thinking of a surface access that would incorporate your proposed private drive which I thought you had indicated would run between your property and Loral and City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 24 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 that there might be a possibility of linking that private drive with the preexisting entry ramp on San Antonio. Mr. Steinberg: The existing access from San Antonio cu~ently is going south and a right turn in only. It is our desire and we had some very, very preliminary disciissions with thd City whe)e we had the sense that the?) would entertain working with us to accommodate also an exit out. There are some challenges because of the turn at Charleston, because of the activity on the corner parcel including I think we heard from a neighbor today that there are a number of us that would like to pursue that option. If you walk the site one of the issues is this is the freeway exit and the location of this connection to San Antonio I think may be problematic but our hope would be that there is a precedent. That access was engineered at one point and if we could look at organiz.ing that and getting an exit out too we think that might be the most realistic way of responding to that opportunity. Commissioner Griffin: Well that ultimately is what I am trying to press for which is the fact that you would indeed pursue some sort of. Mr. Steinberg: We would really like to do that we think that would be a very, very positive. Commissioner Griffin: Good for you. Chair Cassel: Lee, do you have any more questions? Pat, do you have another question? Commissioner Burt: If it was found that the shared parking proposal was inadequate to serve the two different functions are there any opportunities to provide for contingent parking requirements or that they be addressed some way through either mandated trip avoidance programs such as shuttle funding or the ability to build additional parking on the site? Any of those things that if we were to approve both the shared parking and the reduced senior parking and it didn’t work out what could we then do? Ms. Grote: Well there are transportation demand management programs that look at alternative forms of transportation, shuttles, bus passes, carpooling requirements and things like that for employees. So there are some options there. There is also an opportunity to have offsite parking agreements as long as the parking is within 500 feet of the site and it is a long-term agreement. So there is that possibility. If there is extra parking at Loral or some other adjacent close site within 500 feet. So there are those opportunities. Commissioner Burt: So will you be coming back with some of those things as contingent options? Ms. Grote: We will look closely at parking in the Environmental Impact Report. We will have mitigation measures should it be found that they are needed for parking and then some contingencies if it is found to be needed in the future. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I don’t have any more questions. I am ready to make comments. City of Palo Alto December 1o 2004 Page 25 of 37 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Cassel: Anyone else have more questions? Michael.1 2 3 Commissioner Griffin: I would like to follow up on this issue of the shuttle, which has corrfe up 4 a few times this evening. We are all aware that the VTA is apparently not in the position of 5 adding any bus routes in the near term what with the financial condition. Is the apt~licant .... 6 actively discussing the i~ossibility of operating a shuttle or cooperating with the City’s shuttle 7 program in order to provide some sort of public transportation to those people in light of this 70% of required parking situation we are looking at on the senior housing site? Ms. Grote: Some discussion has taken place. There have been no commitments yet or no resolution at this point but yes there have been discussions and we will continue to discuss that as the project review evolves. Chair Cassel: Are there any more questions? We are about ready for bringing it back. Would you mind people if we took a five minute break? Thank you. The buzzer has rung it has been five minutes and I would like to have everyone sit down please so that we can proceed. I would like the conversation in the audience to please cease. If you would like to continue talking there is space out in the other room. Thank you very much. I would like to close the public hearing at this time and bring it back to the Planning Commission for our comments or discussion. I want to thank all of you for asking almost all of my questions so I didn’t have to answer any. I think you did a nice job of covering all my concerns. In our discussion as I looked at it we have a couple of areas we want to be sure we cover. Some of them are the building constraints we have been talking about, effects on the surrounding neighborhood, the BMR requirements and the public benefits. Who would like to start? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: In general I think the project is an excellent one. I had some concerns that I think have been generally answered. I am comfortable with the assurance that the BMR units will be built if we do something similar to what we have done in the past and get a deed restriction on the parcel that is going to be used. I initially had some concern that no BMR units were integrated into the for sale units but as I look at it in recognition of the great need we have in this community for below market senior housing and the fact that additional units are being granted as part of this project, 30-plus additional units, I have no problem with the BMR units not being integrated in the for sale ones. With regard to the .7 parking for the senior component of this project I thought long and hard about that but I am comfortable with it given some of the experience I have had especially recently with senior housing and with seniors who would be attracted to this sort of housing both low income and senior designated. I think the .7 is acceptable. I am also comfortable with the shared parking with CJL. I recognize that there might be isolated events going on very infrequently that might result in some additional parking demand other than what is provided on the campus but I think that CJL is very familiar with those projects or events requiring more parking and I think we can rely on them to provide the additional parking. The adjacent land uses are not such that they would be occupied at the time that CJL and the housing that we are dealing with here at the BUILD site is fully needing parking. So I think that will be accommodated. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 26 of 3"I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The 50-foot height limit intrusion I am also comfortable with that. I am sure that the architect in conjunction with our Architectural Review Board will be able to find some way to minimize the intrusion but the amount that has been discussed here is acceptable to me given that this is such an unusual site and that we are trying to accomplish some attainable cost housing. - I am just looking at my notes here. I see this as a very unusual project and I am interested in having it more fine-tuned the next time it comes before us but in general I am comfortable with it. Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I share Commissioner Bialson’s appreciation for the project and I feel that the public benefit is a right on hit. I do feel that we might consider conditioning the project in such a way that the applicant has to put up the BMR units within a certain timeframe so that it is not an open ended situation as to when those senior BMR units will be constructed. The traffic patterns are a little tricky at the site. I would feel a lot better if there was some sort of access on San Antonio Road. Given the lack of VTA routes and the inability of VTA to provide any public transit to the site for some years to come I think it is absolutely a requirement that some sort of shuttle arrangement be worked out with the City. There are other aspects, the overall height of the project is a concern but I am willing to let that one go I think considering the fact that most of the height penetrations seemed to be on the Loral side as opposed to some of the other more visible-elevations. So all in all I am really looking forward to seeing this project succeed and hope that it gets massaged a bit by ARB tomorrow morning. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I agree with my colleagues’ comments so far and incorporate them by reference so to speak but I would like to add a couple of points.. I am hoping as the EIR explores some of the mitigations that they explore the use of shuttles and TDM measures and CJL may want to enter into a long term agreements for offsite parking to handle the big events i;sue. I do have one thing I disagree with Michael a little bit on putting a time constraint on the affordable housing, the BMR project, would probably make it difficult considering the way the financing requests and putting together the financing packages go. It isn’t always that simple to do that because of the timing and the application requests and the point systems and all this stuff that you have to do to get affordable housing money. However, the suggestion that we were exploring about putting a deed restriction on that site might work to ensure that it remains a site only for affordable housing. I also would like to see the circulation in the area studied and hopefully the EIR will explore that and explain to us when it comes to a decision point what is going work on San Antonio, Charleston and Fabian in terms of moving the traffic around. I think the height penetrations are justifiable and make sense and are not there to add any more density. The density is exciting and appropriate for Palo Alto and I look forward to this additional housing. The other thing though is I am a little concerned with because they are two separate legal entities the CJL and the BUILD project that the agreements between them and the covenants and restrictions that are running with the land are clearly explained to us so that there is a level of comfort when later down the line we have to look at this for final decisions that we have this level of comfort that these things are really going to happen sucl~ as shared parking and City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 27 of 3"l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 the driveway access and the other ways that for example if the seniors in the senior project are going to have access to the dining rooms in CJL. Some of these things we would like to see but at this point I feel confident the applicant and CJL can be working to.gether and coming up ~ith wonderful uses for this 12.2-acre area. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I would like to support for the most part the comments made by fellow Commissioners so far. As we have all recognized it is difficult to look at one portion of this project, the attainable and affordable senior housing, separately from the CJL. In that vein as we have looked at the reduced parking for the senior housing one of the things that I think would be important is that we try to provide services adjacent to that housing that would enable those seniors to not necessarily need cars or for any of those residents to reduce their trips we have a proposed caf~ at the CJL. I would very much like to see an exploration of a minimal mom and pop sort of store incorporated within the caf~ as a condition of approval when we go forward because frankly I think it is really vital that we don’t require those residents to get in their car to get a loaf of bread or a quart of milk every time they need to do a minimal shopping. We really to my knowledge I don’t think have any adjacent walkable services in that area and we could have enough of a critical mass that we just incorporate it in the caf~ function. I think that could be quite a bit of a trip reduction. Also regarding the height issue we have a number of issues that we are weighing we certainly have an existing structure that if we were not going forward with this program is 96 feet. So we have a significant improvement in the overall reduction in height by the replacement building. We als0 have the mandated elevated grade at the foundation level, which really in a way creates a definition of building height that is greater than the structure itself. It certainly makes the top that much taller than the natural grade and yet the building itself isn’t as much taller. I think that is an important consideration. On the other hand we do have a concern on the precedent of breaking the 50-foot limit. The concern that I have is that we are not only looking at allowing it for the senior affordable but for a for profit albeit what is defined as attainable units but they are not the same tradition that we have had on Variances that we have granted some pure affordable units. So we may not be able to avoid that 50-foot envelope but any things that we can do to minimize that I think we should continue to explore and work closely with the architects to try to keep those protrusions to a minimum. Then finally, within the DEIR I presume that we will have an origin/destination analysis. Is that part of it? Great. I know that some of the comments that talked about that and the impact on adjacent intersections and I am seeing Staff acknowledge that that would be part of it and that is great. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I am going to try a stab at a motion. Chair Cassel: What we do here is make our comments and then a motion is to move it forward. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I will make my comments and then I will make a motion. Chair Cassel: Go ahead and then I will make my comments after your motion. Commissioner Lippert: I am pretty much in agreement with what my colleagues have said here. One other thing that I think can be thought about or should be considered is our body has the City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 28 of 37 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 1 ability to require applicants to provide story poles on projects and in this case it is a rather tall 2 project. But we already have in some way a facsimile story pole already there in the way of a 3 rather tall building. So in order to alleviate some of the concerns of the neighboring commfinity 4 and so that this Board and Commission can see this maybe we could have several benchmark 5 markings placed on the existing building indicating what the maximum height of tile buildiri~ is 6 going to be in those ar~as where it is going to occur as well as marking on there what the 7 maximum height of the equipment screens would be and also show what the minimum height of 8 the building might be in certain adjacent locations. So that will give us a pretty good benchmark as to how this building would be viewed from both San Antonio Road as well as from Fabian Way and even from the adjacent neighborhood. They should be able to see it pretty clearly as to whether it is a concern or _not. Commissioner Burt: Lee, we might have some competition on who ge~s to tag the building. Chair Cassel: Of course that could give you some general heights it can’t be exactly there because the building doesn’t cover the whole space. Commissioner Lippert: The good news is that where the building is located however is where the maximum height of the development is so I think that that will really address and alleviate most of the concerns that we might have as a board or the neighbors. Chair Cassel: Now you are going to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I would like to just make a motion that this move ahead and that an EIR be drafted and that several things be considered. One is making sure that the senior housing site that the proper language is put in place that dedicated that site for senior development and that it can’t be used for any other purpose. That in addition to that the appropriate easements are outlined both on this site and the adjacent Site for access to that site. With regard to the BMR units that that is properly addressed I think as far as I am concerned the required BMR units should be pay as you go or financed as you go with the development until the point that the senior housing is built then it can go anywhere it needs to go. The last part of my motion is that a study be done with regard to a shuttle for that site. Chair Cassel: Is there a Second? Let me see if I can reword that motion because you have a lot of pieces in there I think. We move this forward to the Architectural Review Board and for the Draft Enviromnental Impact Report to be done or the Environmental Impact Report should be done. That there be a deed restriction for the senior housing. Where I lost you was and I am wondering if we are supposed to be doing this at this time. I think the motion is just simply to go forward and I think you may be getting into more detail with the BMR units. Let me check with the attorney, is this okay? Commissioner Lippert: The BMR units, can they be pay as you go? Chair Cassel: The question is the motion is usually quite simple on a first review and our comments are all added into everything. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 29 of 3"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Mr. Dan Sodergen, Special Counsel to City Attorney’s: That is probably the best way to gb in this case is to move it forward to the ARB and then these other items would be simply comments. Chair Cassel: All your comments are considered and they look at all of them. Is that okay? Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Chair Cassel: So the motion will simply be to move this forward to ARB with the development of the Environmental Impact Report and all of our comments are to be included. Commissioner Lippert: That’s fine. Chair Cassel: Michael is going to second that. SECOND Commissioner Griffin: Second. Chair Cassel: I haven’t had a chance to make my comments I would like to do that. I would like to pretty much just reinforce what everyone else has been saying. I am very concerned about those seniors in the back units being isolated and so I am very concerned about the bridge across and how that is going to be working. I am also concerned about something other people haven’t mentioned and that is what the appearance is going to be at grade with all of this on podium. I am sure the ARB will work with that nicely. I have a feeling that there is another piece that has not been said and I suspect that the Fire Department is going to be very concerned about having other accesses onto this site so I suspect that our concern that there be other entrances and exits will be met in some way to meet the Fire Department needs for .safety access. I am somewhat concerned about play areas because although this says open space and our PC area allows for that I don’t again I don’t know how this fits into the CJL and I am hoping that by the time this comes back to us we have a much better sense of what the integration is going to be with the other site. It came as a ten-acre site and we were told it was going to be developed relatively together. So I am hoping we will have more information by the time this comes back about how some of those services will be met and what will be over there. Otherwise I will just reinforce what other people have been saying. Thank you. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Holman absent) Now is there any other discussion about the motion? There being no other discussion I will call for the vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That motion passes unanimously with Karen Holman absent. That closes that item. I want to thank everyone for a good presentation and a lot of work. We thank you very much for bringing this forward and good luck going ahead. We have no minutes to approve at tonight’s meeting. City of Palo Alto December 1, 2004 Page 30 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Chair Cassel: Are there any announcements or comments by the Commissioners? COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COJII~IENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chair Cassel: I would like to encourage everyone to go tomorrow night if you have not already been to one of the zoning R-1 discussions that are being held in the community. The next one I think is at Community Center. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: No, Cubber!y. Chair Cassel: Cubberly. Mr. Emslie: H-5. Chair Cassel: H-5, that is helpful because that is a bigger place than finding it at Lucie Stern. The room was overflowing last night for the discussion, which was very encouraging. Pat or did someone down here want to say something? This weekend we are going to see a site up in the hills. The announcement and directions should be in your packet. I am sure they are going to have directions for us. We need to call the owner of the site so he knows we are coming so they can be sure they have the dogs inside and the gate open. If you can’t come at that time please let us know because again you will need to call and make arrangements. We have talked to the City Attorney aboUt this because you will in fact have to talk to the owner in order to go up and see the site. He said he felt this was the best way to proceed of all the options that we had. You will have to go up and say hello to him. I thought maybe for four hours or six hours just keep them in but they are asking us to call. Anything else? Thank you everyone. NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of December 8, 2004. Chair Cassel: I will adjourn the meeting. ADJOURNED: 9:30 P.M. City of Palo Alto December i, 2004 Page 31 of 37 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: ’ FROM: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Steven Turner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Senior Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: April 20, 2006 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031|: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Architectural Review of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes construction of 104 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping ¯ improvements. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for 54 tandem parking spaces. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) was circulated for a 45-day review period, which ended on April 3, 2006. Zone District: GM. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) make the following determinations and forward-them to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council: 1. The project design is consistent with the ARB findings as described in Attachment C and subject to the draft recommended conditions of approval in Attachment E. 2. A DEE for 54 tandem parking spaces is supportable based upon the recommended findings in Attachment D. 3.The DEIR adequately analyzes the impacts of the project with regards to Visual Resources and Aesthetics section. City of Palo Alto Page PROJECT SUMMARY: The ARB reviewed the project on March 16, 2006. The applicant provided the ARB with. project plans, including site, landscaping, elevation and photometric plans, color and materials samples, plant material descriptions, and a project and background narrative. Staff recommended that the ARB provide comments to the applicant and staff, but not make a formal recommendation to the PTC and City Council, since the 45-day review period for the DEIR had not yet concluded. The ARB requested additional information, details and revisions so that they may better review the project for consistency with the ARB findings. The following items were to be presented to the ARB at a future meeting: Project-wide Show the contextual relationships between the commercial and industrial areas and the BUILD site; Show the contextual relationships between the townhomes and senior apartment building at each elevation (where applicable); ¯Locate a portion of the bicycle parking spaces outside of the garage; ¯Provide revised colored elevations of all the buildings; ¯Provide enlarged landscaping plans at each landscaped area; ¯Provide more views from within the podium; ¯Provide more complete color and materials boards, including samplesand/or details of siding and cement plaster finishes, railings, wood and metal fences, garage vents and screens; and ¯Include elevations of the project from the Loral site and from San Antonio Road. Senior Housing Provide details of materials transitions from horizontal, siding to cement plaster and details of materials at corners of the building; ¯Provide details of Views of the upturned roof; ¯Provide contextual views of the senior housing building and tower with the TKCJL project on the adjacent parcel; o Review placement of flowering shrubs at Fabian Way; .Consider additional street trees at Fabian Way; -Fencing at the Senior courtyard should be more creatively designed; ¯Review the location and design of the air conditioning condenser units; and ¯Provide a photometric plan. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Townhomes Reconsider the design of the end unit elevations at Buildings A, B, C, and D; Provide details of the garage exhaust design. Integrate the design df the e~tiiiust with the ardhitecture of the buildings; Consider sloped ceilings at the townhomes and the addition of additional glazing features; Consider design alternatives at the Fabian Way entry (sloping wall) that would. reduce the potential for graffiti; Consider adding a stronger base at buildings B, C, and D in addition to the placement of planter boxes; Correct plans of the exterior stair to soccer field; Consider an alternative stair design leading to the podium that celebrates this area; Review the elevator/security designs to better integrate with the buildings; Consider an automobile entrance at San Antonio Road; Review the electric/water heater room and the elevation at Building D; Review the design of the grille at the exterior walls of the garage; Consider ways to reduce the scale of the garage exterior walls; Consider redesign of the units facing the soccer fields to promote more visual interest; Consider interactive landscaping features, such as swings, at the far end of the podium near San Antonio Road; and Provide details of the landscaping at San Antonio Road. The applicant has responded to the ARB comments. A summary of the designdetails and revisions that will be presented to the ARB at the meeting are contained in the applicant’s project revision letter in Attachment I. The following significant details and revisions include: Contextual views of the project showing the relationships between the buildings on site and the building of the adjacent TKCJL project; Complete elevations of the entire project as seen from the Loral site, San Antonio Road, Fabian Way and the TKCJL project; Details of the revised stair and elevator tower at the Senior apartment building; Redesign of the end unit elevations for Buildings A, B, C, and D, and Detailed landscaping and planting plans. City Of Palo Alto Page 3 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: " Draft Environmental Impact Report The DEIR prepared for this project and the adjacent BUILD Woject was released fo~ 45-day public review period that ended on April 3, 2006. However, the ARB may listen to public testimony and add their comments regarding the adequacy Of the DEIR. The PTC held a meeting on March 29, 2005 to accept public testimony on the DEIR. The PTC commented on many aspects of the report, including those aspects that relate to the Visual Resources and Aesthetics section of the DEIR. Staff recommends that the ARB consider the following design comments from the PTC, summarized from the March 29 meeting, that relate to the design of the project and relationship to the surrounding community. Draft verbatim minutes from the meeting are contained in Attachment H. Project Objectives Section (page 29 of DEIR), should include: ¢" Ways to integrate uses with the surrounding neighborhood ¢" Recognition that the project would create a precedent for design in the Charleston/Arastradero neighborhood and how the design should be compatible with the neighborhood ,/" Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston Street to the other end of the street which is more residential. Visual Resources and Aesthetics (page 194)-Purpose of the EIR, bullet points: should incorporate Policies L-5 and L-6 in such a way so that they fit the purposes of the .paragraph. Project could be seen as causing an abrupt change in scale, which may be considered as a significant aesthetic impact. Project could cause a significant impact if the project would not maintain the scale and character ofthe property. EIR should discuss why there are no significant impacts. Discussion of why the podium needs to be 12’-16’above grade. Flood zone is only 6" to 12" above grade. Buildings could be closer to the street, which would result in the uses better integrating with the street and a shorter overall project that would better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods. No discussion as to why the hazardous materials require such a tall podium. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Follow-up on the EIR should contain a discussion as to why a better street interaction is not possible. Are there ways to {urther mitigate size from adjacent districts? This project would create precedent; project wo.qld set up how the surrounding properties will be used and how they will be designed. Security issues-proximity of assembly building to public rights of way. How are security features being incorporated into the design? Design Enhancement Exception for Tandem Parkin~ The project would include 54 spaces arranged in a tandem configuration. These spaces would be assigned to units in the townhome project component. The addition of tandem spaces .to the project can.be approved via a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). Recommended findings for approval of the tandem spaces are contained in Attachment D. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Staff analysis of the project’s compliance with the polices of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 is located in Attachment F. Overall, staff finds that the project would comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that promote compatibility between land uses in terms of building design and use, the avoidance of abrupt changes in scale and character bet~veen adjacent land uses, and the promotion of high quality and creative design of structures. The project plans include designs and site planning that generally meet the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with ARB Findings and Zoning Ordinance Staff’s recommended findings for Architectural Review Board approval are located in Attachment C. The current level of design detail provides initial information for staff to generally determine compliance with the findings. This information includes the site plan, landscape plan, internal circulation components, streetscape elevations, floor plans and section drawings. Staff analysis of the project’s compliance with the regulations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is located in Attachment F. Staff recommends that the project, except for the tandem parking spaces included in the City of Palo Alto Page 5 request for a Design Enhancement Exception, would comply with the appropriate sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). As the project includes a request for Planned Community zoning, th.e regulations of PAMC 18.68 would apply to the project. -- TIMELINE: P&TC Initial Review Meeting :, ARB Preliminary Review Meeting: ARB Preliminary Review Meeting #2 DEIR, Start of 45-day Public Review ARB Formal Hearing: DEIR, PT&C Meeting DEIR, End of 45-day Public Review ARB Formal Hearing: P&TC Formal Meeting: City Council Meeting: December 1, 2004 December 2, 2004 December 15, 2005 February 17, 2006 March 16, 2006 March 29, 2006 April 3, 2006 April 20, 2006 To be Determined To be Determined ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A DEIR, which analyzed the impacts of the project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared and was available for a 45-day public review beginning on February 17, 2006 and ending on April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission accepted public testimony on the DEIR at a meeting on Wednesday, March 29, 2006. The Co .mmission did not take action on the DEIR, but accepted oral and written testimony on the merits of the document. A Final EIR/Response to Comments will be prepared by the EIR consultant and staff and will be presented to the PTC, which will make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the environmental documents, the PC zone chance and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The DEIR differs from the project presented to the ARB. The DEIR describes a BUILD project that contains 160 for-sale townhome units, 66 senior apartment units (for a total units count of 226 units), and a 315 parking space at-grade garage. The revised project that has been presented to the ARB is similar to Alternative D (BUILD Design Alternative) in the DEIR This plan would reduce the total number of residential units from 226 to 159 and the number of parking spaces in the garage from 315 to 303 spaces. Staff and the EIR consultant believe that these changes should be addressed in the Final EIR by revising the project description and the analysis sections accordingly to reflect the revised project, and to delete Alternative D. The net changes appear to reduce impacts, but further analysis will be required to confirm that conclusion. City of Palo Alto Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: A.Aerial Photo B. C. D. E. F. G. No I. J. K. BUILD Site Location Map Recommended ARB Approval Findings Recommended DEE Approval Findings Recommended Draft Conditions of Approval Zoning Compliance Table, Comprehensive Plan Table ARB Staff Report, March 16, 2006 (with Project Description and Background attachments only) Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes, March 29, 2006 Applicant’s Project Revisions Letter Revised Design Details Binder (ARB members only) go Project plans (ARB members only) Draft Environmental Impact Report (ARB members only, previously distributed) COURTESY COPIES: Lydia Tan; BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sioan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP James Baer, Premier Properties Jacob H.V. Foraker, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Peggy Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Bob Whitehair, Allana-Lippert Betsy Allyn, Resident Jean Wilcox, Charleston Gardens Association Cathy Swan, Resident Lanie Wheeler, Greenmeadow Community Association Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Community Association Deborah Ju, Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Tom Vician, Fairmeadow Neighborhood Association Tom Crystal, Walnut Grove Homeowners Association Adam Samuels, Rosewalk Homeowners Association Chris Graham, Greenmeadow Community Association Nola Mae McBain, Monta Loma Neighborhood Gloria Jackson, Monta Loma Neighborhood Preservation Group City of Palo Alto Page 7 Herman Ranes, Resident Edie Keating, Resident Larry Mitchell, Resident Robert Moss, Resident Herb Borock, Resident Dorothy Bender, Resident Stephanie Munoz, Resident Toni Stein~ Resident Prepared by: Steven Turner, Senior Planner2n"~ Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning~ City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes Thursday, April 20, 2006 ’ Applicant Steinberq: Kenneth Kornberg (Chair)-absent David Solnick (Vice chair) Judith Wassermann Clare Malone Prichard Grace Lee-absent Staff Liaison: Chris Riordan, Planner Staff: Alicia Spotwood, Amy French, Current Planning Mgr. Clare Campbell, Assoc. Planner Susan Ondik, Planner Project Reps~: Rob Steinberg (Steinberg Architects) Willet Moss, landscape architect Shelly Eber, Exec. Director, Campus for Jewish Life Tod Erras, Erras- Regis Jill ? (Color) Patrick Quigley ,Fenestration 5 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295}: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of 7 Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Architectural Review of a proposed 8 PlannedCommunity (PC) district development plan, which includes construction of 103 9 units of fore-sale townhome-style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a 10 parking garage containing 303 parking spaces and landscape improvements. Design 11 Enhancement Exception is required for a tandem parking configuration for 54 parking 12 spaces. Environmental assessment, a draft Environmental Impact Report for BUILD 13 and TK-JL was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning February 17, 2006, Zone 14 District: GM. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 Vice Chair David Solnick: Steven do you have a brief.. Mr. Steven Turner: Just a brief staff report. Staff is recommending that the Board make the following determinations as describe in the staff report, that the project is consistent with ARB findings and that a Design Enhancement Exception be granted for 54 tandem parking spaces based upon the findings in Attachment D, and that the draft Environmental Impact Report adequately analyzes the impacts of the project with regard to visual resources and aesthetics. 22 A summary of the project in the preview, the Board did review this on March 16 and 23 . continuedthe project to this date to look at specific project-wide issues and issues 24 regarding the senior housing and the town home project. Those are bulleted out in the 25 staff report along with some of the responses and key revisions that were made. 26 In terms of the key issues, similar to the Campus for Jewish Life project, the 27 Environmental Impact Report was reviewed at the Planning Commission on March 29, 28 and the Commission made specific comments with regard to aesthetics and design, and 29 those are listed in the staff report, the same comments that were listed in the Campus 30 for Jewish Life staff report as well. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The draft conditions of approval did not make it into this staff report, but were. put at- places this morning, so you’ll see a draft list of conditions. Those involve items that would take place during the building permit process and after.the building permit’sbeen approved. I imagine those would undergo revisions and additions, but it’s just for your information that the conditions are there. That concludes the staff report and I’ll turn it over to the applicant for a presentation. Thank you. Board Member Solnick: Okay Rob, you’ve got a real ten minutes this time. 9 Mr. Rob Steinberq (’Steinberq Architects): Good afternoon. In consideration for our time 10 I think what we’d like to do is to give you a very brief presentation. We appreciate the 11 recommendations from staff, so I won’t go through all of our history with you. There 12 were I believe about 5 or 6 items that we felt you wanted to understand a little bit more 13 about that I’d like to go into to, including the treatment of the garage, the unit at the 14 plaza and the entrance to BUILD - there were some questions about the intersection 15 there - some issues regarding the end elevations of units, a little bit about the entry and ¯ 16 the ramp at the senior housing, and then some of our materials and colors. So that’s 17 .what I’d like to do, and I apologize that this is a little bit light. 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The issue last time we saw you was that the building seemed to be floating up on this podium and what was our connection to grade. What we did is we actually took the wood siding that used to stop here and brought it all the way down like a stoop height, so we’re actually covering up the large percentage of the garage by carrying the wood down. And of course, there would be plant material and what have you, and as Wilier can show you on the plans, there’s three levels of landscaping. So #1, we’ve brought the wood down, covering the majority of thegarage; #2, we’ve tried to align ventilation openings with other architectural elements in the building. So where we had either a deck or a patio or we had windows, we used that same proportion to try and. get a very thoughtful rhythm. So that’s Item #1, the garage. The second item was the end conditions of the buildings. What we did was a couple of th ngs. One is we varied materials. Previously all the ends were all wood. We now have introduced selectively some components of stucco around the edges. This is actually the elevation looking from the fields. The’other thing that we’ve done is we’ve tried to open up more windows and balconies and give some relief to those end elevations. Previously, the first floor, the balcony ended right here. What we did is we extended it out, and we took that balcony and wrapped it around and made a larger opening so it didn’t feel like it was so one sided. We actually put a little porch at the top of the landing that gave a little protection of the window below in the powder room and gave a place to step out or have a plant at the top landing. 39 We took what was previously just a punched window at the landing and really made it a 40 double height window so that it really flooded and let more light into the unit. We also City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 added additional windows in the family room with extended sun shading that gives a shadow pattern, and we did that same thing by adding an extra window in the bedroom with a horizontal sunshade trellis. ¯ ..... So we’re working a number of elements - the materials, the additional windows, projections, balconies, and sun control devices. Another issue that came up was this pivotal unit that is at the main entry stair up that shared the plaza. There was a little confusion on our plans where there were vents and there were some exhausts that was actually shown on this elevation right on the plaza. We got rid of that, reworked that. We actually have been able to put outside bicycle storage right here with an entry right into the garage so that you could come directly into the garage and park your bike, either outside and/or inside, and it cleaned up and reorganized those elevations so that the intersections of the two projects work well, as well as addressing.access into the garage and bicycle parking. 14 This is a little sketch, no so much showing that detail, but it’s showing the sense of 15 entry. I think this really has a v.ery nice feeling to it. You could either park your bike 16 here and go into the garage, or you could go around the back of this where the mail is, 17 take the elevator up, or go into the garage in that direction. We’ve also added some 18 additional sun shading and some details on our units on the front. And then the idea of 19 the covered porch in the entry that leads you up into the podium. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t’ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 There were also issues about the landscaping, and if you like, Willet could talk about this a little bit more, but I tried to blow this up and give you a section. This is the corner of Fabian and the shared driveway. So we have planting and a series of trees that soften this first low wall that is a ramp that would take you up. The height of that is really like podium level. Then it steps and you’ve got the ramp coming up, and there’s. another planter at the upper level that has planting and a second row of trees and a second height. So here’s someone standing on the sidewalk, that’s the wall. And then there’s the ramp, and it steps up again from the planting. Then it steps up again, which is the stair coming up. Originally we had some very high walls, and what we’ve been able to do is to temper those down, bring them down to a very comfortable scale and integrate landscaping with that. There also were some issues about transition from materials. We actually have physical build materials that might be helpful to look at as compared to these details, but I will tell you that we have looked very carefully at transitions from stucco to lap siding, to flat cement board, to the plaster, to a variety of different conditions. Basically, what’s happening is if we have a lap siding and we want to transition to a vertical batten, what we’re doing is we’re pulling a wider piece out here that terminates that and gives the batten something to die into, and we’re using that same technique, if you turn .it 90°- and this is one unit and it has a certain material - and this is a different unit and it has a certain material - we’re pulling a piece out and then we’re mounting a downspout - City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 which is very faint, it’s a little hard to see on that board - that gives us a place to stop and start material and color. I’d like to ask Jill to just talk very briefly about our colors, but we’re looking at two different tones for our roof tone. I’ll start with the senior element. The senior element would be primarily a stucco finish. We have wood railings on that building, we have a little bit of curtain wall glass in the lobby that goes up and screens the mechanical on top of that so you can see the translucent piece of glass that would be part of the tower, and we’ve got a metal finish on top of our tower element on the senior component. Those are the materials on the senior component. 10 On the BUILD part we have two different color roofs, we are using both stucco in a 11 variety of siding materials. This is the detail that I was talking about, so when we have 12 one lap siding, then there would be a trim piece that protrudes out, that gives us a place 13 to cleanly start and stop materials and color, and then it would transition to flat with 14 battens that have a place to start and stop. I know there was a lot of question about 15 how are you on the same plane starting and stopping materials. 16 17 18 I think that addresses the key items that we thought there were questions to and if we have a couple minutes I’d like to ask Jill - or if you would like, we have all the elevations colored up if that would be of interest to you. 19 Board Member Solnick: Two minutes for colors. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Ms. Jill ?: I think that the color palette story that was developed for the campus - which had both warm and cool colors and I think you referenced the pomegranates, the goldens, the earth tones - we have applied to the residential element as well, maybe a little bit more strength to the colors themselves. Starting at the senior’s element, and you’ve seen the materiality. We talked about having friend colors - the goldens, you see the light - creams, the red elements being very small at the roof. Moving from let’s say the senior site which we feel is sympathetic with the warm natural materials on he larger campus - we come here to shared drive and we use the progression of cool and warm colors, and you’ll see again greens, the golds, the blues that will repeat in different proportions, but again link back to our overall color story. Moving here Rob talked about the further definition of the end elements, t think you can see there are now four colors on this elevation - they’re subtle, they’re tree bark, they’re organic, but again some variety. And then here you can see, again Rob had described the differentiation of the materials - horizontal siding, vertical siding, stucco. You’ll see again some warms, some cools, and here’s the end of our San Antonio, which someone asked about last time why we would have a strong to define our corner element. So I think you can see a book ending in a way, visually with colors - so a warm and a warm, and then neutrals in between. 38 Quickly, this is where Rob also described how the siding would drop down, how the 39 proportions to vent the garage would be picking up distinct proportions above a balcony. 40 So you can see the colors extended down so it has more of a presence and less of just 41 a concrete base. I think you can see some warms, again bark tones, earth tones, and City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 kind of moving up to the podium. So when you see this elevation at Building E on the 2 podium, you are seeing pretty much every relationship that will exist within the 3 experience of the residential. Again, it’s just a full array of the palette from warm to 4 cool, and I hope that that would explain it. This is a lighter roof as you’ll see, because 5 from the podium it’s got a fairly strong roof element. This is also a darker side, so we 6 wanted the roof to be less imposing, a more spacious feeling. 7 I hope that gives you an adequate overview. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 Board Member Solnick: Questions. Clare, do you want to go first? Board Member Clare Malone-Prichard: I’ll start with the BUILD project. We’re really down to very specific questions now.. On sheet AC+1.2.2, Building C+1 appears to have a chimney element on the side. What is that? Mr. Steinberq (’Architect): That is a garage exhaust in that particular case. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: So I think that’s the only place that happens, is that right? Mr. Steinberq/Architect): Yes. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: In general - I caught this on GA3.02.1 - your guardrail heights are at 42" even though you’re in residential. Was that a conscious choice? I retract that, I’m informed multi-family is 42" Sheet A8.01, details 22, 23, and28 - The question on those are the verticals on those railings - it’s hard to tell from the isometrics whether it stops right at the decking or whether it continues down the face of the deck surface. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): They are just lapping over a little bit so there’s just a little bit of bite. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: I’ll stick with that page for a couple more. Detail 8 - siding transitions, where I’m looking at it in plan view where we go from stucco to Hardy panel. It looks to me as though the trim that you’re using is actually not thick enough to conceal the edge of the stucco, so we’re going to see a stucco stop there? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Right, that’s just a little J-mold that forms the edge of the stucco. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: And same page, detail 3- we have Hardy panel, vertical siding - is that the Hardy panel that will be happening behind battens typically? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Yes. Board Member Malone-Prichard:’ So is that in 4’x8’ sheets, so we’ll be seeing horizontal breaks between those panels? City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Male Speaker: They also come in 4’xl 0’, I think we’re going to go with the 4’x10’ sheets just so that we minimize the amount of breaks in the vertical plane.. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: We stay on BUILD and jump to landscaping now. On sheet L1.01 there’s several different paving surfaces. There is a lava rock being used and also a 3/8" gravel. Are those things that you intend people to be walking on, or are those things that you’re simply looking at? Mr. Willet Moss (Landscape Architect): no, they’re ground plane texture color treatments. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: And on the L4.02 six of the units seem to have vine planters that divide the backyards. Does that happen anywhere else or is it just those six units close to the entry? Mr. Moss (Landscape): Just those units have those specific planters, and the on the rear of the shared drive there are some other vine trellis planters, but those .would be slightly different - different length, different size. Board Member Malone-Prichard:" So what is the thinking. What’s different about these units from the others? Mr. Moss (’Landscape): The conditions are unique on the entire site and that was basically the thinking, so they’re distinguished, rather than having a wood fence there or some other form of enclosure. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: OkaY; back to architecture and let’s switch to the other project. On sheet A3.03.2. I’m looking at the elevator tower, and the top of it appears to have glazing all the way across, store-front glazing. But if you line that up with the plan, that’s in line with where the elevator is. Can you explain to me what’s going on there. Mr. Patrick Qui.qley (’Fenestration)(’?): Are you talking to the right side, because that’s where the stairs are curved. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: No, I’m talking about the top of that tower element. The glass appears to go across the entire width. Mr. Quiqley (’Fenestration): That isthe mechanical well, and what’s going to happen is we’re going to use the translucent portion from the last mullion all the way Up to the roof and hide and screen that portion of the project. That’s not that you don’t see the mechanical units behind it when the light is shining: What we want to do is light that area, backlight it, but not have the impression of the mechanical units show up, so we have a little denser translucent glass there. Board Member Malone-Prichard:" So that’s across the entire width that I see, or just where you have the mechanical units? City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Mr. Qui.qley (Fenestration)(?): The entire - and it returns back towards the shared drive as you turn the corner. I believe it’s on sheet A303.4, elevation #1. Board Member Malone-Prichard:: Which leads me to my next question. On {hat very elevation there are windows that come down vertically in that same tower again that I’m not seeing in plan view on the two plans above. Are they supposed to be happening at the stair area? Mr. Qui,qley (Fenestration)(?):, Correct. Board Member Malone-Prichard:" That’s all of my questions. Board Member Solnick: Thank you Clare. Judith. Board Member Judith Wassermann: Thank you. Let’s go back to A303.2 since we’re on this building and talk to me about the walls that you started to talk about when you showed us the slide. Now these series of walls, there are two low walls and there’s a tall wall behind it. What are those walls made out of? Mr. Ste nber.q (Architect):. Those are currently shown as concrete walls, a little different finish than the building material. Board Member Wassermann" And what kind of finish will you have on the concrete? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Judith, I’m notsure we’ve really thought down to that level. Board Member Wassermann" It’s again one of those pedestrian location issues, and it would be nice if the wall were a pleasant experience. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Absolutely, but we did think it should be different than the building material, so that was the thinking. Board Member Wassermann: Most of my questions are really about the housing and not the seniors. That was the only question I had about the seniors. I’d like to go back to the page that Clare was on, A8.01. I’m concerned about the horizontal balcony railings in houses with children. I think that’s a hazard, that they’re easy to climb and easy to fall over, and I believe Santa Clara County has done a study of that and is recommending in family housing - not in senior housing, but in family housing - that balconies not have horizontal railings of that nature at the lower levels. Then I also had a question about the gates. These are the main entry gates at what location? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): At the top of the stairs as you enter into the main podium open space. Board Member Wassermann: They’re metal? Mr. Steinber,q (Architect): Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board Member Wassermann: Powder coated? How are they finished, what color are they? Jill has her hand up. Ms. Jill ?:The railings would be colored in a similar hue to the window treatment, so it would be a very dark anodized bronze/black. Board Member Wassermann: I just was curious to whether there was some accent color or not. Ms. Jill ?: No. Board Member Wassermann: Rob, don’t go away; I’m going to give you a hard time about the adjacent materials. On detail 8 on that page where you have the transitions in section, they’re thick, and where you have them in plan they’re thin. Why is that? Clare started that discussion by saying you’re going to see the edge of the stucco. And my question is, why did you decide that was a good idea. Mr. Steinber.q (Architect): Most of these details are pretty standard manufacturer recommendations. We can change that - basically the paper is behind that - so the deeper that transition in plan on the upper one gets, the deeper the flashing, the farther you have to get water out from behind it out to the surface. Board Member Wassermann: So in vertical it doesn’t matter because you don’t have to flash then. Mr. Steinber.q (Architect): It’s a little different condition. It can be done either way. Board Member Wassermann: From board to board it hardly matters, but to see the edge of the stucco seems like a less elegant detail than where you hide it. That brings me again to the question - I need to disclose that I talked to this applicant on the phone yesterday when I held forth at great length on the subject of horizontal and vertical siding, not only on the same elevation but in the same plane. Could you explain - this seems to be a trend. What is it nowadays that we’re seeing? Why do we do this? 26 Mr. Steinber.q (Architect): I cannot explain a trend. I can explain to you what our 27 thinking was for this particular project, and that was we wanted to use the Hardy Board 28 material. We wanted to have a shadow pattern, we wanted to have a residential texture 29 that felt in keeping with the scale.of the walk streets. We also wanted to have some 30 variety. Rather than have it just be one monolithic, uniform, we wanted to try to use 31 different applications of this material to give some individuality to each individual unit. 32 We started with that and then we realized that that was one step better than having the 33 whole thing be exactly the same, and then we realized that if we looked at it not just 34 vertically from house to house but we looked at bases or different datums in height, it 35 gave us the opportunity to articulate the buildings in different ways. One of the things 36 ¯ that we’re doing is we have simple plain walls, and then we’re canting certain planes in 37 order to get balconies or to get relief to them. In our census we could just have the 38 same material and paint it, but by changing the material it makes that contrast more City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pronounced. So it was the exploration of using this material in different ways to articulate in visually making the buildings more personal. Board Member Wassermann: So what you’re saying is that the planes for example - I’m just arbitrarily - on sheet A303.1, if you look at the top elevation, you have situations where you have vertical siding with horizontal siding above and you have horizontal siding with vertical siding above, on the right end of the elevation. But those aren’t canted planes, those are just flat planes. 8 Mr. Steinberq (’Architect): That’s correct in that particular detail but if you look at any one 9 of a number of buildings up on the podium, you’ll see that we have canted planes - 10 we’re using it in different conditions. But Judith, on that same page, if you look at - 11 actually there’s not an example of it on this particular page. But we’re using it both on 12 the same plane and we’re also doing it on planes that bevel out from one another. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 -27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Board Member Wassermann: I’ll save it for comments. I had a question about the tandem parking. I know that the BUILD parking is separate from the Campus for Jewish Life parking, but I was wondering if there was a way of- this may not be possible - of reorganizing the division between the two areas so that the tandem parking was all related to the Campus for Jewish Life so that it could be valet parked. In other words, if the BUILD parking took up more space of the total .parking area so you could get more individual parking spaces - I don’t know if anybody ever looked at that - it just seemed like a possible way of solving the tandem parking problem. Mr. Steinberq (’Architect): I’m not sure I quite follow that. Board Member Wassermann: You got a big parking area, right? It’s divided. This is BUILD, this is Campus for Jewish Life. This area has some tandem parking that’s valet parked, this area has some tandem parking that’s not valet parked. Is it possible to somehow redraw the division so that you could locate more individual parking on the BUILD side and more tandem parking on the Campus for Jewish Life side Mr. Steinberq (’Architect); Pretty touch. They’re two different property owners, so one’s going to be a homeowner association, one’s... Board Member Wassermann: So basically it’s a property line issue and you couldn’t do that. Just an idea. My last question really has to do with a question I think that was brought up at the last meeting. If you look at page L4.01, that’s the distal end of the street down at San Antonio - I think it was Clare who asked this question last time - when you come up those stairs from the garage, is there anything special about that place? Male Speaker: I believe Grace Lee had asked if we could think about introducing some other active element like the porch swings. She also noted accurately that we were trying to insure that the energy of the community area was maintained. That said, if you look at the sheet, both in many of the L series plans, #1 and #2, at the other entrance we did revisit both of those junctions where people came out and reconfigured them to be what we think is more. gracious, in particular on L4.01 where you can see the planter City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 with the tree. This now anchors a center of what we’re trying to reform as a plaza. -So 2 we pulled planting areas back and tried to make something that’s much more articulate 3 and legible. So in this instance here there’s a real moment that you arrive at. While- 4 that doesn’t occur at the top of the stairs it does happen immediately as you come onto 5 the plaza, onto the podium. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Board Member Wassermann: So there’s a stand of bamboo and there’s a flax with a tree in it. Where you come up from the stairs you’re facing what I’m assuming is the elevator- is that an elevator there? I’m trying to figure out what those rectangles are. Male Speaker: It is an elevator. Board Member Wassermann: Okay, so you come up the elevator essentially facing the stairs and then there’s some service locker or something down in there? Male Speaker: Beyond at the back I believe is trash. Board Member Wassermann: Okay. So there’s an improved landscape concept down at that end. Okay. Male Speaker: Like I say, we did the same at the other end, reconfiguring the area immediately adjacent to that experience. Board Member Wassermann: Thank you. Those are all my questions. I have two questions for staff. In the list of comments on page 3 regarding the town homes, somewhere in the middle it says, "Consider an automobile entrance at San Antonio Road." Was that something that came from us? Sounds like a comment from the public. Mr. Turner (Planner~ That may have been a comment from the public. Board Member Wassermann: I don’t believe that was one of our conditions. That’s a highly unlikely item. My other question has to do with - again, we’ve gotten these comments from the Planning Commission on pages 4 and 5. Do you want us to address those directly, or are they sort of covered in the fact that we approved the project and therefore consider that these issues have been adequately addressed. Mr. Turner (Planner):. You can certainly comment on them directly. It’s not required. But as we recommended in the Campus for Jewish Life side of things, we will be bringing this back to the Commission, so it would be nice to have some clear... Board Member Wassermann" So when it comes to comments it would be good if we commented. Mr. Turner (Planner):. That’s right. Board Member Solnick: Thank you Judith. I have a couple of questions. Both of my colleagues have asked about the end conditions on these buildings and I still have a City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 question about that. My recollection was one of the prominent concerns about them was that there was no planar change at the two sidings where there was two materials. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do that if only by furring.a wall? I understand why you might not want to do it by changing the floor plan and the verticality of the walls and SO on. 6 Mr. Steinberq (Architect): You could certainly do that, yes. The evaluation that we went 7 through in our mind was two things. One is we thought #1, we would respond to it by 8 changing materials in some cases so you didn’t have wood to wood, although I’m not as 9 troubled by that as maybe some others are. So that was one thought. Then the second 10 though was if we just took everything that’s shown here wood and we moved it out a 11 foot or 18" or what have you, is that going to give you more visual mileage than pulling 12 out balconies or horizontal or other members that begin to throw different kinds of 13 shadows during the course of the day. You could make a case that this is one way to 14 do it and that’s another way to do it. If we fur that wall out and we get a shadow line, it 15 doesn’t necessarily benefit the person inside, whereas for example when we pull a 16 balcony out and at the top of the landing all of a sudden you get a little place where you 17 could open the door and have a plant. We thought we were getting the visual mileage 18 that I thought were suggesting which we concur with, plus we. were enhancing the 19 inside. Originally we started with just furring it out and moved on to see if we could get 20 a little more mileage out of the move. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Board Member Solnick: Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t two of those - this is just one example of end units, but in this example two of the five have neither, isn’t thatcorrect? - have neither a plane change nor a balcony type awning or substantial elements added onto it. If you started from the left, #2 and #3. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): This does, right? Board Member Solnick: I’m talking about the number from the left, #2 and #3 have neither of those strategies. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): no, I guess they don’t.. Board Member Solnick: Actually 2, 3, and 5. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Yes. We could make all of them exactly the same plan or the same moves. I think that the idea was to get some variety on those end edge conditions. So introducing stucco on some, introducing balconies on others, having the wood change on others just gave us a palette of things to be able to have some variety. That was the thinking. Board Member Solnick: And then another question which you partly addressed in your presentation about that unit next to the stair. You added a balcony that looks like it wraps around the corner and some covering. Do you have a slide -is it possible to put that up? A couple of questions about that. When I looked at the plan that’s a master bedroom up there I believe, right? City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Mr. Steinberq (Architect)i Yes.- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Board Member Solnick: Given that this is obviously a special, unit, is there any reason why that master bedroom couldn’t be lofted and thereby get windows up in part of that tall blank wall? I think the master bedroom’s on the left side of that tall wall. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Yes, there’s no reason that you couldn’t do that. Let me rephrase that- that’s a good suggestion. Board Member Solnick: On the same elevation, there’s two window ~ they almost align but don’t quite. I’ve been losing sleep over those two windows. Was there some reason - the two little windows in the middle, I guess on the second and third floor, those two. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): I’m being told that there is some issue with mechanical and venting, but that’s something we can certainly look at. We can certainly take another pass at that. Board Member Solnick: Just a technical question. When you bring the siding down over the parking, literally the siding is on the concrete? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): It is. Board Member Solnick: Just glue it on or something? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): I’ve got a detail that I can show you exactly how we do that. Board Member Solnick: That’s okay, but that’s how it is? You don’t need a transition? Male Speaker: Actually David, the detail is the concrete will go up 4’1" and then from there we’ll frame it to the underside of the podium and then have the siding come down on a frame. Board Member Solnick: So you fur. This is a color question particularly about the white cumch(?) in the roof. I’ve used white comching on myself only in cases where the roof would not be visible, and I used it because it’s more reflective. In fact, I have it on my own house. You can see it from the second floor of my children’s bedroom. I’ve never thought of it as a roofing color that is in the least bit attractive, and that’s why I’ve only used it on roofs that really are not visible. So this is really the first time I’ve ever seen someone consider using that color in a place where the roofs are visible. It’s sort of the same color as built-uprooting, really, a cap sheet of a built-up roof. I’m asking why, yes. Jill ?: Well, I think within the composition roof choices the palette is quite limited. I think there’s an Ansel Adams quality about doing a dark roof and a light roof that creates more variety if one is looking to use the roof to create a visual element. There is no other color I feel within the comp roofing palette that world afford a differentiation in that way. I also felt that because on the Campus for Jewish Life campus there’s some very City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1-6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 dramatic roof elements that either roll or fin or flip, that there was something rather - intriguing about having a lighter roof material on this portion of the site, because it is light. And also because when you’re up on that podium, that.is one of the longest elevations. It’s also I-believe the deepest side in terms of the amount of light that would hit it. I was looking to life to that elevation in a way instead of hunkering it down. So there was a conscious reasoning. Is that an adequate answer? Board Member Solnick: Yes, I understand where you’re coming from. Another color question. It has to do with that same elevation with the five houses. You gave some indication as to we’ve got some warms and some cools in combinations. It’s a very hyperactive, there’s a lot of different colors on those. Can you address just the sheer number of colors? Jill ?: It mayappear that there is a very large palette of colors, but many of the colors are tone on tone, meaning that there’s a light yellow, medium yellow, dark yellow that you may see on a board. Board Member Solnick: Do you have that on the slide? Jill ?: No, I should probably point. Do you want me to point and gesture? There are multiple hues of green, light, medium and dark. So it may look like there is a plethora of color over there, but many of them are father, mother, and kids of one another, so there is a relationship. And then when you look at the end elevations there’s a simplification in those elevations that launches off that large E which literally modulates as it goes down, and then you’ll have a house that will meet it perpendicularly on the plan, and it will develop only one of those palettes. So that is like your palette, your artist’s palette. So here’s your long row, and then you’ll have your rows that will hit perpendicularly of additional buildings, and those will take just that one set of colors and develop it all the way along the elevation. So there is more variety in key big idea pieces on the podium. And then there is less variety - I hope when you look at the ~nd elevations that you’ll understand how those grow out of the presentation of that podium elevation. Did that make sense to you? Board Member Solnick: I think so, but how would someone at Campus for Jewish Life understand all of that? Jill ?: I hope that there will be just a very nice harmony. If space is well planned with color and there is variety but yet, not monotony, but not over stimulation, that there will be a feeling about the space that’s very harmonic. There are not huge contrasts. There’s not a light color and then a dark color and then a light color and a bright color. There’s a tuning of tertiary or medium range sounds. It’s almost like a saxophone, and it’s playing in this palette that will then expand, extend, and interact. So I think it may appear active, and indeed it is active in a way, but I think it’s active in a harmonic way. Board Member Solnick: That’s all my color questions I think. To the senior housing. The balconies indicate they’re pressure treated railing. That’s not that material there, Rob, it’s up there on that stained wood? City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Mr. Steinberq (Architect): It’s a stained wood, it’s not a pressure treated wood. Board Member Solnick: So the drawing has been changed. -- Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Revised, yes. Board Member Solnick: And is that it over there? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): It is. Board Member Solnick: Did you think about Trex for that? Mr. Steinberq (Architect): We did, David. It does, but we’re not sure if there was a color issue with it. Jill ?: Just very quickly. When we looked at the Trex material and.we looked at both its color component, what the options were, how light or dark, it’s texture, whether it looked like an inexpensive material, how it’s fastened, and additionally, when you did another layer of research, some of it had quite a bit of formaldehyde or different chemical compositions that were okay in residential but not okay in public spaces..And it seemed like in a way it was not very mindful. It had some color issues and we felt it had some environmental issues. I hope that helps. Board Member Solnick: That doesn’t look like it’s redwood. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Yes it is. Board Member Solnick: Okay. A specific question on A3.03.4. Rob, I can’t help but make a comment about your numbering system. It has two problems; one, it’s very difficult to decipher and the other is t hope you notice that the title of each.sheet, the title of each sheet is the smallest font on the sheet. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): I’m aware of that. Thank you. Board Member Solnick: The question is about elevation 1. There are a series of- it says vinyl windows, four of them divided - this is on the lower portion - and then right next to it there’s another window that appears to be a different type, and then its pair. Basically the question is there seem to be two different window types on the same elevation and two of them very close to each other. Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Is it the door? Where are you, south or north? Board Member Solnick: I’m on elevation 1, south elevation, and I’m on the lower portion of that elevation, the less tall, shorter portion. Do you see what points to the vinyl windows, and then to the right of that there’s a window that’s either a different type or it’s trimmed out differently, and they’re pretty much right next to each other. What’s going on there? You really have two different systems right next to each other or two different trim details. What’s happening? City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Steinberq (Architect): The band of the vinyl windows is in the hallway, and then the other window is the kitchen window, a unit window as compared to more of a public space window. Board Member Solnick: So that explains the inside. So they are two different window types and two different window jamb details? It just looks a bit odd to me. Mr. Steinberq (’Architect): Ilm happy to go and reevaluate that. Here’s what the strategy was, or here’s what the thinking was. If you look directly up from that the longer window, the grouping of four, is really in a lobby or a hallway or a public zone, so we were treating that window similarly to the store front window that we were showing on the front door side. It seemed like those two windows related more than a public hallway and an interior room. Do you follow the logic? That was the thinking. Board Member Solnick: Is there any reason why, just for the sake of the exterior, that Mr. Steinberq (Architect): Sure. Board Member Solnick: I had a question about the fence, t guess this is actually a landscape question. My understanding is that that’s on the property line and the Loral side? Maybe you can just tell me where this fence goes. I’m looking at SE1 la and b. 18 Mr. Moss (Landscape:. Right. We took your comments from the last meeting, and in fact 19 ¯ our wood fence, the original a) is lapped lx4, lx6 material, so there’s some texture to it. 20 But after your comments we tried to differentiate further areas where those fences 21 would be visible, or where they were visible in the public realm basically. And to do that 22 we kept that lapped idea to pull the lx material apart,so you can actually see through it. 23 But the intent was to start to create a fence with more porosity and a little more depth 24 and texture. That fence, that b) has been used along the property line where the rear 25 yards of the BUILD project meet the senior project, so it’s the fencing that you would 26 see if you were sitting on your balconies on the back of the Bridge housing before it’s 27.covered ultimately by a hedge. And then it’s also used wherever the public realm, the 28 BUILD podium. So at the end of all of the rear yards that have. wood fencing, type b) is 29 what the public see as they walk down the muse. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Board Member Solnick: Is this called out somewhere? x Yes, it should be in the plans. Board Member Solnick: I was looking, for a plan, where it would... Mr. Moss (Landscape):. Go to L1.01 and where we have the rear yards where there’s a wood fence between the buildings, the yards that run north to south you see SE1 l.b pointing at the piece of fencing that’s exposed to the public, and then you’ll see SE1 la pointing to the 60" wood fence at the private new yards, muse yards. I’m looking at the Bridge set. City of Palo Alto Page 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Board Member Solnick: Does this only appear on BUILD? Mr. Moss (Landscape): It would also appear in Bridge along the driveway where it meets Loral. Board Member Solnick: So that’s the property line. Male Speaker: Yes. Board Member Solnick: It just calls it out as SE11. Is it a or b? Mr. Moss (Landscape):. I would imagine it would be a). It’s nondetermined to tell you the truth. The way I’ve been presenting it and thinking about it would suggest that we’re going to go with 11 b, it’s the more public face of that fence system. Board Member Solnick: The reason I’m asking these questions is because in this picture it doesn’t look like a particularly attractive fence, and of course I’ve seen them a million times. Did you consider any other fence designs or materials? This looks like con common redwood, which is the usual grade that you get unless you upgrade. Mr. Moss (Landscape): I would hope that we could upgrade, that’s the goal. It is price driven, and it’s also relative to... I think the notion of just the texture change will meet our desire in terms of... Board Member Solnick: Any consideration to staining? Mr. Moss (Landscape): We could stain them. Board Member Solnick: The reason I’m asking is because I can’t tell you how many projects I see where there’s all these nice materials and nice architecture and then they throw the fences up.and it’s by far the cheapest looking, crummiest looking thing outside. Mr. Moss (Landscape): We’d be really disappointed if they looked like somebody ran down to Home Depot... Board Member Solnick: That’s what the photograph looks like. The photograph is exactly like that. Mr. Moss (Landscape): ...hope to carry it up a step further. Board Member Solnick: And then the last one was about the SEI7 wood screen. I wasn’t sure exactly where that was. And it shows a sort of diagonal lattice as part of that. I wondered whether that was... Mr. Moss (Landscape): That is what’s running up behind -in Bridge it is what’s running up behind the bench planter, so an elevation... City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Board Member Solnick: At the back of the senior housing. And does it include that - diagonal lattice? Mr. Moss (Landscape): No. That was the only photograph we could find. Mr. Moss (Landscape): The elevation over here, we have a large scale elevation that illustrates that more clearly. It’s the same one that’s in your package. Sheet L5.01. Board Member Wassermann: Actually 6.01 has more detail. Mr. Moss (Landscape): 6.01 has a blow up. Board Member Wassermann: Both in section and elevation. I spent a lot of time looking at that one. Board Member Solnick: I’ve already had a sense of that anyway, so that’s fine. 11 Mr. Moss (Landscape):The pictures aren’t doing us justice is what you’re telling me 12 today. 13 Board Member Solnick: That’s all my questions. Okay, we can open this up to the 14 public. There was one speaker card but it was from Bob Moss and I think he’s gone. 15 Was there anybody else from the public who wanted to comment on this project. I see 16 none.. We will close the public hearing and return it to the Board for comments and a 17 motion. Clare. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Board Member Malone-Prichard:: I want to thank the applicant for responding to our comments last time. I think those side views on units A through D are greatly improved by the changes in the way you’re using the materials and also those additional balconies. Looking at the senior housing, the street elevation, you’ve made some subtle changes to that. You didn’t really describe them much here, but they addressed my concern that it was looking not quite finished last time, and now it looks as though You’ve given it thought, and I appreciate that. Thanks for giving us those streetscapes. That really helped us to understand the scale next to the Campus for Jewish Life project. As far as comments, I’m not really comfortable with that detail that I was mentioning. believe it was detail 8 where we’re seeing the edge of the stucco. I’d like to see that modified so that we have a thicker trim. That’s probably the only thing I would ask to see again. That’s it for my comments, Board Member Wassermann: Thank you for bringing this back to us. I’ve come to think that multi-family housing is the most difficult project type in the world. The idea that things should all hold together and yet everybody’s house should look different is a real tough one, and I think you’ve done a really good job of making this work. I think it’s City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 come really far from the beginning, and it’s turned out to be quite fine. It’s a real pleasure to hear somebody talk about color that knows what she’s talking about and has concepts and ideas and a fully developed thought process about what the color- means and how it’s going to work. I have only two concerns about the project as a whole, and then I would like to comment on the Planning Commission comments. I’m concerned as Clare is with the two materials coming together. I think that your idea that you have the balconies in between, that’s terrific, and I would like to see that you only change materials when there’s something happening. I think yes, it’s nice to have some variety in there, but you could take it too far. It doesn’t have to be every little opportunity has to make a change. So I find it very disturbing, either to have the balconies in between, have a change of plane, have something. And the other thing is the treatment of the concrete walls at the entry. I’d like to see what’s going to happen there. And otherwise I think it’s a great project. I love the landscaping, I think it’s really cool. MOTION Board Member Wassermann: I would move to approve it with the few conditions that we have. Before we vote on that I would like to take the Planning Commission notes one by one. Ways to inteqrate uses with the surroundinq neighborhood It’s not clear to me how much of these comments refer to Campus for Jewish Life and how many refer to BUILD, but I think thefact that you can walk up to the project at any place, maybe not any time of night, but certainly any time of day connects the project -with the surrounding neighborhood. As far as Campus for Jewish Life is concerned, all of the public amenities are open to the public. Recoqnition that the project would create a precedent for desiqn in the neiqhborhood. and how the desiqn should be compatible with the neiqhborhood Well I think it’s a damned good thing that this is going to create a precedent to a design in this neighborhood, which has no design quality. There’s a fairly nice building that went up recently across the street, and I think this would go just fine with that piece of architecture. Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston to the other end of the street, which is more residential It doesn’t say at the end of which street, and there are no residential streets next to this building, so I’m not at all sure what the Planning Commission had in mind and I would suggest we just ignore that. City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Board Member Solnick: [off mike] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 Board Member Wassermann: One end of Charleston to the other? It doesn’t go from._. one end of Charleston to the other. It has one elevation on charleston - no~ this project; Campus for Jewish Life. I think these comments were directed to the whole site together, and we didn’t get a chance to talk about it before, but if the Planning Commission wants our opinion on what they said they should be a little bit more careful about how they say it. Visual resources and aesthetics. The project could be seen as causinq an abrupt chanqe of scale. The project would cause a si.qnificant impact if it would not maintain the scale and character of the property Well, the scale and character of the property has a 90-foot building on it. How big is that thing that’s there now? It’s a huge building on a flat parking lot. Board Member Solnick: It’s over 100. Board Member Wassermann: I’m just as glad to see that go. That has no scale with relationshipto the parking lot. It’s a flat thing and a tall thing. This is a much better design on that site. It varies in height in various places and I think it’s very appropriate. Why the podium needs to be above .qrade We talked about that before, while the hazardous materials require it, we talked about that before. Why a better street interaction is not possible It has to do with the answers to the previous question. I think that having ways to walk in and walk up and even some accessible ways to get in and walk up are good. Are there ways to further mitiqate the size from adjacent districts Well the adjacent districts are all commercial and if they all went to the size it would be fine with me. The precedent Yes, a good precedent is being set. I think that would be a nice thing for that neighborhood. It could use some good architecture. The security issue I believe is being addressed by the security consultant, So in closing, I would like to call your attention to the elevation at the upper left which shows the San Antonio elevation because when I saw that I didn’t even see it in color at first and I said - you know, this does what we’ve been asking architecture to do for a City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 really long time, which is describe what goes on inside the building. You start on the right with a residential building and it looks like a residential building. Then you move on to a chain link fence that says - oh, look; there’s a playing field behind this area. -So I know what’s going on there. And then there’s some kind of institutional building and some multiLfamily housing and then some more institutional building. And they look like what they are. They speak the language of architecture and they tell you the things that architecture is supposed to tell you. I just thought that that was an extremely successful elevation and at street level it’s all this layered landscaping, which is really what you will see if you drive by quickly and if you happen to be stuck at red lights, you get the impressions of the architecture at deeper levels. But I think that works remarkably well. The transitions from BUILD to Campus for Jewish Life I think work very well at .both of the elevations that are the critical ones, which are the ones on Fabian and the one on San Antonio. So I think this is a very successful project,. Board Member Wassermann: I think we should approve it at long last, Board Member Solnick: These conditions would come back, in your motion, what would they... Board Member Wassermann: I think these could come back to a subcommittee. I only have two conditions and one of them is the same as Clare’s essentially, or Clare’s is a subsidiary of mine. I don’t have any problems with these two little things coming back to a subcommittee. Do you have more conditions you want to add to my motion? Board Member Solnick: The conditions you have... Board Member Wassermann: Have to do with two dissimilar materials not being in the same plane or being separated by something substantial, and a look at the surface treatment of the concrete walls at the entry to the senior housing at the ramping. Board Member Solnick: I have a couple others. On that Building D, Rob sounded like he was amenable to lofting that master bedroom and putting some glazing up there and aligning those windows or getting rid of one of them - cleaning up that elevation and making it less blank. I’d like to see whatever they come back with on this redwood fence. Board Member Wassermann: I had One about the horizontal railings in the housing. Board Member Solnick: I wouldn’t mind seeing the condenser grills, at a least a photo of them on the back of the senior housing. That was all I had. Board Member Wassermann: What was it about the redwood? Board Member Solnick: Just to see - tl~ey indicated that they were going to do something with this fence, just to see whatever they’re going to do with it. Ms. Amy French (Planninq M_qr.): I’m sorry, I got lost. David, did you second Judith’s motion with additional... City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O Board Member Solnick: I second Judith’s motion. Ms. French (Planninq M.qr.): With the additional suggested conditions? Board Member Solnick: With these additional suggested conditions. Clare, did you have any additional conditions? Board Member Malone-Prichard’" You got my one condition, I’m happy. Ms. French.(PlannincrM.qr.): Should I attempt to read them, or Steven? Board Member Wassermann: Yes, I think you should read them, please Ms. French (Planning M_qr.): Let me take a crack at it, although Steven’s more attuned to the project. The first one would be from Judith: The two materials, when the come together, it’s okay when there’s something happening there such as a plane change or a balcony. Clare’s condition was something about thicker trim. Board Member Wassermann" Where the stucco was meeting other siding, the dividing trim should be thick enough to receive the full thickness of the stucco, which I wholeheartedly agree. Mr. Turner (Planner) There’s details of the treatment of the concrete walls at the entry. Reviewing the additional glazing at that master bedrooms for Building D, the possibility of lofting the ceilings and adding glazing up near the top Wanting to see the redwood fences Details of the horizontal railings at the balconies Board Member Wassermann: No; not the details of the horizontal railings. We would like to somehow do the railings so that you can’t climb up over them and fall out. So either they need to be so close together that you can’t get your little feets in the, or they should be vertical or they should be plastic or glass or some other way that little kiddies don’t fall over the balcony railings. Mr. Turner (Planner) And then finally, a review of the condenser grills at the back of the senior housing. Ms. French (Planninq Mclr.):. And this is clear that it’s coming back to a subcommittee rather than the full Board. City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Board Member Wassermann: Yes, this can go to a subcommittee. I don’t think the ~full Board has to see this. Board Member Solnick: And Judith, I want to toss this one out. I have a feeling you’re not going to like it. I’m not nearly as enamored with that color scheme on those end units as I guess you are. I actually think that elevation is inelegant and coming close to tacky, and it relates really to the number of colors. Board Member Wassermann: I have more of a problem with the number of material changes than I do with the color changes. So I think if something is toned down it’s going to improve that elevation, no matter what. Board Member Solnick: So maybe that’s a condition, just to rethink that. Board Member Wassermann: I don’t want to rework the colors particularly. Ms. French (Planninq Mqr.): Is this the end units elevation? Board Member Solnick: Yes, it’s that one with five end units right there. elevation in whatever way they choose. Calm down that Mr. Turner (Planner): Is that a fair way to put it? SECOND Board Member Solnick: I’ll accept that. VOTE: Motion passes 3-0-2 City of Palo Alto Page 22 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Steven Tumer, Senior Planner June 28,2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community(PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the proj ect, ask questions of staff and the applicant, conduct a public hearing, close the public hearing, provide comments, and continue the project to the July 26, 2006 Commission meeting. Although staff has recommended that that project be continued, the recommendation at the July 26, 2006 meeting would be as follows: Find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA, and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is provided as Attachment B; City of Palo Alto Page 1 Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Mal5 Amendinent from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided as Attachment C; Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D; Approve the proposed Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan for 56 senior apartment units. A draft of the BMR program letter is provided in Attachment E; Approve a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four acre site and create one multiple-family residential lot of approximately 0.5 acres containing 56 multi-family senior residential apartment units and one multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium townhome-style units. The Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action is contained in Attachment F. PROJECT SUMMARY: An application for a Planned Community (PC) district, including a Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendment, environmental impact analysis, a Tentative Map and design exceptions has been filed for the redevelopment of a four acre parcel at the former Sun Microsystems site at 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. The Background attachment to this staff report (Attachment I) provides more detail about the application processing and components of the project, including staff reports and verbatim minutes from previous Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission reviews. The request for a PC district includes BUILD’s specific site development plan for a 100% housing project containing two housing components: a Senior Affordable apartment community and a market-rate, for-sale townhouse community. An "at grade" parking garage would provide automobile and bicycle parking for both communities. New landscaping, pedestrian access ways, and a private driveway would link the project with the adjacent TKCJL project. The mixture of units in each community is as follows: Project Table: Senior Housinc BRID(~ 2BR1 BA 1 BR1 BA Studio 1 BA Total 56 units * Net floor area is interior conditioned s 910 618 475 52,931"*. )ace 245 63 63 3,836 ** Total gross floor area of building, including interior circulation areas City of Palo Alto Page 2 Pro .~ct Summar Table:Townhomeo BUILD 16 17 9 15 7 5 17 14 1 2 103 units Plan 1 2+BR 2.5 BA 1272 Plan 1A 2+BR 2.5 BA 1273 Plan 2 3BR 3BA 1394 Plan 3 3BR 2.5BA 1441 Plan 4 3BR 2.5BA 1565 Plan 5 1BR 1BA 794 Plan 6 3BR 2.5BA 1849 Plan 7 4BR 3.5BA 1980 Plan 7A 4BR 3.5BA 1994 Plan 8 2BR 3.5BA 1287 Total 163,826" *Total gross floor area of building **Net floor area is interior conditioned space 180-200 180-200 244 200-230 220-253 2O3 200-230 220-253 474 28O 19,665 ~ct Table- June 2006 Senior Housing 56 52,931 0.30 37 Townhomes 103 163,826 0.94 215 54 Guest Total 159 units 216,757 1.24 303 spaces *For the entire four acre site The project includes specific discretionary review components, summarized as follows: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this site by David J. Powers & .Associates, with staff assistance, encompassing both the BUILD and TKCJL projects. The EIR also considers the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR." The Program EIR component of the EIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project-specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the Draft EIR (DEIR) deals with the project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. The DEIR and Final EIR (FEIR) were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Planned Community Zone Change- The applicant has submitted a development program statement, development schedules, a development plan and proposed findings for the establishment of a Planned Community (PC) district in accordance with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18.68 (Planned Community districts). The PC district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, City of Palo Alto Page 3 commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district]s partidUlarly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments thaf are of substantial public benefit, and that conforms with and enhances the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- A Comprehensive Plan amendment has been requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Below Market Rate Housing Proposal- The PC project for the development of 103 market-rate townhome-style units would allow BUILD to designate a one-half acre parcel for the development of 56 senior apartments that would be affordable to low and very low income levels. Planning Division staffhas reviewed the proposed BMR agreement and finds it to be acceptable to meet the policies and programs of the BMR program. Tentative Map- The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four acre site and create one multiple-family residential lot of approximately 0.5 acres containing 56 multi-family senior residential apartment units and one multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium townhome- style units. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Planned Community Zone Change- Prior to approving a request for a PC district, the City Council is to review the applicant’s Development Plan (the project plans), Development Statement, and Development Schedule (Attachment G). In order to approve a PC district, the City Council must make the following findings: (a)The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; City of Palo Alto Page 4 (b)Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, h~ makingthe findingg required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and (c)The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The draft findings are contained in the draft resolution for the establishment of the PC district (Attachment C, Section 4). Public Benefits- Section 18.68.060 of the PC district regulations require specific findings to be made in order to establish any new PC district. The required findings are described above the in the Planned Community Zone Change section of this staff report. Finding #2 requires a determination that the development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general district or combining districts. The applicant has described the public benefits that would result with the PC zone change in the Development Program Statement, contained in Attachment G. The significant public benefits include: Development ofa BUILD/BRIDGE/TKCJL shared plaza. The project would develop a 5,000 square foot plaza that would demarcate the main pedestrian entrances to the two developments and be a focal point forthe projects. Second Mortgage Program for Public Employees. $25,000 to $100,000 low interest second mortgages would be offered to public employees within Santa Clara County, with a priority on City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District employees to be targeted at housholds earning from 100% to 150% of the area median income. The intent of the second mortgage program would be to have public employees live near the workplace as a way to help alleviate the jobs-housing imbalance and impact on traffic. The mortgage program would be revolving and administered by HomeBricks, a BRIDGE affiliate over a thirty-year period. The fund would be initially be established at $500,000. Payment of additional Charleston Arastradero fees. BUILD would pay 500% of the project’s share of costs of implementing the Charleston Arastradero Transportation Plan, the estimated payment would amount to approximately $480,000. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for housing. The project would result in the redevelopment of a site listed in the Housing Sites Inventory list of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to a residential project containing 159 units, includifig 103 in~rket rate for-sale townhome-style units and 56 senior affordable apartment units. The site has been largely unoccupied and in a deteriorated state for many years. While this has generated little parking demand or traffic, it has been an obstacle to creating an environment that would be beneficial to a variety ofuses~ The site is presently zoned to permit industrial commercial development, including office uses, which would exacerbate the city’s shortage of housing relative to jobs. The Project will replace a deteriorated, largely vacant office building with well-designed structures built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high quality. Tandem Parking-The project includes 54 parking spaces in the parking garage designed as tandem parking spaces, which represents approximately 17% of the 303 total parking spaces. These spaces would be assigned to units in the townhome project component. The PC Development Plan includes a specific design and parking orientation of the project. The garage would meet the standard requirements for parking garages, such as number of parking spaces, dimensions, aisle width, and clearance. The Design Enhancement Exception process, which would provide opportunities for adjustments to parking and zoning standards in order to allow a better-designed project, was initially identified as the method to allow tandem parking. The ARB reviewed the DEE request and recommended approval of the exception based upon the DEE findings. Staff believes, however, the City Council would not be required to approve a DEE as a separate action apart from the PC district. Architectural Review Board Review- The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Development Plan at two meetings on March 16 and April 20, 2006. The reviews focused on the design of the individtial buildings, the contextual relationships between~the projects and the adjacent TKCJL projects, and other adjacent properties, the landscape plan, colors and materials, and on-site automobile and pedestrian circulation. The ARB voted to recommend approval of the project to the Commission and the City Council subject to additional design review of specific project details. The ARB also responded to the comments made by membersof the Commission at the March 29, 2006 DEIR meeting that related to design, aesthetic issues and visual impacts. A summary of the ARB’s responses is included below along with the specific comments from Commissioners (in italics)." Ways to integrate uses with the surrounding neighborhood. The project would include pedestrian accessible entries at Fabian Way and at the shared driveway with TKCJL that would be available to residents and visitors to the site at all times City of Palo Alto Page 6 (subject to security rules). Pedestrians would be able to access public ways and walk to nearby businesses and to the adjacent TKCJL site and the uses contained in the community center. Recognition that the project would create a precedent for design in the Charleston/Arastradero neighborhood and how the design should be compatible with the neighborhood. The project is a good design that meets the findings for Architectural Review. The newly constructed office building at 870 Charleston Road, along with the proposed architecture of the project, sets the correct design precedent for the commercial neighborhood. Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston Street to the other end of the street, which is more residential. The project site is separated from the multi-family residential site at Charleston Road and Fabian Road by approximately 800-feet. The site would be approximately 300-feet from the nearest single-family residential neighborhood, separated by an arterial street (Fabian Way) and low level commercial buildings. Project could be seen as causing an abrupt change in scale, which may be considered as a significant aesthetic impact. Project could cause a significant impact if the project would not maintain the scale and character of the property: EIR should discuss why there are no significant impacts. The project would result in the demolition of an existing 96-foot tall office building, to be replaced by residential structures that would be approximately 50-feet tall above grade. The project’s architecture would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Discussion of why the podium needs to be 12 "-16 ’above grade. Flood zone is only 6" to 12" above grade. Buildings could be closer to the street, which would result in the uses better integrating with the street and a shorter overall project that would better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods. Flood zone requirements limit the construction of below grade structures, including parking garages. The at-grade parking facility, with residential uses above on the podium, results in a more efficient use of space that is oriented in a manner that is suitable for residential development. The transitions from the podium to the street level have been sensitively designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Follow-up on the EIR should contain a discussion as to why a better street interaction is not possible. The street interaction With the project is appropriate in that there are multiple connections for residents and visitors to the public ways. Are there ways to further mitigate size from adjacent districts? The project is located in a commercial district and would include architecture and building massing that is appropriate for its location. The project site is separated from residential districts by arterial streets and other commercial properties. This project would create precedent," project would set up how the surrounding properties will be used and how they will be designed. This proj ect creates a good design precedent for the neighborhood, in that the massing, height and building design are all appropriate to the neighborhood. Below Market Rate Plan- The BMR agreement for the PC project for the development of 103 market-rate townhome-style units would allow BUILD to provide a one-half acre parcel on the site for the development of 56 senior rental apartments that would be affordable to extremely low and very low income households. The senior rental project would be built and managed by BRIDGE Housing Corporation. BUILD will in effect transfer its BMR obligation of 16 inclusionary townhomes (103 units times 15%) to Bridge by providing Bridge with $7.3 million in funding for the senior rentals and by selling the 0.5 acre parcel to Bridge. The $7.3 million is the estimated value of the BMR in-lieu fees for the required 16 BMR townhomes. Bridge will be responsible for securing the financing and permits to construct the senior housing. The City does not have housing funds available for senior housing and does not expect to provide any subsidies for the development of the 56 senior units. !t is intended that Bridge will seek all financing from non-City sources. Due the uncertainties and competitiveness of financing affordable rental housing, Bridge would be allowed use up to six years, to begin construction. Two back-up alternatives have been developed in the event the senior rentals are financially infeasible. One option that Bridge .can elect is to develop a small mixed income condominium project, estimated at about 30 to 32 total units, on the 0.5 acres. In this alternative, a minimum of 16 for-sale BMR units would be provided (to cover the obligation for the 103 BUILD townhomes) plus additional BMRs to satisfy the BMR requirement on the remaining market rate condos. The PC ordinfince limitations on uses, FAR and.density would permit either the 56 senior rental apartments or the for-sale condo project on the 0.5 acres. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The second option is for Bridge to pay in-lieu fees to the City and sell offthe 0.5 acres.- This option would be used only if both the senior rentals and the for-sale condos are financially infeasible to develop within the maximum six years allowed’. In this scenario; the city-will receive a minimum 0f $4.5 million in housing fees and a maximum of the original $7.3 million plus inflation increases. If Bridge cannot recoup its out-of-pocket costs by selling off the land, then the City is, in essence, allowing Bridge to recoup its costs, up to a capped amount, by reselling the land. The Project’s owner has signed a letter dated June 22, 2006 making a commitment to provide this housing. A BMR letter agreement shall be prepared and signed prior to. Council consideration of the PC ordinance and a formal agreement to provide BMR housing shall be executed prior to the approval of the Final Map by the City Council and recorded concurrently with the subdivision map. The BMR and public benefit contributions by BUILD and Bridge are described in further detail in the attached letters. Tentative Map- A Tentative Map has been requested that would subdivide the existing four acre site and create one multiple-family residential lot of approximately 0.5 acres containing 56 multi-family senior residential apartment units and one multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium townhome-style units. The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of the Tentative Map application should be limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. (Government Code, section 66418) (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private Streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of City of Palo Alto Page 9 improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensureconsistency ~ith, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) It should also be noted that, when processing a subdivision map for a condominium project, the Subdivision Map Act does not require that the division of airspace be shown on the map. The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the proposed structures to be located within the subdivision. The design of the structures is part of the PC review process of which the Tentative Map is attached. Staff and City departments have determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The Tentative map plan set includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plans conform to the Development Plan submitted for the Planned Community zone change request (06PLN-00031). Because the request is to create more than four parcels and condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010). A city must deny a Tentative Map if any of the adverse findings can be made (State of California Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474)). The Record of Land Use Action, which includes the recommendation for approval of the Tentative Map, is contained in Attachment F. None of the findings for denial have been recommended. Proiect Phasing/Development Schedule- Building permit issuance is anticipated for the first phase of the project in March 2007. Demolition, grading and construction are expected to take 15 months with project completion of phase I in April 2008. The 159 units will be completed as two projects: a 103 unit townhouse community and a 56 unit senior affordable rental community. The developer anticipates phasing the townhouse community over three phases with the entire podium garage completed as part of phase I. The senior affordable rental development will be completed separately in a single phase. The applicant anticipates that completion of this phase is likely to occur no sooner than the 2009. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may extend these time limits once by not more than one year, as described in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director, at his/her City of Palo Alto Page 10 discretion, may allow changes to the phasing order, sequence or a change in the Development Plan to accommodate one of the BMR alternatives as described in the BMRplan, based upon a review of the request and the consistencyofthe request with the certified EI-R, condi~10ns of approval, mitigati6n measures, and any other dedications, exactions or reservations. A written determination of the Director’s decision would be made in writing to the applicant. Development Impact Fees- The City of Palo Alto has adopted an impact fee program as part of the municipal code that contains requirements for the assessment and payment of fees on new development projects throughout the City. The .current impact fee program requires the collection of fees relate to the impacts of projects on parks, libraries, community centers, housing and automobile traffic within specific areas of the city. All projects are not subject to each impact fee. Exemptions are made for affordable housing, existing commercial or residential units that would be removed as a result of a project, and certain community uses and private organizations. The BUILD Townhome project would not be subject to the Housing impact fee or the San Antonio/West Bayshore, as housing projects are exempt from these fees. The project would be subject to the Community Facilities impact fee and the School impact fee. The project would also pay the base CharlestordArastradero impact fee, as well as fees in addition to the base fee as a part of the public benefit package. The BRIDGE 100% affordable senior apartment project would not be subject to any impact fees, in that 100% affordable residential projects are exempt from impact fee requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site by David J. Powers & Associates, with staff assistance, encompassing both the BUILD and CJL projects. The FEIR is comprised of the Draft EIR (DEIR, under separate cover), Responses to Comments on the DEIR, and text revisions to the DEIR. The DEIR addressed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR" and the BUILD and CJL projects as a "Project EIR." The Program EIR component of the DEIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project-specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the DEIR addresses project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. The DEIR and FEIR were prepared in accordance with the. requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Prior to approving the proposed project(s), the Lead Agency (City of Palo Alto) is required to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the decision-making body (in this case the City Council) has reviewed and considered the :information contained in the Final EIR prior to project approval, and the Final EIR reflects City of Palo Alto Page 11 the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pr6grams CEQA (Section 21081) requires that when an EIR for a project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt findings for each impact indicating that 1) changes or alterations (mitigation measures) have been required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR; or 2) such changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of another public agency and that the required measure has been or can and should be adopted by that agency; or 3) mitigation measures or alternatives are not feasible due to economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations. Attachment B includes a resolution of the Commission recommending adoption.of Findings for the proposed projects, indicating that all mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels. CEQA (Section 21081.6) further requires that, upon adoption of such findings, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), outlining responsibility for implementation of all mitigation measures. The measures must be enforceable through project conditions of approval or other means. Attachment B includes as an appendix the MMRP for this project. The MMRP specifies the proposed mitigation measures, the timing of implementation of each measure, and the responsible parties for implementation (usually the applicant) and enforcement (the City of Palo Alto). The conditions of approval include Condition #4 to require that all mitigation measures be complied with at the appropriate stages of development. Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review on February 17, 2006. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR was available for a minimum 45-day public review period and the comment period closed on April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on March 29, 2006, to accept comments from the public and from Commissioners. The FEIR provides an index to identify each written or oral comment, and outlines responses to all of the comments. A copy of the entire FEIR was made available to all persons who submitted written comments, including public agencies, which must receive such responses a minimum of 10 days prior to certification of the FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) includes the Responses to Comments and, where appropriate, revisions to the Draft EIR language to reflect the response. The revised text includes substantial changes to the Project Description to reflect the reduced scope of the BUILD project and minor modifications to the CJL project, and to the description of Risk Management Plan (RMP) components of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation for CJL. Responses to several substantive comments and related revisions in the FEIR are City of Palo Alto Page 12 discussed below, particularly relative to transportation, hazards and hazardous materials, visual resources and aesthetics, and public facilities. 1. Transportation Transportation impacts are addressed in Section III-B of the DEIR. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by the transportation firm of Korve Engineering (Appendix B), based on staff direction and an updated version (2005) of the City’s traffic model. This model estimates traffic conditions through 2015 and reflects local traffic growth associated with approved and known projects. The model’s forecasts ’also incorporate the regional land use data projected by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for municipalities throughout the County, including neighboring cities such as Mountain View, where projects may have an impact on traffic within Palo Alto. The FEIR responds to numerous comments about traffic impacts, including the following key concerns and responses: a. Evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle impacts, particularly in the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor, was supplemented by outlining improvements anticipated by the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan, such as wider sidewalks, adding bike lanes, countdown signalization at intersections, and an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Louis Road. The improvements do not extend to the frontage of the 901 San Antonio site, but will provide improved safety for access. Specific improvements, such as widened sidewalks and a new pedestrian crossing on Fabian Way near the primary entrance to the project, are also noted. A pedestrian and bicycle level of service analysis was not completed, as the City and VTA methodologies for Transportation Impact Analysis do not include such an evaluation. Transit improvements, including improvements to bus shelters and pads along Charleston and San Antonio, will be required as conditions of approval, to address VTA and public comments. b. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is required as an added mitigation measure (B.1-2) for the CJL site, including a number of employer- sponsored efforts to enhance .the use of non-vehicular transportation modes (see Attachment I). The intent of the program is to result in a 15% reduction in vehicle trips, and an annual monitoring program is required. A shuttle service is also proposed by CJL to transport senior residents to and from local services, such as shopping areas and health facilities (Stanford, PAMF, etc). CJL will also make the shuttle service available to BUILD’s senior residents at no charge. In addition, CJL has incorporated service facilities, such as an automatic teller machine for banking, a postage and mailing outlet, and an on-site sundry store to serve residents and employees. c. Mitigation for parking for special events (3.5-1) is not changed, and includes notification at least two weeks in advanceof a weekday special event and commitments for off-site parking and other measures (shuttle, valet, etc.) if necessary. The parking situation is improved by the reduction in the number of BUILD City of Palo Alto Page 13 residential units, so that there is no longer a need for BUILD and CJL to share some parking spaces. The mitigation measure remains as a precautionary approach for weekday special events. " .... d. Queuing and safety impacts from left turn movements into and out of the site from Charleston have been addressed by a revised mitigation measure (B.3-1 ) that prohibits left turns into the site from Charleston Road, but allows left turns onto Charleston from the site. A queuing and gap analysis by the traffic consultants showed that there is sufficient time available (gaps) to safely turn left onto Charleston and that only a total of 8 peak hour trips were expected to make that turning movement. Design details will be necessary with the Final Map improvements to provide for appropriate channelization and signage to discourage prohibited movements. e. Queuing and safety impacts from the loading space along San Antonio Road near the Charleston intersection have been addressed by a revised mitigation measure (B .4-1) that allows such turns only where 1) the space is designed to be totally on the CJL site, 2) egress is designed to allow the trucks to readily turn into the right turn lane on San Antonio and trucks are then required to turn right on Charleston and then onto Fabian Way (both of which are City truck routes), and 3) loading and unloading is limited to the hours ofl0 a.m. to 3 p.m. Details of curb and sidewalk crossings, landscaping, and signage must be provided with the Final Map improvements. f. Review and refinement of traffic impacts showed no significant impacts to Louis Road or Ross Road due to cut-through traffic. A total of less than 10 additional vehicles per lane are expected to use neighborhood streets in the peak hour, below the threshold for analysis. The consultant’s evaluation indicated that no significant impacts would occur on any residential streets. g. The analysis of the cumulative impacts of traffic continues to show that the combined BUILD and CJL projects will not contribute substantially to the cumulative increases in traffic through 2015. The City’s traffic model includes increased growth in nearby Mountain View, reflecting most of the new development cited in neighborhood letters, as well as the specific upcoming anticipated developments in Palo Alto. Fee contributions to the Charleston-Arastradero improvements and other traffic improvements will be required as conditions of project approval. The FEIR concludes that the mitigation measures included in the project or other conditions of approval would reduce all identified transportation impacts to less-than-significant levels. 2.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards and hazardous material impacts are addressed in Section III-E of the DEIR. The analysis relies heavily on environmental assessments prepared for the site and on Risk Management Plans (RMPs) that require review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (E. 1-2). The Risk Management Plans (RMPs) require implementation of an extensive array of measures, such as the provision of vapor barriers, ventilation, dewatering during construction, plan reviews, protection and abandonment of wells, monitoring and City of Palo Alto Page 14 reporting, public disclosures, and contingency plans and funding. The Risk Management-Plan for the CJL site also includes on-site remediation of contaminated soil on the site: The RMPs are enforceable by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of-Palo AltiS~ The FEIR responds to several comments about hazardous materials impacts, including the following key concerns and responses: a.Concerns of the Regional Water Quality Control Board are addressed by incorporating the most recent Draft Final Risk Management Plan (RMP) conditions for the CJL site. Those conditions have been modified to substantially address the concerns of the Ford Motor Company as well. b. The measures included in the RMPs for the BUILD Site and the CJL Site may be amended on the basis of changed conditions on the property. Such changes must be submitted to the City and approved by the RWQCB following public comment. If the RWQCB amends either of the Risk Management Plans in accordance with its standards, the specific mitigation measures must be adjusted accordingly. c. The types of hazardous materials (including acids and flammables) stored on nearby sites is included in the Draft EIR. The basis for the Fire Department’s requirement for Shelter in Place and Eme{gency Preparedness plans is the site’s proximity to industrial areas that use and store hazardous materials. d. Contaminated soil on the CJL site will be removed and a "soil management" protocol is required during site grading to inspect, treat and/or remove the material. Geotechnical and structural design measures will be required during building permit review to assure the integrity of the vapor barriers and other measures given soil and/or seismic constraints. The FEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce all identified hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. 3. Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impacts Visual resources and aesthetics impacts are addressed in-Section III-I of the DEIR. The DEIR determined that the impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The FEIR responds to several comments about the project aesthetics, including the following key concerns and responses: ao The City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed and recommended approval of both projects (see Attachment D). The approvals were subject to returning to a subcommittee of the Board (or on Consent) with some further details of the design. The ARB, in a subsequent discussion, responded to the Planning and Transportation Commission concerns regarding the projects’ visual impacts. The ARB indicated that they believe the design represents a positive precedent for redevelopment of this industrial area, and that residential character is not an City of Palo Alto Page 15 bo overriding consideration because the surrounding uses are almost all commercial and industrial (please see the ARB minutes for more details of the Board’s responses). The CJL applicants have requested a Design Enhancement Exception f6r a combined equipment and artistic tower of up to 96 feet in height, which is of concern to some nearby property owners and residents. The tower would (as conditioned by the ARB) be solid, housing an elevator and other equipment, for a maximum height of 65 feet above existing grade, the height permitted for mechanical equipment. The remaining 30 or so feet will be an "open" framework of materials, with design contingent on the timing of future funding for implementation. The FEIR includes photo simulations of the tower imposed on off-site views of the future development. The tower would not be visible from two of the four vantage points and only the topmost "open" section would be visible from other views, including from San Antonio Road. The ARB required that the specific design of the tower element return for review, allowing for public input at the time that a specific design is prepared. The FEIR concludes that there would be n6 significant visual or aesthetic impacts, as subjected to the review and conditions imposed by the ARB. 4. Public Facilities Impacts Public facility impacts are addressed in Section III-M of the DEIR. The FEIR responds to several comments about cumulative impacts of development on schools, parks, and libraries, including the following key concerns and responses: a.CEQA prescribes that payment of school fees is sufficient to address potential impacts on school facilities. In addition, the project is expected to generate only approximately 15 school age students, due to the extensive senior population. The Palo Alto School District’s demographer has indicated that the District does account for transitions of seniors from single-family homes to areas such as this in its forecasts. The District also indicates that capacity is available at schools on a district-wide .basis, but that individual schools may be at capacity so that nearby students in the area may not be able to attend theschool closest to their homes. b. In response to concerns about parks and parkland, the development is providing for substantial recreational use that will be open to the public. Additionally, park demand is not expected to be high due to the predominance of seniors at the site. Additionally, market-rate condominiums will be required to pay Quimby Act and/or park impact fees to the City. c. The projects will .be required to pay library impact fees as part of the City’s Community Facilities fee requirements. The FEIR concludes that there would be no significant public facility impacts. 5.Cumulative Effects City of Palo Alto Page 16 CEQA requires that an EIR identify and discuss significant cumulative environmental effects of a proposed project. Comments made by the public included concerns about cumulative effects on traffic and public facilities, including schools,parks; and libraries. Those effects are discussed above under those specific topics. The FEIR concludes that cumulative effects would not be significant. 6.Alternatives Specific comments were not directed to the Alternatives analysis of the DEIR. However, the BUILD revised project is nearly identical to Alternative D (BUILD Design Alternative) outlined in the DEIR. Alternative D has therefore been deleted in the FEIR and is reflected as the "proposed project." Significant Unavoidable Impacts CEQA requires that an EIR identify and discuss significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. Subsequent to the revisions and responses to the DEIR, the FEIR continues to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. There would be no significant unavoidable impacts. Commission Action and Certification of FEIR The Planning and Transportation Commission, prior to recommending project approval, must recommend certification of the FEIR, including adoption of the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment B). The City Council must then certify the FEIR prior to final project approval. NEXT STEPS ÷ Following the Commission’s review and recommendation of the planning applications and the Final EIR, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and review for a final decision. No date has been set for the City Council review. ATTACHMENTS Ao B. C. D. E. F.~ G. H. I. J. K. Location map Draft CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan Draft Planned Community Ordinance Draft Architectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval Draft BMR Program Letter Draft Record of Land Use Action: Tentative Map Approval Development Program Statement and Development Schedule Project Background and Description, Verbatim minutes (separate document) Correspondence Development Plan (Commissioners Only) Final Environmental Impact Report (Previously Distributed) City of Palo Alto Page 17 COURTESY COPIES Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stem, Campus for Jewish Life Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP PREPARED BY:Steven Turner, Senior Planner Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 -MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Aven ue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05pm Commissioners:Staff." Patrick Burt- Chair - absent Steve Emslie, Planning Director Karen Holman - V-Chair - recused Curtis Williams, Chief Planning/Transportation Lee I. Lippert Donald Larkin,_Senior Deput~ Cit~ Attorney Paula Sandas Phyllis Cassel Annette Bialson - absent Daniel Garber Amy French, Current Planning Manager Steven Turner, Senior Planner Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: la.901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050] lb.901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114] Commissioner Cassel: Those of you who wish to speak this evening, I am Phyllis Cassel, and am going to chair the meeting this evening. I ask you to fill out a card with Zariah, print your name carefully so I can read it. It is not a signature but rather helpful to us to know who is speaking. Put your address on it and leave it with Zariah. Thank you very much. Will the secretary please call the roll? Thank you. I am going to call the meeting to order for June 28, 2006 at seven o’clock or slightly thereafter. The next part of the agenda is Oral Communications for anyone who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 1. of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 - minutes. Commissioner Cassel: i don’t have any cards for that so I will close that item and we will proceed. A GENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONSAND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Commissioner Cassel: I have no agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. The business this evening is two items listed as la and lb, 901 San Antonio Roadl A request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban .Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community district and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The other one is listed as 901 San Antonio Road a request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community zone for the purpose of a Planned Community district development plan, which will allow 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall and other Spaces, 193 senior residential units and it goes on. The plan this evening is that we will hear both of these items together. We are going to have a Staff Report, which will cover both items. We are going to have presentation by the developer, which will last 30 minutes rather than 15 because there are two projects here and this is an extensive development and we wanted to give an opportunity to hear the total program from what they have to say. We will ask questions to clarify of the Staff and of the developer before we go to the public hearing. I ask that we keep those mostly to questions that will help the audience and ourselves understand what has been presented. We will go to the public hearing. You will get five minutes to speak on both items. In other words, combined, whatever you have to say please combine it for both projects and you will have five minutes to do that. We will then follow that up with questions and comments. A decision will not be made this evening on the project. It will be continued so that we can continue our discussion on July 26, 2006 but the public hearing will be closed this evening. Don Larkin, you wish to have a word? Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: I was just going to mention that I think we can all see that we are very close to our quorum. If for some reason, a phone call or a restroom break, any Commissioner needs to leave the dais we would stop the hearing at that point for that period of time. So just raise your hand and we can do that if it becomes necessary. Commissioner Cassel: We may have more breaks than normal. We are ready for a Staff Report. Cio’ of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 2 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NEW BUSINESS Public Hearings: la.901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031~ 06PLN-000501: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, and a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units and cei’tification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM. lb.901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295~ 06PLN-00114I: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 3 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Theproject request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial-to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium un.its, and a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared. Zone District: GM. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Cassel. There are a couple of housekeeping items before we start. Number one, I just wanted to give the speaking schedule in terms of the Staff Report this evening. My name is Steven Turner, I am a Senior Planner and I will be giving the oral presentation tonight regarding the Planned Community application and the various application components that go along with both applications. I will then pass the mike over to Curtis Williams, our new Chief Planning and Transportation Official who has worked extensively on the environmental portion of this project and allow him to discuss the environmental aspects of the project. Supporting Curtis we have our transportation consultant, Dennis Struecker and our consultant on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, Nora Monette available to answer any questions as well. I believe after Curtis speaks we have Judith Wasserman here from the Architectural Review Board and she can answer any questions and can also provide a brief overview of the ARB’s review of the project. At that point we would then turn it over to the applicant for their presentation. The second housekeeping item refers to the BUILD Staff Report. You may have noticed as you started to read through the Staff Report that about halfway through it appears that the pages were flipped. So starting at Exhibit A of Attachment C you will notice that the pages were stapled in backwards. So you should just simply flip them if possible so that you have the correct order of the attachments. We apologize for that. Okay, on to the Staff Report. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the project, ask questions of Staff and the applicant, conduct the public hearing, close the public hearing, provide comments and continue the project to the July 26, 2006 Commission hearing. This is the second formal hearing for both of these projects. Before I go into the specifics of the projects I just want to provide a brief background and history of the reviews. The first take a look at where we have been in terms of this Planned Community application. As you know, Planned Community applications get at the minimum four public hearings. There is the initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the project then if they are recommended to a forward go on to the Architectural Review Board and it is at that Board where the bulk of the design and architectural work is studied. The ARB would make a recommendation back to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. The third meeting, the meeting, which we are at now, is that Planning and Transportation Commission and a fourth meeting would be the City Council meeting. That City Council meeting has not yet been agendized but we expect that that would take place sometime in September. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 4 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Although we are recommending continuance the Staff Report does go into a recommendation for the July 26 meeting. At that meeting Staff would be recommending .the following items and .... those -items are listed in the Staff Report. So Staff at that meeting would be recommending that the Commission find that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan for the requirements of CEQA and certify the Final EIR. The CEQA resolution is provided in Attachment B of the documents. We would also recommend that the Commission andCity Council grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. We would also recommend to approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the Conditions of Approval that are provide for you in Attachment D of the Staff Reports. We are recommending approval of the Below Market Rate plan. We are recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Map for the BUILD project that would subdivide the site into two sites, one a half-acre site that Would contain 56 senior apartment units and the larger part of the site that would contain 103 town home units. On the TKCJL side we are recommending a Tentative Map for 193-condominium unit project. The site would remain essentially the same but it would be prepared for condominium units for the residential units on the site. For the Campus for Jewish Life we would also recommend a variance to exceed the height limit as described in the Staff Report as well as a Design Enhancement Exception for a sculptural.tower that would exceed the 50 foot height limit as well. Those would be the recommendations that Staff would bring forward to you on July 26, 2006. So getting back to the review history of the project. The first review in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission took place for BUILDon December 1, 2004 and for the Campus for Jewish Life on September 14, 2005. The ARB review, the second review, took place on March 16 and April 20 and the Board recommended approval of the BUILD project on April 20 and the Campus for Jewish Life project .was reviewed on April 20 and May 18 and the Board recommended approval of the proj ect on May 18. Also with the last 12 months Staff has been working very hard on the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report with a mitigation monitoring reporting program and a Final EIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45-day public review period in mid- February of this year and we had received public comments from agencies, Commission Members and members of the public. Staff held a Draft Environmental Impact Report meeting with the Commission on March 29 and based upon that meeting and all the comments that we received we prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report that included the responses to all the ¯ comments that we had received. The Commission has copies of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. The other part of the project that came in your packet was a project background and description document. This was the comb bound document that contained a detailed description of the project and its elements as well as minutes from all of those meetings I have previously mentioned. So you can refer to those to see your previous comments and those of other Boards and Commissions as well. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 5 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ¯ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So on to a summary of each project and I am going to start with the BUILD project and move then to the Campus for Jewish Life project. The BUILD Bridge component is esseritially a100 percent residential project that is comprised of 56 senior housing units comprised in a rental apartment building and a for sale town home project of 103 units. The total floor area of all the units combined would be a little over 216,000 square feet, which would be an FAR of about 1.24. The parking garage, which is constructed at grade, would contain 303 spaces. The town home units would be constructed on top of that garage podium and a portion of the units would be constructed along the shared driveway with the Campus for Jewish Life. The senior town home building would be located closest to Fabian right out in front. For the Campus for Jewish Life this is asenior housing project and a community center project. The senior housing project would contain 193 units of congregate care and assisted living units and the community center would contain uses such as a cultural hall and a preschool and fitness centers. That would approximately be 134,000 square feet. When you add all of the floor area together on the Campus for Jewish Life project it is at about 432,000 square feet which is about a 1.17 FAR. The garage, which would also be constructed at grade, would contain 610 spaces and predominantly all of the uses for the community center and the residential uses would be located on top of the podium. The building heights on the Campus for Jewish Life would range from 50 to 60 feet above grade and have mechanical units that would extend from 70 to 75 feet. The applicant has requested a variance from the 50-foot height limit for the proj ect. Another highlight of the design is the.shared driveway in between the two projects. This is off of Fabian Way and this is really the front entrance to both projects. This driveway would serve both garages and really be the main entrance to both projects there. There are a number of project components that are similar for both the Campus for Jewish Life and the BUILD project and I will briefly go through those items. As I mentioned before the Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by Staff and David Powers and Associates and it encompasses both the BUILD and Campus for Jewish Life projects. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR includes a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that would be required to be implemented to reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Again, Curtis Williams will talk a little bit more about the environmental issues associated with the project. Both projects also as previously mentioned include a Planned Community zone change. This includes development program statements, development schedules, a development plan and proposed findings for the establishment of the Planned Community District. These PC districts are intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional or other activities that would require flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is particularly intended for unified comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and that conform and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 6 of 49 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ’28 29 30 .31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 In order to approve PC districts the City Cotmcil must make findings with regard to the site and proposed uses that the project would not be possible under the existing zone district-of the site, that the development would bring public benefits not otherwise attainable within existing zoning and that the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be .compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed PC findings are contained in Attachment C of each Staff ¯ Report in Section 4.. Both projects also involve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendments have been requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comp Plan the Mixed Use designation would allow a mix of uses including live/work, retai!/office, residential/retail and residential/office development which would be appropriate for these sites. Then we get into the specifics of each application. I will start off with the BUILD site. ~With regards to a Below Market Rate Housing plan the BUILD project would have 103 market rate town home style uses and this PC would allow BUILD to designate a one-half acre parcel for the development of 56 senior apartments that would be affordable to low and very low income levels. These 56 units would satisfy the BMR requirement for the 103-unit town home project. The applicant has indicated that the senior housing project would require federal, state and local subsidies to develop the project and in the event that Bridge is unsuccessful in securing all of the necessary funding commitments the BMR proposal also includes two alternative plans that would allow the City to receive the BMR contribution required for the town home project. Alternative number one would be approximately a 32 unit mixed income for sale residential project that would include 16 BMR units to satisfy the 103 unit town home project and additional BMR units to satisfy the additional requirements for the for sale town home units that would be built as part of the 32 unit alternative project. Alternative number two would be a fee payment in lieu of providing any BMR units. This fee would be at least $4.5 million but no more than $7.5 million and the final fee would be based upon certain costs, credits and proceeds on the half-acre parcel that would have contained the original 56 units. The Planning Division Staff has reviewed the proposed BMR Agreement and finds it to be acceptable to meet the policies and programs of the BMR program. The BMR contribution is further described in the letter from Bridge Housing, which is contained in Attachment E. The final part of the application is a Tentative Map. The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four-acre site and create one multi-family residential lot of approximately one-half of an acre containing 56 multi-family residential apartment units and one multi-family residential lot containing 103 condominium town home style units. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for the project is.contained in Attachment F. Moving on to the Campus for Jewish Life project we will speak for the Below Market Rate Housing program, the Tentative Map and a number of exceptions that they are seeking. For the Below Market Rate Housing proposal they have proposed a plan that includes the provision of 12 congregate care and 12 assisted living units and subsidies of monthly costs for services offered by the Jewish senior residents. These 24 units would be made available at entry fee levels that comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR program City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 7 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for 59 years. The Planning Division Staff has reviewed the BMR proposal and finds it be - acceptable to meet the policies of the BMR program. The BMR contribution., is further desc.ri.b, ed in the letter from the applicant in Attachment F of the Staff Report. The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map for the subdivision of one parcel and the creation of one mixed use lot that would contain 193 multi-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for those projects is contained in Attachment E. The applicant, as previously mentioned, has requested a height variance. This is a variance to exceed the 50-foot maximum height established by the PC District. The roof of the residential buildings would extend from 55 to 60 feet above grade with mechanical equipment extending 65 to 70 feet above grade. The argument in favor of the variance is the location of the site within a flood zone and the presence of groundwater contaminants as well as the previous aerospace uses on the site. Federal and local regulations require that all occupied development within the flood zone must be constructed at least eight feet above the sea level. The existing site is as low as three feet abovesea level and the site is subject to also a Regional Water Quality Control Board cleanup order due to the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. By constructing the community center and housing on a podium above the at grade parking garage the project would meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the location of sensitive uses within these cleanup areas. The podium development plan would result in the unique condition where the tallest buildings would exceed the 50-foot maximum height. In order to develop the site in the manner requested by the applicant this variance would be required. In order to approve the variance the Council must make. findings that special circumstances or conditions are present on the site that generally would not be present on other properties within the district, that no special privileges would be granted that would be inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the district, that the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, that the Variance would not be detrimental to other property owners in the area and the findings for the ,variance are contained in Attachment C, Section 2. The project includes a design for a proposed sculptural tower element that would be approximately 12 feet by 12 feet and rise to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade. Staff has determined that a Design Enhancement Exception would be the appropriate mechanism for this feature. The tower would contain elevator equipment that would serve the parking garage, the podium level and two floors of the adjacent Building C. The tower would have a solid portion that would extend no higher than 65 feet above grade and a skeletal transparent type section that would extend no more than 96 feet above grade. A DEE would be required for this feature to exceed the 50-foot height limit in this PC district. The purpose of the DEE is to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site or its impact on the surrounding properties. The tower with a footprint of about 144 square feet is a minor architectural feature of the project and although the proposed height of the tower exceeds the height limit the impact this tower would have on adjacent commercial and residential uses is not significant. In order to approve the DEE the City Council must make findings that special City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 8 of 49 1 circumstances or conditions are present and the site generally would not be present on other - 2 properties within the district, that the granting of the exception would enhance the appearance of 3 ¯ or improve the neighborhood character and that the exception wouldnot be detrimental to other 4 property owners in the area. The findings for the DEE are contained in Attachment D in 5 Section 3. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The ARB has reviewed the request for the DEE and recommended approval of the project with a condition that the design of the tower return to the ARB for formal public meeting. Both projects include public benefits. As part of the PC request the applicant is required to provide public benefits that would not otherwise be attainable utilizing the existing zoning. There are a couple of common public benefits that would apply to both projects. One would be the development of this shared plaza at the Fabian Way driveway. This 5,000 square foot plaza would demarcate the main pedestrian entrances to the two developments and really be a focal point for the projects. Another public benefit would be conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for housing. The projects would result in redevelopment of sites listed on the Housing Sites Inventory, listed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to residential and a community center project. The site has been largely unoccupied in a deteriorated state for many years. While this has generated little parking demand or traffic it has been an obstacle to creating an environment that would be beneficial to a variety of uses. The site is presently zoned to permit industrial/commercial development including office uses, which would exacerbate the City’s shortage of housing relative to jobs. The project would replace a deteriorated, largely vacant office building with well-designed structures built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high quality. The individual public benefits provided by each project are as follows. For the BUILD project BUILD is proposing a second mortgage program for local employees. This would be mortgages from between $25,000 to $100,000 low interest second mortgages that would be offered to local employees within the area. It would be for targeted households ranging from 100 to 200 percent of the median area income. The intentof the second mortgage program would be to have employees live near the workplace as a way to alleviate the jobs/housing imbalance and impact on traffic.- The fund would initially be established at $500,000. The applicant has also indicated that they would pay approximately $480,000 towards the costs of implementing the Charleston/Arastradero transportation plan. Moving on to the Campus for Jewish Life public benefits, they are proposing the community center uses that would be shared with the City of Palo Alto and the BUILD/Bridge project. The Campus for Jewish Life would enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of Jewish Community Center facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance-aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms, playing fields, large meeting rooms, cultural hall and performance center, and a teen center. In conjunction with the City the JCC and the City would develop a schedule ofj ointly sponsored programs as well as programs and portions of the facility to be made available for programs sponsored only by the City. The specific provisions of the agreement including hours of operation and payment of fees would be initially reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services with follow up reviews on an annual basis. The Campus for Jewish Life would also provide reduced cost memberships for the JCC for residents of the adjacent BUILD/Bridge project. Other benefits that would be offered by CJL City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 9 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that would directly affect the BUILD senior housing project would be discounted membershii~s. The JCC would provide discounted memberships to the low-income residents of the BUILD senior housing projects, .which includes the 56 units, which would house approximaiely 70 residents. This discount offered would be an 80 percent reduction of the applicable JCC standard membership fee. Initially this reduced membership is projected to be $20 or less per month. Transportation assistance. The Jewish residents would provide transportation assistance to the low-income residents of the BUILD senior housing project. The JSR shuttle services would be made available to BUILD residents on a space available basis. The JSR anticipates that space available will accommodate the needs of the BUILD residents because of the number and frequency of shuttle trips will most likely be offered to the JSR residents. The cost to provide the shuttle is about $200,000 per year and in the unlikely circumstance that JSR discontinues shuttle services for residents then this benefit would not be offered to the BUILD residents. Following up on the Architectural Review Board reviews of the project, in addition to numerous preliminary reviews over the course of about two years the ARB has conducted two formal reviews of each project and has recommended approval of each project to the Commission and City Council. Minutes of the review are contained in the supplemental book that came with your Staff Report. During the March 29 review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report the Commission made comments and had questions that related to architecture and design. The ARB responded to those comments and a summary of those review meetings are contained within each Staff Report. The Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment D of each report summarizes the Architectural Review findings that would be required for the approval of the development plan. Again, Judith Wasserman is here from the ARB to answer any questions for you. Finally the Conditions of Approval would also apply to the project. Both projects would have standard condition of approval that would apply during the final map and building permit processes. These conditions are contained in the Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment D. Staff recognizes that each of these projects is large and complex and would represent a significant change to the neighborhood. In response to comments from members of the public and adjacent property owners Staff has recommended specific conditions of approval that would address concerns that have been communicated to Staff. So within the Conditions of Approval condition number six in the Campus for Jewish Life Staff Report and condition number eight in the BUILD Staff Report would require a construction impact minimizati6n plan on neighboring businesses developed with cooperation from the neighboring business owners. The plan would identify potential impacts for construction and the time when those impacts would be expected to occur and how those impacts would be minimized. Specifically for the Campus for Jewish Life there are a number of conditions that Staff is recommending based upon the size and complexity of the project and the uses that are being proposed. Condition number eight contains a condition about the cultural hall and it is a cultural hall use schedule requirement. It states that the JCC shall provide to the Planning Division a City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 10 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 monthly calendar that includes all of the proposed events within the cultural hall theater space. Each event shall include a description of the event, hours, expected attendance and a description of any other significant events that are taking place at the JCC during the time of the-ev.ent. - Staff has recently requested that the applicant provide a noise study to address the effects of amplified music on nearby residences. Copies of that noise report were put at your places and are available at the table to the rear. The noise study concluded that effect of the amplified music on nearby residential areas would be within the limits of the Noise Ordinance until 10:30 each evening. So based upon that noise report Staff is recommending a condition that deals with amplified sound limitations. We have recommended, condition number nine, that all outdoor events with amplified sound shall cease operations no later than 10:00 PM seven days per week. Noise levels shall not exceed those limits proscribed by the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance and if Staff receives substantial complaints about amplified sound these hours may be further restricted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment or referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for review. Condition number 10 speaks to the Jewish Community Center and neighborhood association meetings. JCC management staff and Board Members of the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association shall meet periodically as agreed upon by the participants to discuss issues related to the operation and use of the JCC facility. JCC management and staff and Palo Verde Neighborhood Association Board Members shall make contact information including telephone numbers and-email addresses available to each organization. In order to improve pedestrian movements into and out of the Fabian Way driveway Staff is recommending that the Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD projects shall relocate and upgrade the existing pedestrian crosswalk across Fabian currently located near the northern property line of the BUILD parcel. This crosswalk shall be located to align with the Fabian Way driveway into the Campus for Jewish Life. Finally, condition number 21 of the.Campus for Jewish Life conditions indicates a requirement for shared parking agreements to accommodate overflowparking Onto adjacent facilities for special events when required by theConditions of Approval or the EIR mitigation measures. This shared parking agreement must be submitted at least two weeks in advance of any event. So that concludes the Staff Report and description of the projects. There are a couple of minor corrections that we would like to let the Commission know about and they are mainly in the BUILD Staff Report within the Planned Community District Ordinance. This would be Attachment C in Section 4, Roman Numeral V. Commissioner Cassel: Do you have a page number? Mr. Turner: Yes, it is on page 3. This speaks to the second mortgage program for as it states here for public employees. It should state second mortgage program for local employees. It essentially would be offered to local employees instead of the public employees as listed there with a priority on City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District employees. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 11 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The second correction would be to Roman Number VI this is payment of the additional Charleston/Arastradero fees. It should state that payment of $480,0.0.0 of the cost of implementing the Charl.eston/Arastradero Plan would be part of the public benefit package. In Section 7 of that same Attachment under Site Development Regulations it speaks to the development schedule. The development schedule includes the project phasing of the plan. So about halfway down in that paragraph on page 9 of that attachment the sentence starts off, "That the applicant anticipates that the completion of Phase 1," this is what the correction should be, "the completion of Phase 1 is likely to occur no sooner than 2009 with the senior phase to be completed by the end of 2012." That would be a correction that would be brought back. Each of these corrections would be brought back to the Commission on the July 26 meeting. So that concludes my portion of the Staff Report and I will hand it over to Curtis Williams to speak to the environmental aspects of the project. Mr. C. Williams, Chief Plannin~ and Transportation Official: Thanks Steven, take a breath. That is a lot of work Steven put into this effort. I just want to try to encapsulate for you some of the changes that were made in the Final Environmental Impact Report. For the project you reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, held a public hearing on it, accepted comments and the Staff and the consultant have addressed all of those comments, indexed them and responded to all of those. That Final Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with the Draft represents the final environmental document for the project. You are required as the lead agency and the Council ultimately to certify that this Environmental Impact Report is completed in accordance with CEQA, that you have reviewed and considered the impacts and information contained in the Final EIR and that it reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The CEQA findings are included as Steven mentioned in Attachment B of to the Staff Report and that also is appended then by the mitigation monitoring program for each of the projects. The mitigation monitoring program essentially sets out all the mitigation measures, who is responsible for implementing them and when that is to be done. It serves as kind of a checklist to go through before a building permit or before occupancy these things are all taken care of. The responses to comments were primarily directed at three or four key areas. Transportation was one. There was some supplemental information included outlining improvements in the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor particularly pedestrian and bicycle improvements that would help mitigate impacts on pedestrian and bicycle use. A TDM, Transportation Demand Management, plan is an additional mitigation measure and has been submitted by the applicant as an attachment to your Staff Report. The intent of that is to achieve a 15 percent reduction in total trips generated from the site and it requires an annual monitoring program be submitted. The mitigation for parking for special events Steven mentioned has not changed. Previously the situation has been made better by the reduction in the number of units on the BUILD portion of the property from the original proposal. SO there is no longer a need for the two projects to share City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 12 of 49 1 parking but we do still request that on weeknights when there is some possibility of some ovdrlap 2 .of the uses that we have the special event parking plan.and if necessary off-site agree_ment fr.o._m 3 the applicant, CJL. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There is a revised mitigation measure for the left turn movements from Charleston that now rather than prohibiting all left turn movements prohibit the left turn in but do allow for left turns out of the site because of the minimal number of turns and the time for getting out into traffic appears to be adequate based on the transportation analysis. Similarly the loading space along San Antonio Road, which was originally suggested, should not be there the applicant has proposed a series of conditions and a design that we feel works adequately. It limits.trucks leaving that space to turn right only onto Charleston and use truck routes out of town and also requires that the loading space be entirely on CJL’s property and not in the right-of-way. There was further analysis of impacts on local roads, neighborhood cut-through traffic, and the traffic consultant determined that there would not be a significant impact in terms of the number of potential additional trips particularly on Louis and Ross Road. Hazards and hazardous materials. The CJL risk management plan has now been approved. There is an indication that it was close to approval in the Staff Report and it now has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all of those various conditions in there are made conditions of this permit and are required to be implemented along with some Fire Department requests for shelter in place and emergency preparedness plans. Visually resources and aesthetic impacts. As Steven mentioned the ARB has lool~ed at the plans and is supportive of both projects. They have provided responses to some of the issues that the Commission brought up and did consider that in their deliberations. Approvals are subject to some items returning either on subcommittee level to the Board with the exception of the tower, which has to come back wholly as a new public hearing before the Board, and noticed to all the neighbors to look at that design when it is prepared. I do want to note because some of the letters and cards that came in mentioned,lighting on the top of the tower. At this point there is no lighting proposed for the tower. That would be something that would be reviewed at a later date if that were even proposed. There is a condition of approval that suggests .that any lighting shall be very low level and just for highlight and should be turned off at a reasonable hour. It didn’t specify the hour but that would be determined as part of that review.. Cumulative impact on public facilities was a common comment particularly schools, parks and libraries. School impact fees are paid and that from a CEQA standpoint is specifically adequate to address the school impact issues but there is some additional information in the document that has been provided about some of the background on schools. We can go into it if you like. As for the parks issue we think that this project is providing community facilities that are going to be useful to all of the residents of Palo Alto. So it is not deficient as far as parks go. There will also be some park fees paid by the market rate townhouse units on the BUILD property. Also community facilities fees include library impact fees, which will go into helping support additional library improvements. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 13 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 One other comment is that what was Alternative D in the original Draft EIR has been deleted from the Final EIR. That is what is called the BUILD Design Alternative. That is t~UILD’~ - proposed project now. So the project definition has been refined to specifically represent that reduced number of units that BUILD has proposed and the alternative is no longer necessary. The analysis was adjusted to address the project as it now stands. So the Commission as its first action on July 26 is to recommend and is necessary to address the Environmental Impact Report part of this before making any actions or approvals on the rest of the project. So you will need to again certify the EIR including adoption of the findings and the mitigation monitoring program that are attached. So that is a summary of the environmental and we will let Judith discuss a little bit the ARB review of the projects. Ms. Judith Wasserman, Architectural Re#iew Board Member: Thank you. I am not going to say very much because I would rather answer your questions. One of the things that we did discuss about EIRs in general is that they never ask about the positive aspects of the project. They always assume anything new is a bad idea and we have to figure out how to mitigate that. Whereas we felt that this project was a benefit. It was a good thing and that we didn’t have to make excuses for it. The project was enthusiastically and unanimously supported by the Board and we felt that it was both inspired and inspiring. There is a lot of poetry on a lot of different levels in this project that made us feel like architecture had a good name after all. We did see it a lot. It came to us in many preliminary hearings because it was just too big to get our hands around in the two allowed formal meetings. So we saw it in many stages. We had what we felt was an extremely cooperative applicant. When we asked for further delineations of things, very long contextual elevations, color renderings of various things we always got what we asked for. It always described how much better things were getting as things went along. Technically there are two projects but they both had the same architect, which turned out to be although unusual very beneficial. The projects are tied together very well, they use common space very well, and the color palettes are compatible with each other. The whole thing seems to hold together very nicely.34 35 36 We understood from some of your questions that one of the difficult issues had to do with the 37 raised nature of the project that basically at grade all we had was parking and that the real stuff 38 was all at the podium level. One of our concerns was how that podium level related to the street 39 and how did you get from grade up to the podium level. We felt that was addressed successfully 40 both from Fabian and from Charleston that we didn’t feel it was an appropriate consideration to 41 do that from San Antonio because there was hardly any pedestrian traffic on San Antonio. There 42 is a way up but it is not a major - I am sure Rob will go into all the site planning with you. So 43 we thought that that worked out very successfully. One of the questions had to do with the 44 relationship to the neighborhood and precedent setting. My immediate reaction to that was yes, 45.this is a precedent setting project and a damn good thing too because this is a neighborhood that 46 doesn’t have very much to recommend it architecturally and this will be a very high bar to set for City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 14 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the neighborhood and that it will be an improvement in both the real estate way and the literal way that this is going to be a great asset not only to the neighborhood but to the City as a whole. I think that the applicant is going to discuss all the details of the project but one of the things that I thought was particularly well done was the way the site planning took advantage of the fact that there are no cars on the podium. I think this is something that we will all envy as we go about our daily lives dealing with cars in our pedestrian lives to have a space in the City that is free of vehicles and you can just walk around and enjoy the varied differently designed spaces for different purposes. I would be happy to answer anything that I might remember from what we did. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much. Do we have questions that we want to ask now of Staff or can we go do the developer’s report? Okay, then I will proceed. I will ask the developer to come forward. By the way, if any of you wish to speak please fill out a card. Please print your name, you are not signing anything, I need to be able to read it. The first person to speak tonight is going to be Lydia Tan the developer is putting these two projects relatively together. Someone will speak from each project and then the architect is going to present the whole project. We are going to give them half an hour to do this since it is two projects. Just speak right into these mikes. They are very sensitive to the angle that you are speaking into them. Ms. Lydia Tan, Bridge Housing Corporation and Brid~e Urban Infill Land Development, Applicant: Thank you very much. I am Executive Vice President of both Bridge Housing Corporation and Bridge Urban In fill Land Development. Very quickly on agenda as Chairperson Cassel indicated I am going to speak a little bit about our proposal, the BUILD proposal. Shelly Hebdrt, the Executive Director of Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life will do the same for her proposal. We are going to give the bulk of our time to Rob Steinberg, our architect, to walk you through our development proposal. ’So very quickly about Bridge Housing Corporation for those of you who are unfamiliar with us we are a non-profit housing developer. Our offices are in San Francisco we are based in San Francisco. We also have a satellite office in San Diego and we work throughout California to create as much very high quality affordable housing throughout the state as possible. That is our main mission. Over the 23 years we have been in business we now have a portfolio of about 12,000 homes. We are h6me to about 25,000 residents all working and very active members of their communities. Very quickly BUILD, Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, is the applicant for us and BUILD is a partnership between Bridge and the California Public Employees Retirement System. When we started this process back in 2002 we were a $100 million partnership between Cal-PERS and Bridge. We got another allocation being able to invest Cal-PERS dollars into urban environments throughout California trying to create great urban environments. Very quickly on the development our first presentation to the City was in 2004. Steven Turner talked about our first presentation to the community was the end of 2002. We have been having a very extensive dialogue over the many, many years as the project has morphed and changed. over time. Frankly, from the time we started our first initial concept to where we are today we City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 15 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 really appreciated all of the input from the community, the input from all of the public bodies who have helped us along over the past years. Just to highlight our original proposal was about 230 homes on the four-acre parcel and we are now down to 159 units as Mr. Turner-had .... indicated. The other m~iin change since we originally made our application is that the senior component has moved from San Antonio over to Fabian to try and give more of a pedestrian orientation to the project but also to help with the seniors in terms of access to other parts of the City. As we think about what we have done we have reduced the height, we have reduced bulk, we have reduced impact on traffic and other things and we actually scratched our heads a couple of weeks ago and said why are we doing a PC zone? We are actually under 40 units to the acre. We really don’t have the kind of impact that a normal PC zone would be having on the environment but we are happy to be doing that. We are happy to be providing the public benefit that we proposed. Just very quickly on the public benefit the Charleston/Arastradero improvements are actually quite near and dear to our hearts. Folks might recall that when the original study for CharlestordArastradero was in place both the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD donated $20,000 to start that study. So we are very much invested in making sure that those improvements go into place and are successful. On the mortgage assistance program we are really excited about the idea of trying to create more affordable housing above and beyond what we would normally be required to do and provide it at a level that isn’t normally addressed with the normal public programs. So we are really happy to be doing that. Then very quickly on the BMR agreement there is the proposal, and there are two backup alternatives. I just want to very strongly iterate that it is our strong preference that the proposal that is in front of you is the preferred direction as far as Bridge and BUILD is concerned. We fully intend to build the 56 units as affordable senior. There are a lot of funding sources we will still have to pull together in order to make it happen so Staff has wisely asked us and pushed us to come up with a couple of alternatives to make sure that in some way, shape or form the BMR requirements would be dealt with. So we are happy to have come to agreement on that. The last thing I want to say is I do want to very much thank Staff over the four years. As you can imagine ifI listed everybody I would list every single person that works for the City of Palo Alto. So just very quickly I want to thank in particular Steven Turner, Curtis Williams and Amy French and Steve Emslie for sticking with us and helping us to create a really great project. We are really excited about this project. So I will now ask Shelley Hebrrt to come up and talk about the Taube-Koret. Ms. Shelley Hebrrt, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Applicant: Good evening. I am the Executive Director for the development of the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life. On behalf of the partners in the project, the Palo Alto Jewish Community Center and the Jewish Home of San Francisco I want to say how excited we are to have reached this point. We have appeared before you two previous times for a conceptual review and in relation to our Draft Environmental Impact Report. All together there have been 15 public hearings on the project over the past several years in addition to many meetings with neighborhood groups including the City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page I6 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Green Meadow Community Association, Palo Verde Neighborhood Association and Palo Afro Neighborhoods among others. I believe that working with Staff all issues and concerns have been addressed. We have made some modifications as a result of neighborhood input. I would especially like to express our appreciation to Staff for their hard work throughout this very complex process. This evening we brought several key people from our project team to be able to respond to questions. I would like to introduce Rob Steinberg and Randy Popp of Steinberg Architects, from our project management team Todd Aris, John [Eicko] and Jerry Fang of the Regis Aris Group, Jim Baer our City Approvals Consultant, Sandy Sloan our land use attorney and David Cook, our environmental attorney. The unique combination of a privately funded community center integrated with senior l~ousing in a true inter-generational environment has inspired our Board, our volunteers, donors and professional team to create a project that we are very proud to present to you this evening. We believe it provides significant public benefit to the entire community through open membership to the JCC and access to the senior living residences for people of all backgrounds and faiths. In addition to the public benefits inherent to the project the Campus will provide great public benefit through an arrangement described earlier this evening with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of JCC facilities including a gymnasi.um, aerobic and dance rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms, teen center, cultural hall among others. We are very respectful of the extensive public input proces~s over the past two years as well as the time available this evening. Therefore we have not asked the hundreds of JCC supporters in our community to be here tonight to express their concerns and support of the project. Now I would like to ask Rob Steinberg to provide you with an Overview of the project design. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects: Good evening. As we heard from Staff there are quite a number of issues to discuss so what I would like to do is just give you a brief overview of our proposal. Let me begin by saying that this is a redevelopment of an ~xisting site. You can see a fairly large existing building, almost 100 feet on the site. I will remind you that we are near residential but we are not tangent to the residential and interestingly enough and positive we have access to a number of different roadways in order to distribute traffic in a variety of different directions. The 12.5-acre site is broken up roughly sort of 0ne-third/two-thirds. On the left or the north side is the BUILD/Bridge.component thatLydia just told you about. There are 3.5 acres for market rate housing located here and about half an acre for senior housing, low and very low income on that part of the site. The additional 8.5 acres to the right or to the south is the Campus for Jewish Life site. As you have heard we have been at this process for about two years going through the entitlement process. Our anticipation is that hopefully in the next several months we will conclude that. We have certainly done our very best to be inclusive and collaborative as we have gone through this process and we look forward to a thoughtful exchange with you this evening. City of P~lo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 17 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The proposal that we have has two components and I would like to begin by talking about the_ four acre component that is comprised of Bridge housing and BUILD. Our original design that we brought to the City was significantly more aggressive than the proposal that we are sharing.-, with you this evening. It-had about 230 units. It was a large interior hallway loaded building. It had four large courtyards that really were defined by three, four and five story buildings. Our current proposal that we have in front of you this evening as you heard has been reduced by about 30 percent, Probably more significant than that is we have taken this one very large building and we have broken it into 12, smaller buildings. We have organized these 12 smaller buildings along pedestrian walk-streets on top of the parking. It is a very interesting prototype. It is a building type that we don’t really have here in Palo Alto currently. We have organized this part of the site around a large open courtyard and then there is a muse or a pedestrian walk- street that goes offto the east and connects through to the Campus for Jewish Life. There is also an eastern muse that takes you and connects through a grand street stairway out to Fabian. We have purposely located the senior component on the front of the site near our shared driveway in effort to provide dignity for the seniors, to provide convenient access to transportation and a connection to the City. What is interesting is that comer of that building is the shared entry drive to the entire mixed use development and is shared with the Campus for Jewish Life: For that reason we took the lobby, we took the internal stair and we raised that up as really an entry gateway to the entire mixed use community. The market rate housing is comprised of two and three story buildings. Instead of being large elevator access buildings all of the units are accessed through private courtyards or stoops or gardens that. lead you directly from the outside into your unit much like a single-family house. What is kind of interesting and one of the things that we tried very hard to do is to create a sense of arrival to these homes that made that experience sort of an unfolding adventure. So for example if you walked into the site you would come along a gateway and someone’s private patio, you would come to a very wide stairway instead of having it go up vertically it comes up a few steps to a landing, up a few steps to a landing and then you come to a large portal and you are able to look into the site. What you do is you look into a very large central square, our open space. On this large open space we have actually developed what we refer to as sort of community sized front porch swings adjacent to the lawns and the open area, some very large swings that are a place to connect with your neighbors, to have activity and movement, some kinetic energy in that space and to liven that space and to give our central square a sense of identity. From that space you could move off into the muse and down to the individual residences. Similar to the BUILD and the Bridge activity the Campus for Jewish Life is all about connections. This portion of the site also has two components. It has 193 units of continuing care retirement community residence for seniors and support activities and has about 135,000 square feet of community center space to it. It is really a very unusual mix of uses. You might say, Rob, with this kind of mix of uses how do you pull together a design that knits this together? I will tell you it has been a very interesting experience. One of the mechanisms that we used is with our group we developed nine guiding principles. We used these principles to help us sort of gauge the success of ideas that we brought forward. It gave us a sense of focus and an ability to direct our decision-making to see if we were really achieving our goals. So for example one of the things that we decided is that the journey is as important as the destination, that the interstitial City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 18 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ¯ spaces and the connections were very, very important and we should encourage informal kinds of activities as much as program kinds of spaces. Another principle .that we talked about was’ trying to get the buildings to reflect their purpose and function. The reason that we ~lid this is~e wanted to have variety, we wanted to have a unified campus but we wanted to do that without having uniformity and repetition to the buildings. I will show you how we did that in just a minute. The third and sort of the last principle, I am just giving you a little sampling here, is that we wanted to reinforce the idea of looking upward for divine inspiration. So we tried to add detail that visually drew your eye upwards on the buildings as part of our design vocabulary. So maybe that sounds very simple but it actually was rather complicated. We spent several years exploring different alternatives. You are looking at five of them and I am not going to go into all of them but you can see for example the green is the senior housing, here it was in this location, then it was in that location, then it moved in a different way, then it folded in different directions. In each of these iterations we wrestled with issues like security, connection, access both pedestrian and vehicular, and we focused not just internally but how we were also connecting to the City fabric as well. So we wound up and we settled on a land use plan that we think is very successful. We think it is open and welcoming and inclusive and we also think it gives a sense of identity to each of our users. So for example, the blue is the community center and the blue and the community center expresses itself on each of the three streets in different ways. The green is the senior housing and that has its own presence on Charleston. You can see that we moved it away from the busy intersection and sort of brought it into the middle of the block. The tan or orange color is where we have community center on the ground or on the grade or the podium and we have housing vertically integrated over the top of that. So we have a sense of identity but we have also tried to knit the two into an integrated, inter-generational mixed use neighborhood. To me what really makes this plan extraordinary is not just the mix of users but the mix of uses and how this can contribute to our community. We have fitness, indoor and outdoor pools, administrative areas, after school programs, preschool programs~ restaurants, retail,.adult activities, senior residential, senior dining and support facilities, cultural facilities all integrated horizontally and vertically on the same site. From the very beginning our vihion included the idea that we wanted this not just to be a collection of buildings but we wanted to create outdoor rooms that were framed between the buildings. What is so exciting to me is that we have a whole series of different shaped outdoor rooms and they vary between places that are hardscape and areas that are more richly landscaped so that they can accommodate a whole variety of sizes and different kinds of functions. I just wanted to wrap up by showing you a few images of this. This is a view of the cultural hall looking from Charleston. There is a two-story glass lobbY into the theater that suggests a sense of openness, a transparency. If you look carefully you can see that we are detailing the roof so that there are elements on the top of it that draw you eye upwards as I explained to you. When you enter from Fabian you see outdoor pools and indoor pools. There is the outdoor pool on the terrace, indoor pools with glass connection to the outdoor pool and the gymnasium. What we are trying to do is to suggest a sense of structure like your bones, like the skeleton of a body with skin that is stretching between them. So it has a little different character than cultural building. The senior building on Charleston is proud, it is. welcoming, it is part of our front door. It combines a whole series of outdoor and indoor spaces that are tailored to the special needs of mobility and visibility of seniors..As I mentioned.to you as important as our rooms in our building are these interstitial spaces that we have, spaces that City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 19 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 are for arrival, more intimate kind of spaces, our town square that will accommodate all sortg oflarge activities and abilities to have cultural activities indoors and o.utdoors where the campus_. and the community could come together as one. I would like to just tell you as a long term resident of Palo Alto, as a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects that it is really a privilege to be with you tonight and share our vision for BUILD and for Bridge and for the Campus for Jewish Life with you. I want to tell you on a personal note that I am very confident that this proposal that we have in front of you tonight combines the best practices of Planning, of Design, of Smart Growth with the values of our community and the expectations for the quality of life and activity that our residents deserve and expect. So we are very appreciative to share our thoughts with you tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Do you have questions of the developer? Do you want to go right to the public hearing? All right then we will move directly to the public hearing. We may have questions of you later. Those of you who wish to speak you will have five minutes to speak. You may speak on both projects at the same time so that we will not have two-separate hearings on each project. You can integrate your comments then for both and any comments you wish to make on the Final Environmental Impact Report. We will give you five minutes to speak. If you don’t need the five minutes you don’t have to use it. We have 27 speakers so that is over two hours if you all use five minutes. I am sure you will not alldo that but on the other hand I want to give you an opportunity to say what is important to you. The first person to speak tonight is Bob Evans to be followed by Betsy Allyn. When you come up will you please say your name and the town in which you live? Thank you. Mr. Bob Evans, Palo Alto: Hi. I live right on Gailen on the other side of Fabian. I think the project looks beautiful. When I first started to see it on the website I think it was quite clear what it would look like and everything. I like the idea of taking down the Sun building and hopefully getting something that I didn’t see from my front, back and side yards anymore, which would be the Sun building. However, I notice that these buildings which are 56 feet are now moved closer to Fabian than the Sun building is so the one think I would like to criticize although the website and the architecture stuff is beautiful is it didn’t give me any kind of a aspect ratio as to what I’ll be looking at from the neighborhood. What is the perspective from the surrounding streets as to how high this thing really is versus the fact that the Sun building was set so far back from the residential area there, which is the Meadow Park area. So that is number one. That aside I would like to make sure since these are 56 feet tall and they actually have very large wide roofs that we don’t have any plans or future plans on having any parties or any kind of stand up and look around at Palo Alto on these rooftops, any kind of an area other than air conditioning and general maintenance. I am hoping that is the case but I haven’t seen that spelled out. Perhaps my biggest concern is the fact that the City of Palo Alto has already voted on and passed something to fix all the storm water runoff. In our neighborhood we flood. That is just right on City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 20 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the other side of Fabian. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist although perhaps we should - have hired one for this report because I think this person that did the storm drain water repo_rt probably didn’t make it t.hrough high school science. The reason I siate that is becat]se this water report and the storm stuff seems to be totally focused on the pollution aspect and impact of what we are going to do to the creek. This project doesn’t state nor does this report state that this water runoff will go into that creek. Now, I think that the fact that this is a report about the water runoffkind of alludes to the fact that the City or somebody has hired a consultant to explain that it is really not a problem they are going to take care of the pollution. Well, that is really deflection from the fact of flooding because it doesn’t really talk about flooding at all or our streets or our problems in the neighborhood which is the water runoff from our streets during a storm opens up into a gate that like less than halfway in height from the full height of Adobe Creek. Every time that water level rises with the tide that gate closes and the water begins to rise all the way up my driveway and my neighbor’s. So much so that in our neighborhood we went out and all chipped in and bought a pump because the City doesn’t pump the water out. So we have our own pumping station in our neighborhood for the flooding issue. This doesn’t talk about that. They didn’t talk to anybody in our neighborhood because there are so many people that know about it and yet it is not mentioned. That is a 10,000 gallon an hour pump we got from Granger that kind of keeps up with the rain. So the City passed something where we were supposed to get $600,000 for this pump station to be put in but the San Francisquito Creek is really getting all the focus of making that area stop flooding and there is nothing in our area. I would like to know if the builders of this project, which all stand to make a lot of money, the architects, the builders, the community itself and the retail and so on have even heard of this before? You said I am-asking questions, right? Commissioner Cassel: No, you are not asking questions. You will just give us the information and then we will check on that later. Mr. Evans: I see. Okay. I misunderstood you then in the beginning of this. Commissioner Cassel" The Commissioners will be asking questions. Mr. Evans: Okay. So my primary concern then to sum it up is how come we can’t hire real contractors to go investigate and explore this? Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Betsy Allyn to be followed by Judith Fields. Ms. Betsy Allyn, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Willmar Drive on the comer across from Terman School. I would like to just make a few comments tonight. I would like to thank Mr. Steinberg for his drawings they sho.w a great deal of imagination. I want to speak sort of from a South Palo Alto neighborhood standpoint and that is that this is really a city in city. This is the first time Palo Alto has ever done anything like this. This is precedent setting and what you do will be with us for a long time, the bad and the good. It is a regional facility. People will be coming from all over the Bay Area so there is much traffic and much safety and much impact to be thought about. I think that there is no possible way ihat the full future impacts on South Palo Alto and the neighborhood of this massive project can be measured or for that matter mitigated. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 21 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I am extremely concerned about the safety in this area and up on the corridor. As it has’been- said many times it is a School Safety Corridor, it is a school commute corridor, thousands of children use it and I don’t think there has been an adequate analysis of the safety features of tliis road at certain times of the year and at certain times. I would like to see lighted crosswalks for the children and pedestrians. I would like to see lighted bike crossways for the. bicyclists and maybe even possibly lighted bike paths on the streets through there. Another important point I think is the total actually approved multi-family housing units in South Palo Alto so far is now 3,550 units planned and going to be built. There are 2,454 units noted by the City but it is 3,550. There is a study that has been done showing the housing units sold in South Palo Alto, 43 percent of those that have been sold were sold to families with what else? Children, and those children will be going to school. Adding a 134,000 square foot recreation center and a 380 seat theater for special events and the usage on a 24/7 basis is going to be a real problem for this intersection and this area particularly for the neighborhoods because they will get the traffic. I am wondering if both those buildings could not be scaled back just a little bit and make very sure that the parking is on site. Having lived across from Terman for several years we did experience the parking on our neighborhood streets. I ~think also that the applicant should be required to provide shuttle services for all of its occupants for local shopping and medical trips to decrease the traffic. I think the City should require that the construction company use certain traffic routes and parking areas for trucks and workers and have enforceable measures, of responsibility so that the construction company is responsible for those rules being followed and not the City. I think that the 50-foot height limit must be respected with a six to 12 foot above grade allowed where possible. The 50-foot height limit in Palo Alto has been rather sanctified and respected. Also, there should be absolutely no 60 to 95 foot tower. This would be setting a huge precedent and is way beyond being acceptable. It is not one ofPalo Alto’s values and it should not be. It would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. I want to say it would be almost an insult but I am not going to say that. Palo Alto has never managed a project of this complexity and size. It is certainly precedent setting and therefore must be held to acceptable standards and accountable standards for the City and the residents. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. We are going to hear two more speakers and then we will take a break. The next person to speak is Judith Fields to be followed by Alan Bennett. Ms. Judith Fields, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am going to speak in favor of this project. Many other people will laud the design or tell you about various components. I am going to speak to why Ithink philosophically it needs to be approved. One of the things Palo Alto prides itself on is maintaining diversity. This is one way to do that to have homes for our seniors. The price of this project is likely to be more affordable or more accessible to a greater number of people than some of the other projects in Palo Alto. Our seniors should not be punished because they grow old. They should be able to live in Palo Alto. We know the Bay Area is going to grow, different communities by different amounts. This is one way to manage our growth. Change is difficult whether change is personal or in our community and we need to accept that change is difficult and go from there. Every change has a reaction. We need to think of the common good. For instance Palo Alto has taxed itself to provide more money for the schools. We all agree the children deserve the best possible City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 22 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 education and it doesn’t matter whether we have children in school or have never had children in school. In the same way we need to look at the common good and have housing for our seniors because we will all be old someday and this is the kind of resource ~,e need. Thank-you. - ’ Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Alan Bennett and when we finish the break Louise Lyman will be speaking first. Mr. Alan Bennett, Palo Alto: Good evening. I wanted to say a few words perhaps somewhat selfishly about what the project means to me and my wife and why I see it to be important. First the senior housing would be a potentially attractive option if we should age further. Despite what I deny whenever I look in the mirror I have a number of friends and contemporaries who are busily considering the senior housing options and I suspect that we will eventually be doing just that. The mix of independent and assisted living, the religiously diverse population and the chance to be next to a community center with an age diverse population all make the housing component of the project very attractive to us. I guess it is sort of obvious that at least the senior housing component of the projected plan really wouldn’t make any additional demands on the schools. Secondly, the senior programming will be potentially important to us no matter where we live in the area. Things like bridge, which frankly I leave to my wife but language clubs and lectures and social events and movies can all make a difference to the quality of our lives during the coming years. The bottom line is as a Palo Alto resident I am certainly concerned that traffic and environmental effects be minimized and I suspect City Staff and the Commission will work to. make that the case. I strongly support getting the campus up and running as quickly as is sensible. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. We are going to take a break of seven minutes. We will come back and we have another 20 people to speak. I’d like to call this meeting back to order. Would everyone please take a seat. We have a very good Vice Chair, he gave me a 20 second warning. Lee is acting as Vice-Chair this evening and we even have our next speaker, ready to go. That’s how we get this moving this evening. Louise Lyman. Ms. Louise Lyman, Palo Alto: Hi, good evening. My name is Louise Lyman and I live right on the comer of Louis and Charleston and I can tell you that’s a busy corner already. I want people to realize that this is the biggest development that has.ever been done in Palo Alto and do we realize how many homes are in the process of being approved of being built. I think somebody had already mentioned it, 3500 .feet. The biggest concern that I have is the traffic. Right now, this is on Charleston, the Charleston Corridor study, and the plan is to make Charleston go one lane each way. As it is now, cars are backed up the block with two lanes in each way and we know that there’s going to be hundreds o£cars going into this development. Its going to be a gridlock, I can assure you. Now, as far as the plan for the Jewish Community Center they have got beautiful ideas, nice ideas, but to be able to put all of that in eight acres, they.need 20 acres. It is going to so dense and so tall. We have a 50-foot building height limitin Palo Alto but it almost seems like that has not been obeyed at all with a 95 foot tower that is going to be 12 by 12. I noticed I didn’t see any of that on any of those buildings or in the display. Now I am kind City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 23 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. 29- 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 of wondering just exactly is that that little thing in the middle? That isn’t 95 feet comparatively. So many of the neighbors in the neighborhood are very concerned about a 95 foot tower especially if it is going to be lighted and what is going to happen. " ...... Another thing we are very concerned about is traffic, the U-turns and the left hand turns. As I say it is just going to be gridlock. The noise. This business of amplified music in the courtyard. Now no other place in Palo Alto lets you have outside noise until ten o’clock at night. When you have twilight orchestras or when you have any of the other outside events they stop at eight o’clock or 8:30. When I heard ten o’clock or 10:30 I’ll tell you that will never fly with us because I am like three doors away from it and I am already going to get earplugs. The density and the height I already mentioned. The parking is going tobe I think a problem. I think that the auditorium holds 400 people and if there is another event that is also at the same time they are probably going to need some overflow parking. I know we would like to have it be that they call it an event so that they tell the City how many people are going to be there and how much parking is going to be needed. I did take a bit of offence at the woman who said, well this is going to be an improvement that is not a very nice neighborhood anyway. There isn’t really anything to be proud of. I thought, okay, I didn’t feel verygood about that because we have some very nice homes and to have this dense and this high buildings right next to us is not going to be an improvement in livability. So as I say there are some very nice features in the whole center but you need 20 acres not eight to put them in. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Doris Petersen to .be followed by Richard Madigan. Ms. Doris Petersen, Palo Alto: I am President of the League of Women Voters. Well Commissioners, the League of Women Voters supports with enthusiasm the two proposals for developments at 901 San Antonio Road which are before you tonight. We urge you to recommend the Planned Community District that is requested. These developments have been in discussion with the City for at the last two years. An extensive Environmental Impact Report has been completed. Changes to the plans have improved them. The proposals adhere to dozens of Comprehensive Plan policies, help the City meet its Housing Element agreement with the state, further availability of diverse housing types for different income levels in the City, improve a deteriorating section of the City and provide other benefits to families already residing there. The League is pleased that the 103 unit for sale townhouse development will provide some entry-level housing and units at prices not often seen in Palo Alto. One bedroom to four bedroom units are priced at today’s market from the range of $400,000 to $800,000. BUILD’s inclusive housing requirement of 16 units will be met by fund to Bridge for 19 rental units of the 56 affordable senior rental units planned on the Fabian side of the property. This entire rental housing project will serve low income and very low-income seniors with at least 30 units reserved for extremely low-income persons, a group often ignored. This housing responds to many of the League’s housing positions as well as tO our City Housing Element contract with the state. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 24 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Many components of the Campus for Jewish Life development iike the 193 senior residential- units it is building, the Fabian entry plaza shared by both BUILD and TKCJL, the shuttle service that will provide senior from both developments and CJL recreation facilities that will be open to the community will improve the livability of the area. We are pleased with additional public benefits from BUILD. One, an impact fee to the Charleston/Arastradero road improvement program of five times the required amount and two, a new second mortgage program for local workers with preference for Palo Alto City and school district employees with terms such as three percent simple interest, interest only payments for ten years of the loan, targeted to households earning from 100 to 150 percent of area median income and available for properties throughout the City. This will encourage homeownership for families now priced out of the market. We urge approval of the Planned Community District for both BUILD and TKCJL. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Richard Madigan to be followed by Karen Stiller. Mr. Richard Madigan, Menlo Park: Good evening. I am Director and Senior Property Manager for California Pacific Commercial Corporation with an office in Menlo Park. We have been a property owner in Palo Alto since 1956. We presently own ten parcels totaling nearly 18 acres in the immediate are of the proposed development including three properties right across the street on Fabian Way. Of primary concern to us as a neighbor is a requested Design Enhancement Exception for a sculptural tower element of approximately 96 feet in height. We strongly believe this artistic element, which rises some 30 feet higher than the already imposing 65 foot structural tower is both inappropriate and totally unwarranted. Having recently met with the project manager and the architect it is now evident that this highly visible illuminated spire is not a key element to the project nor does it serve any useful purpose. It is simply a self-promotional architectural adornment the details of which still remain unknown. Given themassive size and scope of this development one .would hope the applicant would endeavor when possible to mitigate the project’s impacts on the community. Instead, this non-functional, needless, aesthetic element would attract still further attention to this site compounding such important concerns as traffic and parking. Finally, given the low profile nature of our neighborhood where safety and security have long been valued how is such a visible potential target of any benefit to the neighborhood? Put simply, our view is that the most excessive feature of this project is also the least essential and that only negatives will potentially result from approval of this ill-advised, non-integral, aesthetic element. In offering these few remarks her tonight Cal Pacific would also be pleased to discuss the matter in greater detail with the Commissioners. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Karen Stiller to be followed by Natalie Krauss Bivas. I hope I am pronouncing your names close to right. Ms. Karen Stiller, Jewish Community Relations Council: Thank you. I am the Peninsula Director the Jewish Community Relations Council. I am here to speak this evening in strong City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 25 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 support of this project. I have been really impressed with the planning process that the Campus has gone through with the diligence they have engaged the community .with and the degree to which this will be a project and a place for the entire community. I would like to focus on a few areas behind why I am so supportive of this project. First of all, this will be a tremendous bridge building for our community. It will be open to people from all walks of life and all backgrounds. It will be a place of gathering for people who might not otherwise cross paths. Other Bay Area JCCs bear out this and the Terman site also showed this to be true. Second, we are all concerned about the. welfare of the youth in our community. As a former social worker I can attest to the benefits of having a healthy and positive place for teens to go in the times that they are out of school or not sleeping. The teen center in the new JCC will really be a big benefit to the teens in the community. It will be an excellent resource and a positive place that they can go and find programming that is needed. Additionally due to the unique nature of the project there would be opportunities for intergenerational exchange, which is something that will be of benefit both for seniors as well as benefits to teens~ Third, a mom of a nearly one-year old daughter I am looking forward to the preschool programs and after school programs the JCC will provide. As many people here I am sure know there is a limited amount of resources for this in our community, limited amount of resources of high quality preschool programs. Wasn’t there just a ballot initiative about this particular issue? Anyway, I am really looking forward to the expanded services that the JCC will be.able to provide. So in sum I just want to again state my strong support for this project and I thank you for your time. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Natalie Krauss Bivas to be followed by JeffRensch. Ms. Natalie Krauss Bivas, Palo Alto: Thank you and I must say you are one of the few people who has ever pronounced my name absolutely correctly. I am a Palo Alto resident. I am also a Palo Alto Unified School District teacher. I am a reading specialist and English as a Second Language Specialist at Palo Verde School. I am here to speak in support of this project. I can tell you as a teacher that parents are really burdened in trying to find daycare, preschool and after school programs for children in Palo Alto. The benefit of this project is that this project can service children from Hoover School, Fair Meadow School and Palo Verde it is a very short commute from all of those three schools. As a teacher of English as a Second Language I try to find programs for my children who have come from China, Korea, Japan, Israel who don’t speak English such as after school programs, summer camp programs where they can improve their English in a way that is better than being in a classroom where the rule is quiet. They can have an exchange with children before they have really made friends. I really look forward to the new JCC providing that service for children. As I listened to Mr. Steinberg and Ms. Tan I realize another benefit of this program as a teacher in Palo Alto. Two of our most beloved teachers at Palo Verde this year are leaving because they cannot afford to live here. They happen to be married to two other Palo Alto teachers. So just in my small orbit that is four teachers leaving because they can’t live in Palo Alto. This project City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 26 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 could potentially provide housing for the many, many teachers who leave, the young teachers- who cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. I also realized as I was sitting here that I am about to reach the 24th anniversary of my move to Palo Alto. I came here 24 years ago pregnant with my first child. The very first people that we met were moving from New Jersey, they knew our sisters and they were bringing my sister’s crib with them. The husband was the director of the JCC and he was to oversee the move to Terman, which was a temporary location. Twenty-four years have passed, this man has been retired for years, the baby that I was pregnant with is now a graduate student and there is still not a permanent home for the JCC. I really hope that beside the service that first used at the JCC, the nursery school, but tl~e next service that I use isn’t the senior housing because it hasn’t seen its fruition yet. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. JeffRensch to be followed by Sandra Grimsrud. Mr. Jeff Rensch, Palo Alto: Honorable Commissioners I live in South Palo Alto and am a member of All Saints Church. I work with the housing team of the League of Women Voters. I am not speaking for the League for sure but I strongly agree with everything that Doris Petersen said about the project. I am strongly in favor of the project, every detail of it really and I don’t have anything original to say except that this stuff does bear repeating and that there are quite a lot of us in strong favor and just to remind you that we are here, that there are so many of us. The thing that really drew me out of my comfortable chair in my house to come in is the 56 units of low income and very low income housing for seniors. I really agree with Lydia Tan’s comment earlier that we really must put in those actual physical units and not money for speculative units in the future. Actually putting that in is a very important thing. I love the recreation facilities. I will probably want to use them and our kids really need them. I love the more meeting space and the cultural facilities. I love the fees for the parks and schools. I love the extremely generous contribution for our Charleston Corridor transportation p!an because that needed funding to achieve its goals and the $500,000 worth of help for the low interest mortgages. It seems to me that the traffic and parking and noise complaints I just feel they are not of a monumental scale and they can be resolved by negotiation and trust. Any small nuisance residue beyond that will be acceptable as the price of converting a kind of a dead site into a really vibrant community space. It is an outstanding project. It is really an abundant project and I am willing to bet that a very strong majority of residents support it as much as I do. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Sandra Grimsrud to be followed by Paul Grimsrud. Ms. Sandra Grimsrud, Palo Alto: Hi, I would like to start out by saying that I feel that this project is a plus for the neighborhood and the area. It fulfills a lot of needs. I will also say that this project is the biggest undertaking of its kind in the history of the City of Palo Alto. Any project this large can have a significant impact either good or bad on the community at large. This impact will be felt most strongly by the surrounding neighborhoods. In order to be good neighbors we must be considerate of basic needs before our ideal wants. In order to maintain the City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 27 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15- 16 17 18 19 20 21- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 tranquility and traffic safety and quality of life we must be able to address issues before they- become a problem. . Traffic. With no left turn from Charleston or even with the increased traffic some people may turn that way, with no left turn on Charleston back onto 101 many vehicles could decide to take the most convenient turnaround by turning right onto Louis and taking a right onto Bibbits and Gailen and loop around back to take a left on Charleston and return to 101. This would be extremely dangerous and intrusive to what is essentially an open-ended cul-de-sac where children play. As far as the amplified sound I feel that the study that was taken was an independent study first of all about the sound. They deemed that it was an acceptable amount of sound for our neighborhoods. I suggest that it be an independent study and that the neighborhood be let in on it. I know amplified sound systems. An example is Gamble Gardens is not allowed to have any amplified sound even for weddings so as not to disturb the neighborhood. Another example is our twilight concerts in the park the amplified sound is not allowed after I believe eight at night for the park programs of this kind. They are only by permit. Even the sound of a leaf blower is not welcome in Palo Alto. We only ask that our neighborhood be given the same opportunity to be free of unwanted amplified sound and these small studies that have been done for our - first of all these postcards that we sent you with our concerns for the neighborhood I feel independent studies were done as to diffuse the things that we had to say. I don’t appreciate that. Construction noise and pollution and the hours. We understand that construction is expected to last at least two years and with what was said tonight it sounds like six years from the beginning the final phase will be finished: So that is six years of listening tOconstruction and demolition and we would ask as a good neighbor that you put reasonable time limits on the times that these noises will be listened to bY us. As far as the amplified sound 10:00 to 10:30 at night is just ridiculous when you look at the rest of Palo Alto. The building design, I think most people have already talked about the tower being an unnecessary aspect. Again, as a good neighbor why would you do this if you want the neighborhood to welcome you? I know this project is your jewel and I can appreciate that but don’t be blinded by your enthusiasm. I challenge you to be a good neighbor. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Paul Grimsrud. If anyone else would like to speak would you complete a card now? I would like to call an end to cards coming in. It will be nine o’clock in five minutes, Paul. Mr. Paul Grimsrud, Palo Alto: Sandy and I have lived in our house for about 33 years. We are probably within about 100 yards of the project and that is why we are quite concerned about the possible impacts of the large development. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 28 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I agree with my wife and with others that have presented the project it can be a very good asset for the neighborhood and for Palo Alto but there are some concerns that have been voiced and I would like to add a little bit to that. I work in the power plant industi’y and my clienIs build-arid operate power plants. The tower as I look at it reminds me of the stacks that two of my clients, Morrow Bay and Carlsbad, California, the power plants there. Those stacks have really defaced those communities. This is a much smaller scale to that but I don’t think that this 96-foot tower is also going to be visible from our second story bedroom. It may be a divine inspiration for some but I don’t think it would be to me. The traffic I think my wife didn’t hear that the left tum on Charleston now looks like it would be allowed. That is going to be a very difficult thing to get onto Charleston on a left tum. If that becomes difficult it may turn out to be a right turn. We already get a lot of U-turns around the Bibbits Drive and Louis area and I suspect that that will continue to increase with this project. If there were commercial vehicles that are doing that it would be very detrimental. I don’t know if there is anything on asbestos in the buildings that exist but I presume that if asbestos is in the existing building that the demolition process will mitigate any fibers coming into our neighborhood. Parking is already an issue in our neighborhood t¥om the people that live on Charleston when they have parties there is a lot o~fparking in our neighborhood..This could be a problem from this project, I don’t know, but I hope that you take that into account in your plans. I won’t talk any more about the sound. We do get sound from Shoreline occasionally, which is several miles away. I would think the sound from 100 yards away could be more significant if there is much amplification. So certainly a decibel rating or decibel limit on the sound should be applied for this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jone Manoogian to be followed by Ann McColloch. Audience Member: Jone Manoogian has left. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Then Ann McColloch to be followed by Smita Joshi. Ms. Arm McColloch, Palo Alto: Thank you. Everything that I would have brought up has been brought up. I just want to second the motion or not the motion but please, someone, look at the flooding concerns. They are real. The information that was given by Bob Evans is not fabricated. I live directly across the street from him right behind Fabian Way. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. We will make note of that. Smita Joshi to be followed by Jean Wilcox. Ms. Smita Joshi, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I am the President of the Palo Verde Residents Association. Commissioner Cassel: Pardon me. Can you give us your name? Thank you. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 29 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Joshi: Sure, I am Smita Joshi. I am the President of the Palo Verde Residents Associa.ti_o_n. We had the opportunity, of meeting with the developers of this project a couple of times. Once many Board Members met with them and then they came over and gave a presentation at a neighborhood-wide meeting and we appreciate that. This is going to be a very exciting project for us. We are very close to this project. The cultural and social opportunities that this project provides us we welcome very heartily and gratefully. I do believe that the architectural element of this project will bring a lot of excitement to our part of town, which lacks much. I wish I could just stop right there but I can’t. We do have three main areas of concern from this project because weare so close to it. One of them is parking, the second is traffic and the third is noise. When we met with the developer we were told that at least for event parking there would be offsite campuses either purchased or at least for long term, five to ten years, and there will be shuttle services provided to and from the campus from those offsite services. At least the FEIR does not include any such agreements to date and when we inquired of the Staff and the developer they have not been made. Time and again reference has been made in various documents and at various meetings to parking possibilities at Kehillah Jewish High School that is across the street but when one of our Board Members, Pam Raden, contacted the admissions officer at the school she was told that they plan to rent out their facilities to renters at night and on weekends, at least a couple of nights a week and on weekends, so on those days the parking spaces will not be available. Also, currently Kehillah High School is about 90 students. In a couple of years they are hoping to go up to 250 so the daytime parking will get significant even before the building TKCJL is built. Some other projections that were made for daytime parking we found a little disturbing the number of parking spaces that are being allotted to senior housing within the TKCJL is rather low especially because they are high end units and many of them are two and three bedroom units. There are not even as many parking spaces as the number of housing units and many of them as I said are more than one bedroom and you expect at least a couple to live in them. There are going to be a large number of employees, large number of contractors, large number of nurses, physical therapists of various kinds and there are so many different uses of these buildings go on that there is going to be a lot of parking crunch even during daytime. We are afraid that without an ongoing offsite parking space that overflowis going to fall into our neighborhood and all the other surrounding neighborhoods. So as far as traffic concern, I am sorry I still have to speak about the event parking. We really would like a long-term lease agreement to be part of the conditions of approval of this project. We don’t want offsite parking to be done an event-by-event basis. We would really like to support this project as an enthusiastic neighbor being assured that all of our worries are taken care of and then we will be able to support this project wholeheartedly. That really is our wish that long-term leases be done once and for all for all event parking is our request. So as a topic of concern our neighborhood is very close to this project and we have two of the main feeder streets to this project East Meadow Drive and Louis. Both of these are school corridors as is Loma Verde Street. Our entire neighborhood was not studied by their traffic study except for the one little intersection between Middle field and East Meadow. Especially with the narrowing of the Charleston corridor we are concerned that there will be extra traffic on City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 30 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 East Meadow Drive. Some of the projections that have been mentioned in the FEIR are that rio more than ten extra cars will be expected run our streets because of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jean Wilcox to be followed by Penny Ellson. Ms. Jean Wilcox, Palo Alto: Good evening Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. I would like to welcome both Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD development to my neighborhood. They will be a great addition to South Palo Alto. There are, however, some problems with the projects, which will impact my neighborhood Charleston Gardens. Charleston Gardens is located directly across the street, directly across Charleston, and we are not a deteriorating neighborhood. During an earlier session Council advised the Campus for Jewish Life that they could exceed Palo Alto’s 50,foot height limit by about four feet because of groundwater problems. Now they want to go up above the height limit by ten feet so they can build to 60 feet or more. Ten feet is one whole floor, why can’t they take one floor off and comply with Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit? In fact, they have doubled their floor area ratio since they presented theirplans initially. A 96-foot tower and a 75-foot variance for an equipment building are unacceptable. These tall structures will be directly in our line of sight. Every story they go up generates more traffic on our nearby residential streets. Over 800 vehicle trips per day are expected to go to and from the site. Many of these vehicles will use Montrose and Sutherland to avoid traffic signals on San Antonio at Leghorn and San Antonio at Charleston and the lights at Middlefield and Charleston. The Final EIR did not analyze the increased traffic on the residential streets of Montrose and Sutherland, which are very close nearby. This needs to be done. Parking is another huge problem .07 spaces per unit is not enough. Parking will need to be found not only for residents, but for some of the 280 employees and the many daily visitors to the Campus for Jewish Life. Evening events at the cultural hall will be a particular problem. The theater will hold over 300 people and the suggested shared parking with residents who leave for work in the morning will not be available. Additional land needs to be purchased for parking. Vans or mini buses must be provided to bring event patrons to the cultural hall. Also, the Campus for Jewish Life should be required to get an event-by-event permit approval from the City for all special events. Outside music in the courtyard has been proposed. I would like to ask you to ban amplified music outside and to set a time limit of 8:00 or 9:00 PM not 10:00 PM for all musical events. Groundwater contamination is another problem. In the event of an accidental hazardous release either during construction or afterwards plans should be put in place to warn neighbors to shelter in place. If these concerns can be addressed and satisfactorily dealt with we welcome both projects to our neighborhood. Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 3I of 49 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Thank youl Penny Ellson to be followed by Susan Fineberg. Ms. Penny Ellson, Palo Alto: I live in Palo Alto and I am the Chair0f the Civic Aft’airs -- Committee for Green Meadow Community Association. The Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD outreach to our community continues to be appreciated by Green Meadow residents. Both applicants very early in the process invited us to share our concerns about their projects and to collaborate to find solutions to many of the problems this project might have created in the community. They were early supporters of the Charleston/Arastradero plan and ’participated in its development. We want to thank Staff for their leadership in helping that happen and the developers for their outreach. At Green Meadow’s quarterly meeting in April with 58 residents present the Campus for Jewish Life presented their architectural plans. Overall the response to the design was very positive. Well, there had been some concerns about that very long wall on San Antonio we have referred to in the DEIR comments. CJL assured the community that it would be well screened with landscaping and that the San Antonio approach to Palo Alto would be inviting and attractive. Green Meadow is still in the process of reviewing the FEIR. It is summer and I am moving slow. Our comments will be presented to the PTC in writingbefore the July 26 extended hearing date. ¯Now I am going to take off my Green Meadow hat and be traffic lady. I want to comment I was very glad to see the inclusion of a TDM program. I had one question though, I was wondering why if the regional report, the rides report, reports the alternative mode rate at 26 percent was the alternative mode used for the project set at 15 percent? How about a compromise of 20 percent, maybe? It is food for thought. The shared shuttle for BUILD residents is a great way to build on the natural synergies for this site as well as the discounted CJL memberships for the BUILD residents. It is a great idea, yahoo you! Let’s see I had one question that - two questions actually. One was Green Meadow had .commented that it wasn’t clear to them from the drawings what accommodations would be in place to help bicyclists merge safely with vehicular traffic to get to the bike racks in the garage and the FEIR response said that this question would go to ARB, etc., etc. It seems like a more perfect question for you guys so I am asking you tonight. I just want to sort of bring that up. again and have you consider it and maybe talk about it a little. I would like to clarify, a request was made.to include the Charleston/Arastradero plan pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements as mitigations for the project and the response says they will be included in the text of the EIR. I still wonder if they can include it as a mitigation. That was not clear so I would sort of like that question answered as we are reviewing the FEIR. Finally, a comment that I hope will get forwarded to Council, which is this. I spent last night at the 100 Mayfield meeting. A comment that I made was between these two projects we are getting nearly 1,000 new units of housing on San Antonio Road to say nothing of new Jewish day school and all the other development coming along. Both of these projects are according to CEQA going to generate zero or maybe 15 additional peak hour trips. I talked about the Louis Carroll world of EIR analysis in my DEIR response but when it comes right down to it this is City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 32 of 49 1 just not what weare going to live with and somehow the City needs to look at this. If it is not 2 going to be done in the EIR we have to take a look at arterial functionality. It is going to be very 3 important for the future success of the Charleston/Arastradero plan iind for the futur~ succe~s~f 4 our community in Soutfi Palo Alto. Thank you very much and thank you again to our new 5 neighbors. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Susan Fineberg to be followed by Sally Probst. Ms. Susan Fineber~, Palo Alto: Commissioners, good evening. When you consider these two projects I would like to ask you to decide if the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan matters. Let me explain why I am asking that question. The Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 considered the environmental impacts of 2,454 additional residential units within the sphere of influence. The residential units on Stanford were included there was an allocation for 280 graduate student beds. The EIR found that with this number of additional residential units there would be significant and unavoidable impacts on transportation, circulation and parking as well as on other public services such as schools. However, in the Statement of Overriding Considerations when Council approved the Comprehensive Plan they approved this level of development because the public benefits would outweigh these significant negative impacts. To date there are more residential units built than were analyzed even in the high development alternative analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Start with the 1,196 units that City Staff cites then add the 1,033 units built on Stanford Campus, add the single family homes built on empty lots that Staff does count and the 96 approved for Classic Communities not counting another 600 units that are projected before 2010. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted the City rejected the high development alternative asenvironmentally inferior, therefore, although a project may have impacts that are individually limited it will based on the higher development alternative discussed in the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan have cumulatively considerable and potentially significant. environmental impacts. These impacts include all the things people have talked about tonight increased traffic, noise, decreased air quality, overcrowding of our public facilities like schools, parks and libraries. There is a fair argument that because the number of residential units added through any additional development is higher than the development caps that were considered in the Comprehensive Plan’s EIR that there will be significant negative impacts of these past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The EIR for these two projects does consider the cumulative impacts it is on page 23 but it finds either no impact or less than significant impacts for everything but a few key intersections. These conclusions that there are simply no impacts stand in stark contrast to those of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City ofPalo Ako in 1998. One of these two documents, either the Comprehensive Plan or the Environmental Impact Reports for these projects, must be wrong. Do we get to decide that the Comprehensive Plan and the underlying environmental analysis is wrong? Can we ignore the analysis from the Comprehensive Plan EIR and build 4,000 units when the Comprehensive Plan approved a project with 2,454 units? This is why I ask you if the Comprehensive Plan matters. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel" Thank you. Sally Probst to be followed by Irene Sampson. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 33 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ¯ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening, For ten years my husband and I had a company office in the commercial land just across San Antonio from this area. So I have observed it diiy after day and I think these projects are a tremendous improvement. Also I had my antique furniture refinished in a little shop that was in some of the land that CJL has already bought. I think it is a great improvement not only to the area but to the City. These projects have required collaboration between four entities CJL, BUILD, Bridge and the City. I compliment all of them for working together collaboratively. I think that there are many, many, dozens really of policies in the Comprehensive Plan will be fulfilled by these developments. I am particularly happy that there will be a diversity of housing types available for the City and I like that second mortgage plan. It will not only add to these projects but also be available for people who meet the criteria for other areas of the City. So I hope that you will consider this positively and thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Irene Sampson to be followed by Bill Chapman. Ms. Irene Sampson, Palo Alto: I live about three blocks away from where this project will be. I have lived there for 49 years so I probably have a record. I have been following the proposals for both the BUILD housing and the Campus for Jewish Life for some time now and I have watched the many changes that have been made to meet neighborhood concerns and desires. I am pleased with what they are offering for our corner of town -- needed housing and a range of affordability and services that can enrich the entire community. I am aware that many of my neighbors have concerns about what they feel are changes too big for the area to absorb but I personally believe that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I look forward to seeing these attractive facilities replacing the rather dismal properties that are currently there and the sooner the better. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Bill Chapman to be followed by Janet Owens. Mr. Bill Chapman, Palo Alto: Hello folks. I think we have heard many compliments for this project tonight and many, many well-reasoned concerns. I want to tabulate some of them very quickly. One, traffic. Two, parking. Three, noise in the eveningl Four, height. Five, setbacks. Six, schools. Seven, sufficient land. The flooding problem. The precedent setting problem. And one that hasn’t been mentioned which I would like you to consider is that here we are shortly after Katrina with a lot of publicity about global warming and the rising sea level and we are constructing this development right at the edge of the Bay. If we go 30 years, 40 years into the future will they be suing Us because Palo Alto failed to either get an agreement they would never sue us or that we failed to warn them that they were doing something very dangerous with their $250 million development at this time in history. Is this a logical place to put so massive a structure? Now, Mrs. Wasserman said, this is precedent setting and damn good, or something like that. Well, it could have been precedent setting and much better if it had been more modest. This is not a modest development. This is so immodest a development that they come here and build it right out to the edge with hardly any setback. They want to build a 95-foot immodest tower and they want Palo Alto to give them the right to build immodestly high. If this is as Wasserman says, precedent setting, what will the next developments around East Meadow do? Why would it City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 34 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 not be logical for them to say to you folks we want 65 feet? What is an extra five feet? They-got 60. Nine days ago I was at a meeting where Classic Communities was already saying we want something extra because compared to Trumark, which was appr0vedonly half a year ago we are better in some regards. T.hey are already comparing each other’s special specifications and gifts from the City. So I think there are tremendously intelligent people from Palo Alto who have spoken wisely about the beauties of this but the need for more modesty. Lower it. Take off the top ceiling. Tell them to get more land. Tell them to do away with things. Tell them to get rid of the nighttime amplifiers. That is awful. Why don’t we do this? In recognition of the size, the mass, of this project and the political significance of it and the religious significance of it why don’t we accord it the extra respect it would get if your Commission held special meetings primarily for the citizens who are concerned, something you wouldn’t do for little projects like Trumark. Does not this big project warrant special attention to community concerns, which are massive in this case? Thank you very much. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Janet Owens to be followed by Robert Moss. Ms. Janet Owens, Palo Alto: 1 live in the Downtown area. I have been in Palo Alto since 1963 and most of that time I have been actively involved in the development of housing especially for low income people not only in Palo Alto but throughout the Bay Area. We continue to need more housing than we have built. It is a critical need and it puts burdens on people to solve those problems individually-. So I amdelighted to see this project going forward. I have not always been in favor of it but they have assured now that the low-income housing will remain low income in the future and in the future we are going to need it now as much as we needed it in the future when I first started worrying about this sort of thing. The need has grown faster than any response to it. As always individual variations cause concern, and worry, and reaction. As a resident myself I have felt this sometimes. I have found that in the Palo Alto area these things are usually worked out in actuality much better than in discussions before public bodies. I wish this project the best of luck as it goes forward for everyone those who live in it, those who enjoy the facilities and those from the inside and those who enjoy them from the outside. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Ellen Fletcher. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in Barron Park. I will begin by complimenting Rob Steinberg on the design and the architecture as we have gone through this process for the last several years every iteration has been even better and he has done a good job. However, I do " have a few issues with both the Bridge project and the Campus for Jewish Life, Let me go through them. I think these are things you haven’t heard before tonight. First you have heard a lot about housing and how the building over 3,500 units already exceeded our bogie for ten years by 50 percent in only six years. You have heard arguments on both sides on traffic impacts and so on but there is an impact that hasn’t been mentioned and that is money. Because of Prop 13 and Prop 218 and other things that have been imposed on local governments housing costs money. Every housing unit requires services from the City approximately $1,000 City of Palo Alto June 28 2006 Page 35of49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 to $1,200 a year more than is recovered in taxes. So the housing units, which have been - improved already,, are going to have a net cost to the City of over $3.0 million a year. Bear that in mind. " .... One of the things you have heard about especially is event parking. In Appendix A, mitigation measure B-5.1 says, special event parking for special events on weekday evenings or events. There is nothing to limit the impacts from special events to weekday evenings. Strike ’weekday evenings’ any special event any time, weekday mornings, weekends that is going to have a parking impact. When the JCC was at Terman under theTerman Specific Plan there was a limit to the number of special events that could be held every year. I think as a first cut we should have a limit to the number of special events. I am not prepared to say what a fair number is six, eight, ten, but we should put a number in and anything beyond that requires a special permit. Also, in that same mitigation it says if parking is provided on a nearby site attendees can reach the Campus for Jewish Life on foot. However, who determines what is nearby? I can see a couple of years from now the Campus for Jewish Life saying somebody could park over on East Bayshore and that is within walking distance so we won’t have to provide transportation. So I would like to have a figure put in for what is nearby. Put a number down 200 yards, 500 yards so there is no argument in the future and we don’t play games. One of the things about the Bridge housing proposal that concerns me greatly, there are actually two things, one of them is that all of the BMR units are for seniors. One of the reasons that we have had BMR requirements initially is to have people who worked here be able to live here. Earlier you had a teacher talk about how teachers can’t afford to live here. Some o!l the BMR units should be in those townhouses. At least ten percent of those townhouses should be BMR. If that means that some of the senior housing is market rate so be it. Secondly, the density of the senior housing is projected at over 110 units an acre, which is grossly excessive. That is more than three times the normal development density and far higher density than any other development i’n Palo Alto in the last 40 years. Now there are a couple of ways you can reduce that. One of them is to reduce the gross number of units and the other is to increase the area instead of a half acre make it perhaps three-quarters or one acre. I am also very concerned about having the money, the $5.0 million or $7.0 million, to build that in escrow basically for six years. At the rate housing costs are increasing if they don’t build that in six years you are not going to get the full number of units with that amount of money. So shorten the time period or have an escalation clause so that you take into account the reduction in value, currently it is between eight and ten percent a year for construction. In the case of the Campus for Jewish Life I would like to see on Appendix D there is a section 50, which talks about giving the amount impervious area and then making some adjustments. Reduce the amount of impervious area by requiring wherever possible that that be permeable and the water will drain. Finally, get rid of that 95-foot tower. We don’t need it. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Ellen Fletcher to be followed by Pat Saffir. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 36 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Ellen Fletcher, Palo Alto: I live on San Antonio Road just two blocks from this project and I must say that I am really excited and looking forward to completion of this project because it is going to be such a big asset to all of us in Palo Alto especially thoseof who can just walk o~et: I wanted to mention that t)n our block where we are so close we are not organized into any neighborhood organization but neighbors that I have spoken to are all very, very positive about this project. I haven’t heard any complaints about it. One final comment that people are talking about all the impacts including traffic increase. Of course there is going to be traffic increase. There is going to be traffic increase if you don’t change the zoning. If the zoning is fully built out as commercial you are going to have impacts too. So no matter what you build there you are going to have traffic impacts. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Pat Saffir to be followed by John Fredrich. Ms. Patricia Saffir, Palo Alto: I live on Bryant Street in South Palo Alto. I am just here to urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Planned Community development zones requested by both Bridge and the Campus for Jewish Life. Both BUILD and the Jewish Community group have listened carefully to the commentaries and concerns, to the communities concerned and their projects have been altered considerably to make them fit in better. Low and very low income housing for seniors is a continuing real need in Palo Alto. Both these projects speak generously to helping fill that need. The family townhouse units will also help fill our previously approved housing commitments. I am not going to make a speech tonight I am just going to say that I believe that the facts that were presented by the Planning Staff in their reports more than justify the approval of these projects. I urge you to do so. A further comment, not everybody in Palo Alto is afraid of a little immodesty. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. John Fredrich to be followed by Scott Petersen. Mr. John Fredrich, Palo Alto: I live in Barron Park and I am an employee of the school district and a long time resident. In fact I have lived on the south side of town now most of the last 20 years. I wanted to add my perspective as somebody that lived in the Terman apartments across from the JCC for eight years starting in 1985 and used the facilities and was a member of that community. So I wanted to both commend the people that have brought this proposal forward and you Commissioners and people in the community that have worked so hard to bring it along these many years. It is an asset and a set of amenities that are much in need since we lost the JCC at the Terrnan site. When it was there many of the concerns about noise, traffic and other things were dealt with increative and imaginative ways. As problems came up restrictions were developed and there is the statutory and procedural methods for dealing with a project even of a greater scope as this one is. So I wanted to make that clear that it wasn’t always smooth sailing but the community development group and the many things that were talked about as the JCC operated at Terman worked out 7ery positively. When it went away many of us went to the Y and unfortunately at the same time the Elks wellness center was taken out of commission. So there are many people in the community that look forward to the physical culture possibilities that this new site will deliver in addition to many of the housing components that other people City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 37 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have talked to. I guess in the end though I wanted to encourage us to focus on imagination on the long term and think about of course many of the traffic and environmental problems may be solved by the catastrophic success of our current environmental and foreign policy as we work- at a national level. I think it is wiser to think of how forward looking people throughout Palo Alto’s history going back to the Stanford’s and the Hewlett’s and the Packard’s and the Schultz’s that got the Terman center there going envision where we could go in the future and deal with these many community needs. In that regard see this set of possibilities as something that can be worked with and be a real augmentation to the quality of life. Yes, it does seem to many people a very urban type of development and it is but it is a very well conceived development that is going to fulfill many community uses. So I encourage you to move it forward at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Scott Petersen to be followed by Pete Squire and that will be our last speaker. Mr. Scott Petersen, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at the intersection of Fabian and Charleston diagonally across from the proposed site. I believe that the.proposed building is going to be a great asset to the community. I think it is going to greatly improve our area and the architectural diagrams and drawings I think really exemplify the thought and interest and use of the site and has been very well done. I am concerned on two different levels. One is an operational level and the other is at a constructional level. I will start with the constructional level. My understanding is that given the shear magnitude of this project and the costs of the proj ect that it is going to be done in multiple phases potentially spanning ten or more years. I am very concerned that we are going to be dealing with the ongoing noise, dust, heavy traffic, vibrations, etc. associated with building a project of this size for potentially up to a decade thus lowering the value of our properties and lowering our quality of life. I hope that anything that can be done to increase the speed of the project is taken to minimize that effect as well as the hours of construction. The other area that I have a concern on duplicates many of the things that were said earlier. This is at an operational level. The items of traffic, the items of parking, the items of noise and in particular any amplified noise are of real concern to us. I would hate to see these operational items that I believe can be easily addressed get in the way of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Peter Squire. That is our last speaker tonight. Mr. Pete Squire, Palo Alto: I think this project is going to be good. That land is very valuable and it is good we can get something like this there but I have a few concerns of course. The amplified sound is one. I wonder if it is possible to aim the sound toward the highway. I notice in the architectural there are big plates that funnel sound and things in various areas. Can we take that and funnel the noise toward the highway? I don’t think anybody on the highway is going to care about the noise but us in the neighborhood do. We live near Cubberly and they get loud noise at Cubberly all the time and Mitchell Park and Shoreline and here is another one that is just going to be adding to it. I would like to see some City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 38 of 49 1 real enforcement too. They always start out good and underestimate it. I know Foothill CollEge 2 when they moved to Cubberly they said everybody would park right there at Cubberly. Well, 3 they are on all the side streets everywhere and there seems to be no ~,ay to control it~ So they- 4 grossly underestimated Foothill and it looks like the same thing here. So I would like to have 5 some kind of way to curtail the events or something if they can’t contain the parking. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30- 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then the cut-through traffic - same thing. If they underestimate the cut-through traffic what is the enforcement? Will they cut down the size of the events or the number of events going on at one time? I think it is still there, there is going to be no entrance from San Antonio coming from the highway. I think if that can be opened up there can be a lot of traffic there. I know there are some concerns but that would be a great way if you could have 1,000 or so more cars going in and out of there that still should be used if possible. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. I am going to raise my hand and call a five-minute break. We will come back and the next step will be for the developer to get five minutes.. Why don’t we do that first? Does the developer want to make comments, for five minutes or a summary statement? Ms. Sandy Sloan, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life: I would like to point out a big picture perspective of some of the things that have been mentioned. First with regard to traffic there is no doubt that a community center will generate traffic but the traffic during peak period hours actually decreases with this project compared to the situation if the Sun building was reoccupied or as Ellen Fletcher said if another commercial use like Sun moved into this area. At page 235 of the Final EIR the traffic study points out that there might be 15 more trips in the AM Peak Period but 76 fewer trips in the PM Peak. In other words, if youlookjust at the peak hours there are 61 fewer trips than if the Sun building was reoccupied. With regard to parking CJL is providing 610 parking spaces. This is actually 23 more spaces than is required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the community center including the preschool. Even though the JCC is 50 percent larger in square footage than the Terman JCC the parking provided is 250 percent whatwas provided at Terman. The last thing an applicant or the City wants to do is to have excessive parking on a site because that entices people to drive alone and is absolutely counter then to any TDM program. Our parking analysis as the Staff pointed out is ample for weekend nights when a special event is taking place because at that time there will be no preschool and very few people use the fitness center on a weekend night. The traffic report has asked that for special events on the weekday nights that there be offsite parking available and CJL will obtain that offsite parking well in advance and will notify the City of where it is as required by the conditions of approval. With regard to noise as Steven Turner pointed out there was a noise study conducted by Charles Salter and he points out two things in the study about amplification. The first one is the obvious. If there ever was a self-policing neighborhood for amplification or any noise this is it. The seniors will be living right above the JCC spaces and right above the courtyards. Second, when he did the noise study he determined that amplified noise would comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance as long as the amplification ceased at 10:30 PM. The Staff is recommending that any City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 39 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 amplification cease at ten o’clock but the CJL is requesting that on Saturday nights you consider allowing it to go to 10:30 PM. Finally, our architect, Rob Steinberg, would like to say a few words about the tower. He does have a few slides to show you. Mr. Steinberg: Because the tower has been talked about I just wanted to address that very briefly. If you look at first the model you can see that the solid component of the tower is ever so slightly taller than the rest of the buildings. Beyond that what is being recommended by the ARB is an open see-through element on top of that. What we have done is taken a few photographs and superimposed the new buildings on that. This is a view across Fabian from the office buildings. In fact these may be the office buildings that the gentleman spoke of earlier. In fact, from that view or from the residents that would be on the west side you cannot see the tower from this view. If you go over to the comer of Fabian and Charleston again you cannot see the tower at all from offsite where any of the residential is. If you look from the comer of San Antonio and Charleston the solid part of the tower ends right there just slightly above the residential part. This very faint element is the part that would be the open see-through part of the tower. The visual impact from offsite is very, very minimal. I just wanted to share those few images with you. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Okay, I am going to call a five-minute break as Don said we can’t have one of us walk out. We will be back with any comments that Staff wants to make at this time and then we will be making some comments. Thank you. Let’s call this meeting back to order. I want to thank everyone. I hope those of you who wanted to see the model and the tower had a chance to do that. It will be here I think a little bit after the close of our meeting. Staff, did you want to make any comments at this time? What we are going to do is raise questions that we have that we think are significant or important that will then be answered at the next meeting. We have about a half an hour. I don’t think it does us much good too much beyond 10:30 because there just isn’t enough time to get into anything really substantive at this time. So do you want to make any comments before we start? Mr. C. Williams: Just a few. There were acouple of comments that I would like to respond to and then I would like to ask Dennis Struecker, the traffic consultant, to come up and respond to a couple of issues as well. First of all as far as the flooding and the storm water runoff goes the EIR did review that and determine that the impervious surface for the proposed project would be slightly more than the existing. As you know the site is almost all paved already. It will be slightly more than that. There is a mitigation measure and condition that the applicants provide onsite detention that would reduce the level of runoff to less than the predevelopment runoff levels. So in other words there will be less runoff from this site than there is now under the existing conditions. That is a condition of approval that they must provide the design for that before getting building permits. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 40 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Cassel: Does that water go into the creek or does it go into the storm water system? Mr. C. Williams: It gods to the drainage ditch along San Antonio Road I believe. Commissioner Cassel: You can get that information later to clear that up. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we can get the specifics of that. Secondly, there was a comment about asbestos and the demolition of the existing building. There is a process for demolition that you must get a permit from the Air Quality Management District for properly addressing that before the demolition permit can be issued. So that will be required. There were a few comments about the construction period, truck routing, hours of operation and that kind of thing. We have a logistics plan that is required to be developed and is presented to the plan review committee for their review so that the Staff all looks at those very issues as to not only what are the route~ that trucks and employees are taking but also where are you parking, where are you storing materials, etc., etc. so they won’t impact neighboring properties. Construction hours are limited by the Municipal Code and that would be strictly adhered to. Then the couple of traffic issues that I would like to ask Dennis Struecker to talk about the cut- through traffic potential and the parking spaces per unit that were used for the senior residences. Mr. Dennis Struecker, Traffic Consultant: Good evening.. I am from Korve Engineering. I worked on the EIR traffic analysis and recently I am also a contract employee to the City on .general traffic issues. on the cut-through traffic it has been pointed out tonight and correctly so that this is a regional facility and a lot of the traffic is going to be on 101 and it is going to access the site as conveniently as possible. We did some look through on the roadways that go to the north towards Oregon Expressway and clearly the highest speed of any roadway there is West Bayshore, which is how we assign most of the traffic that would go back to Oregon Expressway to and from the north on U.S. 101. The next highest street in terms of travel speed would be Middlefield which we also assigned traffic to. We didn’t analyze any intersections on Louis or Ross, which traffic analyses of these types generally concentrate on the signalized intersections but both of those streets are much slower and people tend to optimize their travel time. There are speed humps on Ross. There are several stop signs on both streets. As Sandy Sloan pointed out I guess we do these Louis Carroll traffic analysis but we do look at the net new traffic. So there is very little net new traffic from this project. The reason that we do look at net new traffic is because the future projections assume a reuse of this site as something like the Sun project. So having said that the total traffic going to the north in the peak hour is about 70 to 80 trips. So we have four streets, we have West Bayshore,. we have Louis, we have Ross and we have Middlefield. So if you divide them all equally thatis ten but my professional opinion is that yes some traffic could leak onto Louis and Ross but most people would optimize their travel and use City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 41 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Middlefield and to a greater extent particularly if they are going north on 101 to use West Bayshore. Now to Montrose and Stitherland, Montrose has possibilities. In my opinion Sutherland is not an efficient route at all for any cut-through traffic in the out of direction travel that it would have. The only traffic that would want to use Montrose is the traffic that comes up from San Antonio from the south or Middlefield from the southeast. While I was listening to the comments I looked at the left turn delay at Middlefield. So if you are coming up on San Antonio and want to turn left on Middlefield it is nearly identical to the left turn delay if you want to turn left at Charleston. So there is no advantage really of turning left early in terms of minimizing your delay. There is greater delay though from turning left from Charleston at Fabian. So if you came up Montrose you would have to turn right onto Charleston, I am looking at a map here so I am maybe at a greater advantage from people that don’t live in the immediate area, that you have to turn right on Charleston and then left onto Fabian. That left turn delay is greater than the right turn delay from continuing to Charleston and then turning right on Fabian. If I have you totally confused now it is late I can understand that. So again it is not a very efficient route. It almost depends on where the signal cycle is at San Antonio what somebody may do. But here again the inbound traffic is about 40 and I would expect that no more than ten of those.people would find Montrose to be an attractive inbound route. Then outbound route you tend not to want to do a lot of left turns and the outbound route using Montrose would involve a left turn from Charleston onto Montrose and then another left turn onto Middlefield as opposed to a series of right turns going onto Charleston and San Antonio. So before I go onto the next one I’ll stop. The parking for the BUILD project for the senior housing we used a number that BUILD provided of .7 spaces per unit. Before we used that we checked Parking Generation, which is a national publication by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Their rate for senior housing is .5 per unit. There were two studies there that they had data for and both of those studies had a greater supply, as a matter of fact more than one space per dwelling unit, so it wasn’t constrained by a lack of supply. It was constrained by seniors not owning as many vehicles as the general population. When we found that there was a .5 in a national publication we felt using .7 was more than conservative enough. Commissioner Cassel: My understanding was that you have .7 because that was what BUILD has found on their sites locally which was fine as far as I was concerned but what I understand is on the other site, on the Jewish Community Center site, I thought you used .41 for the congregate housing and .50 for the assisted living. I presume the larger number was because in assisted living you are counting staff in that proces.s because they would have fewer driver~ than the congregate housing would have. I wondered why you used .7 for BUILD or at least not the .5 because of the reason that was mentioned in the audience that it is a higher income group moving in. Mr. Struecker: We used the .7. BUILD suggested the .7 as long as it was conservative enough for us. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 42 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 Commissioner Cassel: But the other one I thought used .41. Mr. Struecker:Let me grab the report. Commissioner Cassel: That can be answered later. You can check on that for the next meeting. 6 7 Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we will bring that back to you. 8 9 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead. 10 11 Commissioner Garber: One other question to be followed up on that is if you can address one of 12 the concerns that was raised which is the impact of employees parking in the parking facility 13 relative to the other uses of that parking lot. 14 15 Commissioner Cassel: Staff, do you have anything else that you want to add before we make 16 any comments? 17 18 Mr. C. Williams: No, thanks. 19 20 Commissioner Cassel: What I thought we would do if it were agreeable to all of you is we 21 would each take a few minutes and try to summarize the most significant questions we have or 22 the most significant comments, I have five or six pages here so I figure all of you would ask half 23 of those questions. But as best you can in about five minutes. What to start? 24 25 Commissioner Sandas: I will take less than five. Since Curtis answered the question I had about 26 flooding, or at least addressed that question. I appreciate that. Complimentary to that question 27 someone in the audience spoke to the issue of maybe if that contaminated groundwater were to 28 percolate up to the surface or something that there might be a dangerous situation created and 29 there may be the need for an evacuation or warning the neighborhood or something. So if you 30 can address that topic when we come back that would be great. 31 32 Then one other thing, I think Penny Ellson mentioned a compromise in the Traffic Demand 33 Management from 15 to 20 percent. I can’t remember exactly what the issue was I wrote 34 sketchy notes and that doesn’t do any good at this hour. B~t if you remember it a little better or 35 we could look back in the notes and see what that was about and you could address it that would 36 be great. 37 38 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Lee. 39 40 Commissioner Lippert: May I ask my questions of the architect? 41 42 Commissioner Cassel: You want answers tonight? 43 44 Commissioner Lippert: I have questions for the architect. Can we do that tonight or do you 45 want me to hold that until the next hearing? 46 City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 43 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead and ask them so he knows what they are. We don’t have tihae to get answers to all of them is the issue but ask them and get them out there. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. With regard to mechanical equipment on the roof we have a 65 foot requested height for the buildings. Would we still permit a 15-foot roof screen for mechanical on this kind of a project? Is it necessary? Can the mechanical units be located far enough away from the edge of the building so that they are just not visible from the public right- of-way therefore eliminating the need for significant mechanical screens? With regard to the benefit program for the Campus for Jewish Life in there it indicated the use of the facilities there. It said that ten City events could happen in the a.ud~torium space but it wasn’t specified over what period that was whether that was a year or the lifetime of the facility. With regard to the tower element that is being proposed here, is it being proposed as a lighted structure? What is being lit? Is it going to wind up being like the Eiffel Tower with a bunch of little lights that go up it and pop and flash? That was for your benefit Curtis. Or is it just when you light air you don’t see anything. Those are my questions. Commissioner Cassel: Dan. Commissioner Garber: The other Commissioners got most of mine, however, I would be curious to learn from the applicant if any market study has been done to determine or what has determined the size of the cultural hall, the size of 380 seats or almost 400 seats. I am curious to learn if it will ever be filled or if it will always be filled depending on the types of events that are there. Obviously without a fly space and side space the types of things that will be presented in there become significantly limited. So that is one question. The other question has to do with again the use and utilization of the project as it faces Charleston in terms of the use of the stair, how frequently that is used, why it is used, the entry into the cultural center there, the relationship between those two elements and the entry to the senior housing. I am curious as to the use, the liveliness, and the occupancy of the street by the project in that particular area. That will be it for the moment. Let me come back to one other thing. Commissioner Cassel: I can probably take up all the time the rest of you didn’t take. I had a variety of questions. I think before I lose it because I didn’t have this on my original list is we need to define what a special event is because we keep talking about special events. What does that mean and when does an event actually overflow the parking that is there? I think that would help us. ¯I was kind of curious about why the Charleston Road/Arastradero Corrido~ Study didn’t include the section on Charleston from San Antonio to Fabian. I still have some more reading and studying to do on this I didn’t happen to find out how the bicycles fit into this underground parking, how people get upstairs to the first level, the .flow when the traffic comes through. I know the parking itself is done by the ARB but I am trying to understand what happens with this City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 44 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 traffic flow in terms of people getting in. How long does it take to fill this space? I guess comment here is that when we get overflow parking part of that is that you can’t get into the site not only do you have to have enough spaces but you have to be ableto get into it adequately. We are talking about on~ entry point to get into a 600 space parking garage. For a special event or major events can’t the parking garage be opened on San Antonio. Road for those making right hand turns so that it could fill easily from that side? That would help to fill the section near the cultural center. So I had questions that related to better understanding of the traffic flow in and how it is going to be occupied rapidly and not cause backups onto the. street and not cause people to want to park in other places even if there are enough parking spaces underground: How do they find them? How do they get upstairs? I am sure they are on that picture I just haven’t looked carefully enough and I am not an architect as to how people are moving up onto the podium level from inside the garage. There has to be more than one elevator. I already asked the question about the difference in the parking spaces for senior housing. Someone else asked some of the other questions I have here. There is a delivery drop off area for deliveries other than this big garage area and part of that circulation question and understanding the circulation I would like to know more about what size vehicles can pull into that area and how that works. Just an explanation, I am looking at a map but I think it would be helpful if that were explained. Mr. C. Williams: You mean on Charleston? Commissioner Cassel: You pull off Charleston into that area." Mr. C. Williams: Okay. Commissioner Cassel: And then there is a little driveway to the Fabian Way side of that and down there in that section goes people who are doing deliveries to the site. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Commissioner Cassel: I think we talked about this once before. I am still interested to look a little more at this external shape. I have already talked about basically issues with first level traffic circulation. I am not so concerned about what is going on on the podium that is internal and I am sure that will come out really nice but rather how does this traffic level flow on the first level. Questions came up about someone doing security. I don’t understand what the security is. It has come up in several different ways about people getting into the facility, it being screened. I guess this is part of my concern about getting 600 cars into this place. What is this security person going to be doing? They said something about cards to go into buildings, cards to go into the caf~, and I am sure I got this all mixed up with a number of other things. So I would like to know a lot more about what this security is. Is this an open facility that everyone is going to be welcome into and are they really going to be welcome into it or is this really a very closed facility because people are very concerned about security issues? How does this feel and can you walk in? City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 "Page 45 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The TDM, basically I see three parts to that the seniors become TDM because they _are there_ a_nd they reuse the stuff that is on the site, they might consider working with a bank. I have a mother in a similar type of facility and the bank is open a couple hours of the day and it is a very busy space. It keeps people from going offsite and it helps people who no longer need their cars. A small sundry store works very well on this site. Is it going to be available as a little retail store?. There was a gift store there, is that what they mean by what is going in there and will it be open to people other than just the seniors? The caf6 available for staff and guests will work very well for keeping people on site and helping people out who are transitioning from truly independent living into more need for assisted living. Then they can stop off there. The TDM for the employees is probably okay at the numbers they gave us because it is going to be very difficult for this staff to do two people driving at the same time because although the staff numberslook large people are working rotating shifts and rotating days. So there is not that many staff on at any one time but they are working all kinds of funny hours. I can promise you I have worked in a medical facility and the hours are funny. However, what there isn’t in the TDM program is any kind of way to deal with or encourage less traffic from the people who are using the facility in the format that we are doing with the YMCA. They had real limits with their parking and people were concerned in the neighborhood and they are doing some perhaps model thingsin terms of encouraging the people who are using the facility, essentially the customers, to try to walk, bike and come together with their neighbors when they are driving. I think we ought to look at that because that is where most of the traffic is coming from. It is not the employees who are just a couple hundred people but the users, which will be large numbers. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the TDM program, and I believe it is the benefit that was talked about, about the Campus for Jewish Life having their own shuttle. In there it talked about if the sh.uttle were discontinued it wouldn’t be available for the residents of the adjacent Bridge housing project. Would it be possible if that program were discontinued that in fact an in lieu fee would be paid to the Palo Alto Shuttle and they would pick up service? Commissioner Cassel: My follow up to that is to be of use to people at Bridge it has be as dependable as it is to people at the JCC site. You can’t expect people to use and depend upon a shuttle if they are going to wait until maybe there is an extra space. So I can’t plan on going to the food store on Friday because I have to wait to see if there are enough people in another building that want to go there first before I can find out if I can get there. There needs to be a little more quality in that if that is going to be a public benefit. Under noise I think we have to deal with that a little more. There isn’t going to be noise from the inside amphitheater. They have that double walled so they aren’t going to hear anything from the outside that isn’t the issue. The issue is what kind of external events do they have and when we talk about special events I can see us having problems when we are having an outdoor event and an inside event. I mean a real festival then we are really going to have some issues there. I don’t know how many of those events happen but those kinds of things would be appropriate for this site but then of course we really do have a problem. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 46 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Then the BMR issues. We have.learned I think from work we have done in the past that we are better off with more units than we are trying to have too many BMR Units on high-i6come units. I know in other situatioris we have said we can get 56 units, we are going to get two units although they are small units and they are isolated in one building for special senior housing and we are going to get one unit for every two units. The units are smaller, they are more specialized but we actually get very usable units out of these. The money that is coming for the special program to subsidize the other units, the people moving into the for sale family units is unique and nice. ~ Go ahead, Dan. Let me run through this and see if I covered everything. Commissioner Garber: I would like to echo Phyllis’ comments with two emphases one of which is there is a lot of depth to the BMR information that has been offered here and I will endeavor to get through all of it that I haven’t been able to get through in the last four days. I would be interested in further discussion about some of the different alternatives that have been raised here tonight as well as the recommendations that the Staff have made thus far. The other thing is a general comment that the amount of attention and focus and solutioning that has been done to create a viable environment on the project’s ground floor plane is tremendous. The ultimate success will include its active interaction with its surrounding neighbors which is not just a traffic issue in terms of dropping off and being able to adequately house cars but how the site actually interacts with the neighbors which hopefully is really a future issue in terms of what the project can present as a way of precedent setting for that part of Palo Alto. I think it could bear further conversation. I know it has been a theme in the conversations that we have had in these Chambers in months past. How that actually happens and how the project actually supports that interaction is critical. Commissioner Cassel: I just have one last thing before I turn this over to Lee. I amreally glad to see that the senior housing on the BUILD project was moved forward. That was one of my biggest concerns about this project when I first saw that this housing was going to be in the back and it was going to be isolating. It really made me apprehensive to have it back there and I really appreciate your moving that forward. Go ahead, Lee. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: During the public testimony it was alluded to that the traffic element in the EIR is out of sync with the traffic element of the General Comprehensive Plan and I know we are going through a General Comprehensive Plan, I won’t say amendment but update. It might be worthwhile to take a look at that portion of it when we get to the General Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Cassel: Anyone else want to make a comment? Anything jog anyone’s memory? Anything else you would like from us? You got enough? I want to thank everyone, the public hearing was helpful, and the contributions from the developer are very nice. They have done a lot-of hard work and we really appreciate that. The Staff has worked .very, very hard. Don. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 47 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 .39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Larkin: the item. Commissioner Cassel: to the July 26 meeting. MOTION Commissioner Garber: So moved. SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Seconded. The Chair needs to close the public hearing and you will need a motion to continue Yes. I am closing the public hearing and I need a motion to continue this MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Holman recused herself with Commissioners Burt and Bialson absent). Commissioner Cassel: Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That motion passes four to nothing. Is there anything else on our agenda tonight? Mr. Larkin: Announcements From Officials APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Commissioner Cassel: Announcements From Officials. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. Mr. Larkin: The only announcement I was going to make is for those of you that haven’t heard Wynne Furth is retiring from the City not from the practice of law. There will be a reception in the City Attorney’s Office tomorrow at 3:30 PM. I know it is short notice but you are all welcome to attend. Commissioner Gather: I believe there is a person with a new title at the desk. Commissioner Cassel: Curtis has a new title is what he was saying. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 48 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8~ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Steve Emslie: Well welcome. I made the announcements last time at your meeting that- Curtis was made full time and I think.you are all familiar with Curtis. We are very lucky and glad to have him with us. So welcome to you r new Planning and Transportation Officer, Curtis Williams. " Commissioner Cassel: Are there any other comments or announcements or anything? COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Commissioner Cassel: Our next meeting is going to be on July 12, 2006. There is a Stanford item on that first I believe and then there is a study session for the Zoning Ordinance Update that is going to be held second. You had a comment on that? Commissioner Sandas: Not on the agenda item but that I will not be in attendance at the meeting and this is my one and only notification. Zariah, I am not going to be at the meeting on the 12t~. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Anyone else not going to be there? We all need to be here on the 26th please. Okay. NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of July 12, 2006. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much and I will adjourn the meeting. ADJOURNED: 11):31 PM City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 49 of 49 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner, Senior Planner July 26, 2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-000501: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community(PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences, and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)review the project and make the following recommendations to the City Council: Find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA, and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is provided as Attachment B; °Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided as Attachment C; City of Palo Alto Page 1 3.Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D; 4.Approve the proposed Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan for 56 senior apartment units. A draft of the BMR program letter is provided in Attachment E; Approve a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four acre site and create one multiple-family residential lot of approximately 0.5 acres containing 56 multi-family senior residential apartment units and one multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium townhome-style units. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for approval of the Tentative Map is contained in Attachment F. BACKGROUND The Commission reviewed the project on June 28, 2006, in conjunction with the review of the adjacent Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) project, in that a single EIR was prepared to encompass both projects. Staff recommended that the project be continued to allow absent commissioners to participate at the July 26th Commission meeting. The Commission heard from staff, who gave an oral summary of the project, and the applicant, who provided background information on the BUILD/BRIDGE organization, an outline of the proposed PC development program, and a description of the architecture and design as part of the development plan. The Commission opened the public hearing to accept testimony from members of the public on the BUILD!BRIDGE project and the TKCJL project. The commission heard from 28 individuals who spoke on various aspects of the project. The applicant presented a brief statement in response to questions raised by the speakers. The Commission closed the public hearing and presented questions to staff. Staff was directed to respond to the questions at the next Commission meeting. Verbatim minutes from the June 28, 2006 meeting are contained in Attachment H, Section 2. The staff report is available upon request. The development plan sets and environmental documentation were previously distributed to Commissioners. Staff has prepared responses to Commissioner’s questions, which are contained in Attachment H, Section 1. Staff has received correspondence from members of the public after the June 28 meeting. Copies of those letters are contained in Attachment H, Section 3. Minor edits have been made to the draft CEQA resolution in Attachment B, the draft PC ordinance in Attachment C, and the ARB resolution in Attachment D. Those changes are in an underline/strikeout format. NEXT STEPS Following the Commission’s review and recommendation of the planning applications City of Palo Alto Page 2 and the Final EIR, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and review for afinal decision. It is expected that the Council will review the project in September, 2006. ATTACHMENTS A.Location map B.Draft CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan C.Draft Planned Community Ordinance D.Draft ArChitectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval E.Draft BMR Program Letter F.Draft Record of Land Use Action: Tentative Map Approval G.Development Program Statement H.Response to Questions, Verbatim Minutes, and Correspondence from the Public (separate document) COURTESY COPIES Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stem, Campus for Jewish Life Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP PREPARED BY:" Steven Turner, Senior Plann~ DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportatio~ Official City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ~MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26-.---- Wednesday, July 26, 2006 REGULAR Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:10pm Commissioners: Patrick Burt - Chair Karen Holman - V-Chair Lee I. Lippert Paula Sandas Phyllis Cassel Daniel Garber Annette Bialson Staff." Curtis Williams, Chief Planning/Transportation Official Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Amy French, Current Planning Manager Steven Turner, Senior Planner Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050] 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114] Chair Burt: At this time we would like to convene the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 26, 2006. Would the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not On the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Burt: At this time we provide the public with an opportunity to speak regarding items that are not on the agenda. Do we have a speaker? Ms. Sand5’ Sloan, Menlo Park: I understand that tonight is the last meeting for Commissioner Bialson and Commissioner Cassel. I would just like to say as a person who watches Palo Alto City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 1 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 meetings and comes to a lot of meetings that I very much have appreciated both of them as Planning Commissioners.. I think they are both incredibly smart, inc.redibly wise, those are.tw_0 different things, incredibly succinct in their comments and have provided great guidance for over eight years, a long time. Thirteen and nine so over 20 years together. So thank you very much for serving as Commissioners. Chair Burt: Thank you for those kind words. That is the only speaker on items not on the agenda. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Burr: Our first agendaitem tonight is not the one that mo.st people are here for but it probably will not take too long. So that is an Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. Don, would you like to introduce the item and explain what we have here? UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 2.Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Sure and I will try to make it brief. At the last Retreat the Commission discussed changes to its procedural rules regarding quasi-judicial hearings and specifically there was a discussion on whether Planned Community Zoning applications should be subject to the same rules. The consensus of the Commission at the time was that there should be some revision to the procedural rules that encompass quasi-judicial proceedings particularly with regard ex part~, contacts. I have made some suggested changes. Commissioner Holman correctly pointed out that it is somewhat Confusing because we talk about judicial proceedings and Planned Community Zoning is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. So the one suggestion I would make in addition to the redline comments are that on page Roman numeral four, page one, that we change under General Requirements we change item one to quasi-judicial and Planned Community Zoning proceedings defined and then remove the word ’quasi-judicial’ from that first sentence. Otherwise I think the redline comments are self- explanatory so I won’t go into detail unless Commissioners have questions. Chair Burt: Commissioners, questions or comments? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had a brief comment which is we had I wouldn’t even say an applicant but it was a citizen who had contacted a number of us regarding a zone change on a site. I felt very uncomfortable talking to that individual. I didn’t know how that would fit in to this. It was a number of months ago. I was wondering if there were any thoughts on that. Chair Burt: Well, as I understand it that would be a quasi-judicial item on a zone change, correct? Commissioner Lippert: But there is no application. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 2 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Excuse me. I see, there was not at that time an application before us. Mr. Larkin: A zone chahge is not quasi-judicial, a strict zone change. It is only because the Planned Community Zone has features that are not unlike a quasi-judicial proceeding that we discussed having those rules apply to those. The other thing, just to remind the Commission, is that members of the public do have a First Amendment right to address Commissioners as they see fit. The only issue is whether or not that becomes a two-way conversation. Chair Burt: I think what Commissioner Lippert was also getting at was what about those circumstances when there is not yet an application that has been submitted. Don, what is your understanding about how these procedures apply to that circumstance? Mr. Larkin: I would expect that if the item that they ar.e discussing is something that would require an application for a permit that it would be a quasi-judicial determination that the roles would apply equally just because they are not at the stage where they have submitted their application yet doesn’t mean that -- the proceeding itself would still be a quasi-judicial proceeding once the application was submitted. Chair Burt: So as Commissioners consider this we may want to make sure that we are affirming that that is our interpretation and self-adopted rule as Don just stated it. I don’t think we went into that depth of discussion at our Retreat. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I think perhaps my memory faulty or not I think City Attorney did mention at our Retreat that something that would become a project but was not yet an application the same rules would apply. That language isn’t indicated here and I think it is a good topic that Commissioner Lippert has brought up. So perhaps we could do Something about that. The other question I had raised with the City Attorney is we have this kind of funny thing with language. We have under the quasi-judicial and now Planned Community Zone proceeding . defined we have redlined or preliminary review, we also have study sessions and prescreening. The City is kind of using those terms interchangeably. Maybe just so we catch the intention of our change here that we include study session and prescreening there as well. Mr. Larkin: The preliminary review is the same thing as the study session. We need to be more careful about what we call these applications when they come before you and use the right terminology because they are all under preliminary review under the code, the study session and the prescreening. Chair Burt: But, you have clarified that that is the intention of what is encompassed under preliminary review whether we want to parenthesize it whatever. When some new person comes along and reads this it would be good that it is unambiguous as far as what is being covered there. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 3 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3i 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Larkin: I should just point out if you read the ruies closely it doesn’t hinge on the fact that there is an application pending. It says that we discourage the gathering of information outside of a public hearing. There is no requirement that an application be filed for the mleg to take .... place because it says thegathering of information on a quasi-judicial project is what is discouraged. Chair Burt: I would still feel that even though literally what is here encompasses all the things that have just been discussed it would be more beneficial to be unambiguous about what is being covered there and include that in the language. Otherwise we are going to have new people who won’t understand that context and that background and all those things or even ourselves who pick it back up a year from now and try and reread it and try and remember exactly what the intent was. So I don’t know if other Commissioners feel that way but I would feel much more comfortable if that was spelled out so it is just clear. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I just want to say that I agree with you. The less ambiguous anything is I think the better off for those to come after us as well. Mr. Larkin: I should just say the only reason - because I had considered putting in prescreening and study sessions and the reason that I didn’t include it is that those things don’t exist under our code for Planned Community Developments. I am trying to discourage the use of terms that are not actual things that we do. So I didn’t want to create this in the document but if the Commissioners feel strongly that that needs to be in there I am happy to include it. Chair Burt: Especially given it is a policy it is not a statute. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had two other minor comments. One is disclosure of conflicts of interest. We have a number of Commissioners that if there is only one item on the agenda and they have a conflict of interest and are not participating they don~t show up .but it is not disclosed as to what their conflict of interest is. I think that really needs to be addressed here because we say that members that are present need to disclose that they have a conflict of interest well, why wouldn’t the members who are not here that have a conflict of interest when it is the only item on the agenda should have to disclose that in some way. So if that can be read into the record as to what that would be. Chair Burt: Don, is that something that could be incorporated into policy that the Commissioner should notify in writing Staff what the conflict of interest is or anything or is that not necessary? Mr. Larkin: I would need to give that some more thought. I don’t think that is c’Ertainly not necessary and it isn’t something that we have discussed so I haven’t given it any thought. Commissioner Lippert: That is just something for the future. Then the second thing I just want to mention and I don’t want to into a great amount of detail but if you go into Section 5, Special Meetings we don’t define joint meetings, which we do quite frequently now. Roman numeral five. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 4 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: We can address that the next time through. Unless you are prepared to give me- some language I am not prepared to do it. I should just point out that the majority of joint meetings are going to be City Council Joint Meetings and those would be covered under th~ City Council’s procedural rules. Commissioner Lippert: Actually ARB who would govern in that or if we had it with Parks and Recreation in terms of open space. Chair Burt: Okay. So then Don is going to put that on the parking list for next update on this? It is a point well taken. Dan. Commissioner Garber: Roman numeral three, number six, items seven and nine, the products of these two appear to be .the same in that. someone that doesn’t vote is it necessary to describe that the causes are different or how are these two things different? The first one being silence constitutes an affirmative vote and number nine is abstaining from vote. Mr. Larkin: That is right, somebody who when the Chair says abstain raises their hand they are ¯ choosing not to cast a vote. Some who says nothing is ctioosing to cast an affirmative vote. Commissioner Garber: Why do we distinguish between the two? I am just curious. Chaii" Burt: If I understand it the silence actually is an affirmative vote. The abstaining is a non- vote and the maj.ority of the voters prevail. Is that correct, Don? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Just as a practical matter if the Chair calls the vote and says, "all in favor," and he hears aye and he is not going to hear abstain so he is going to assume that if he hears ayes and not nays that everybody voted in favor. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to make a motion? Karen. MOTION Vice-Chair Holman: I would move adoption of the Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules dated July 20, 2006 with the changes already described by City Attorney under General Requirements that quasi-judicial and Planned Community Zone proceedings defined with the next sentence starting, "Proceedings," and under the copy with preliminary review parenthetically add "study session and prescreening." SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Chair Burt: Karen, any comments on your motion? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 5 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: Just that I support this and it has been the Commission’s practice for sometime to carry on this practice and that the purpose as stated here is that these rules are intende_d- .to assure that Commission.decision-making on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties. We have had discussion at our Retreats that this one way where we can be confident that all parties have all the same information so I am happy to make the motion. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Burt: Lee, any comments? Anyone else wish to comment on the motion? All right. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? So that passes unanimously and anybody I didn’t hear I take to have voted affirmatively. So that passes on a seven to zero vote. Thank you Don for those updates. Our next item is one of the two big ones tonight that are interrelated, 901 San Antonio Road. It is a request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, known by the acronym of BUILD, for a Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, including the development of 103 units of for-sale town home residences, 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive.Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. So just to clarify the Final Environmental Impact Report is the same report covering both of the items two and three tonight. Commissioner Holman you have a statement? Vice-Chair Holman: I do. While I don’t have a financial conflict on this project one of the consultants that is well involved with this project is helping with another project that I am very, very involved with and so because of that I felt a personal and ethical conflict of interest so I have not been participating in this item. I wish you all well in your deliberations and once again wish Commissioners Bialson and Cassel well in their maybe retirement. Chair Burt: You are going to leave us with all the fun tonight, Karen. Commissioner Bialson and myself were absent from the last meeting so I think we want to comment on our preparedness to participate tonight. Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: Yes. I just want to say that I did read all the transcript of the minutes of June 28, 2006 and feel I am prepared to rule on this motion. Chair Burt: Likewise for myself and I think we have both participated in this project over the past two years or so, probably more in its various iterations. So we look forward to this meeting. All right. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Chair Burt? One recommendation. Curtis Williams is going to speak a little bit about the procedures tonight for your review, deliberation and questions. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 6 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40. 41 42 43 44 45 46 Perhaps Staff would recommend that you would also read into the record the description for the second part of the project the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish .Life Project and then Staff will give a brief presentation.on both projects. " Chair Burr: Great, thank you. As I understand it that is because even though we may have certain discussions that we will try to break up between items two and three both of them will be discussed in the same broad discussion tonight. Okay, so item number three is also at 901 San Antonio Road. A request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life,also know by the acronym of TKCJL throughout here, for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning of a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed PC District development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity, space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. I think that covers it. Curtis would you like to give us some guidance here? 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM. (contd. from June 28, 2006). t 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114|: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square-foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 7 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) f_or the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared.. Zone- District: GM. (contd. from June 28, 2006). Mr. Turner: Actually, I am going to go ahead and give just a brief Staff Report and then I will turn it over to Curtis. Chair Burt: Okay Steve, then you’re up. Mr. Turner: Staff is going to make the following recommendations and I will start with the BUILD project. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the project and make the following recommendations to the City Council. Number one, find that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is in Attachment B. Number two, grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided in attachment C. Number three, approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D. Number four, approve the proposed Below Market Rate housing plan for 56 senior apartment units. A draft of the BMR program letter is provided in Attachment E. And, approve a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four-acre site and create one multi-family residential lot of approximately one-half of an acre containing 56 multi-family residential units and multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium town home style units. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for the approval of the Tentative Map is contained in Attachment F. That is the recommendation for the BUILD project. The recommendation for TKCJL is as follows. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the project and make the following recommendations to the Council.. Number one, find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is in Attachment B. Number two, grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is in Attachment C. Number three, grant a Variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.110C to allow portions of the proposed building to extend above 50 feet based upon the findings as listed in the draft ordinance in Attachment C, Section 4. Number four, approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the findings for a Design Enhancement Exception for height of the sculptural tower subject to the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D. Number five, approve the Below Market Rate housing plan including a total of 24 assisted living and congregate care units with associated housing services provided by the Jewish senior residents available to low income seniors. A draft of the BMR program elements between the developer and the City is provided in the project description letter in Attachment F. Number six, approve a Tentative Map that would create one mixed use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The Tentative.Map Record of Land Use Action is contained in Attachment E. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 8 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CommiSsioners, as you are aware the Commission reviewed the project at the June 28 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. At that meeting Staff recommended that t-he Commission continue tl~e item to allow the absent Commissioners from that meeting to participate in the discussion. It was identified that July 26 would be the meeting where that could take place. At that June 28 meeting Commissioners heard from the Staff and the applicants who summarized the various aspects of the project. The Commission then opened the public hearing and heard testimony from members of the public. At the conclusion of the public testimony Commissioners asked questions of Staff and the applicant and directed Staff to prepare responses for tonight’s meeting. The Commission closed the public hearing and continued the project to tonight. In preparation for tonight’s meeting Staff prepared responses to the Commissioner’s questions. The questions and responses are contained in Section 1 of Attachment H and that is this bound copy here. This attachment also contains the meeting minutes from the June 28 meeting in Section 2 and all of the email received since that June meeting in Section 3. You will probably note that correction is needed on the cover. It says Public Correspondence as of June 22, 2006 and that should read July 22, 2006. In addition to the information that you received in your packet Staff has placed the following items at your places this evening. There is a small packet containing additional correspondences received since this packet for this meeting was delivered to you and it contains correspondence that was not included in the June Staff Report or in Attachment H. The applicant has also provided you with 115 letters of support contained in this document with the blue cover. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Also at your places tonight is a replacement BUILD Attachment C which is the Planned Community ordinance. An uncorrected version of this ordinance was included in the Staff Report tonight. So the correct version is at your places and that version contains edits to clarify the.public benefit and development schedule as well as minoi" clarifying edits to the conditions of approval. Finally, you also have a copy of the TKCJL Transportation Demand Management program. The Staff Report tonight contained an excerpt from that report that talks about an increase in the number of trip reduction the TDM program hopes to achieve. The entire TDM report is at your places and it is also back at the table behind us. There will be no formal presentation by the applicants tonight but both Staff and the applicants are able to answer your questions this evening. We also have Judith Wasserman from the Architectural Review Board here to answer your questions as well as Dennis Struecker, the Transportation Consultant for the EIR and also Nora Monette from David Powers who helped us prepare the EIR. They are sitting over there and can answer your questions tonight. That concludes the Staff Report but I do want to hand it off to Curtis who can provide some assistance or suggestions tonight on how to review the project. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 9 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ¯ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Steven. What we would suggest tonight is that you take the two items in order, that ygu ask questions_ and comment about the BUILD project and then do the same subsequently about the TKCJL project and then come back and take action on the BUILD project and then take action on the CJL project. The reason why we sort of need it in that sequence and you can’t take action until the end is because your first action on both items is to certify the EIR and both items are in the EIR. So you really need to have fully discussed both of these items before you can take action. Chair Burt: So just to be clear, after we have our discussion of the BUILD project and then the Center for Jewish Life we would first address the approval of the FEIR and then have perhaps the motions regarding the projects if we didn’t want to fold it all into one motion? Mr. C. Williams: I think that is probably a good idea since the FEIR covers both projects. That way you do that as the first action you would be taking anyway on the BUILD project and then subsequently when you act on the CJL you can indicate that you have already taken that first action there. Chair Burt: Then depending on how our discussion goes and whether there are any substantive amendments we may want to consider whether it would be best to include those amendments under a primary motion or address them under separate votes and have a primary motion to hit the big major items. That is something for us to consider on how we break up our actions. I neglected to make one announcement in the beginning. It is in our agenda but Item Number 4, 560 San Antonio Road will not be heard tonight. That item has been withdrawn in case anyone is here for that purpose or listening. NEW BUSINESS: 4. 560 San Antonio Road - Request for public hearing of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new 11,690 square foot multi-use private educational facility replacing an existing 20,920 square foot office building at 560 San Antonio Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone: Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). Chair Burt: I guess we are going to have to try to figure out how to get our arms around this big thing. It is one of the largest projects that we have seen in many years or are likely to see. So our first discussion would be around the BUILD project and who would like to begin with either questions or comments? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I would like either the Staff or the developer to explain so that I .have it straight the BMR portion of what is happening on this site. Basically, overall I really don’t have very many questions or comments or concerns with this site. It meets all the other requirements but I am trying to ,understand and make sure I have that straight. Chair Burt: Steven, do you think it would be best to have the applicant respond? Ms. Tan, welcome. City of Palo Alto J~,ly 26, 2006 Page 10 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Lydia Tan, BUILD: Good evening. I hope I have it straight too so let me take a stab at this. As you know, BUILD is. a partnership between CaI--PERS and Bridge Housing CoxZporation rind Bridge Housing Corporation is a nonprofit housing developer. Our main focus is to provide very affordable housing and very high quality. So when we started to have a conversation with the Staff about the BMR requirement our hope and really how the project was designed was to try and provide as much affordability as possible within the confines of the return requirements of Cal--PERS who is the main equity source of this project. So our proposal was to try to leverage the 15 units that are required on the town home side into a larger senior affordable project next door, which we are taking a look at as part of this project. So the 15 units were subject to a study in terms of trying to determine financially what the value of transferring those 15 units next door to the senior project was. It was a project that was commissioned by the City, your housing staff was involved and the number that came out as a value was about $7.3 million. So for the 103 units, 15 would have been required, the value of those 15 units was set at $7.3 million. What we have come to with Staff is that the BUILD side, the town home side, would transfer $7.3 million over to Bridge. Bridge would use the $7.3 million in part to develop the senior site. We would still have quite a bit of money still to go and raise to build the entire 56-unit project but that gives us a really good running start to try to make that project possible. There are additional things. We are very committed to making the 56 units work. Staff also I think is very supportive but Staff also in their wisdom thought that if we weren’t able to pull all the funding together there needed to be some conclusion to the story on site. So we came up with two alternatives in the case that we could not make the affordable senior project work. The first alternative would be that within the envelope that is hopefully being approved tonight that we would build 30 to 32 condominium units of which the 15 would be affordable at the income levels that would have applied to the 103 unit town home development. There would bea few market rate condominium units that would be used to cost subsidize those affordable units onsite. We would use.the $7.3 million to subsidize those units onsite and then those market rate units would also have their own BMR requirement as well that would be included in that project. The second alternative would be if after a maximum of six years we could not make either the apartments or the condo project pencil, financially feasible, we would essentially liquidate all of our assets on that particular site and make an in lieu payment to the City. So that is everybody’s least favorite idea but it was really the only solution that we could all. come to that made sense to try and come to conclusion on a project. So we are crossing our fingers we will never have to talk about that after City Council hopefully looks at this project. Any questions? Chair Burt: Lee, do you have a question of Lydia? Commissioner Lippert: A question of Staff actually. Chair Burt: Okay. Maybe I could ask one of Lydia first. So what I hear is that you have a good confidence that this will happen. Can you give us some sense of where that confidence level is? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 11 of 57 1 Ms. Tan: We have three possibly four alternative financing scenarios that we will be pursuing 2 over the next several years. One would be to access HUD funding for the Section 202 prog_r .a~n_.. 3 That would provide a fa!rly significant amount funds that helps make up the gap and it also 4 provides operating subsidy that would allow us to serve senior that are extremely low income. 5 They would only pay 30 percent of their income on rent which is really exciting. We would 6 couple that with low-income housing tax credits. So that is one scenario that we are looking at. 7 We actually have an application into HUD right now and we will have to see how it goes. It is 8 very, very competitive and generally the more often you apply the more likely you are to get it. 9 So we know that we have a multi-year process there. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 There are also two forms Of low-income housing tax credits that we also are looking at. The third is a supportive housing type program that is offered through the State of California that would allow us to serve both independent seniors and other seniors who have a couple of physical deficiencies that they would need help with. So all of them are funded right now. They are all very competitive. Some are more powerful than others in terms closing our gap. We also have over the last couple of years been able to secure funding commitments from the housing trust fund of Santa Clara County, from EPA, from lenders for the community development, the Sobrato Foundation. So we have been slowly trying to work towards filling the gap. We are pretty confident that we can make it happen but there is always the outside chance that the stars won’t align for us and we have to go to the second alternative. Chair Burr: So when you describe it as an outside Chance - I am still trying to get a sense of this because frankly technically the two projects are separate but the community support and how we viewed everything has been contingent on really both halves of this happening. If one half didn’t happen then have we been looking at it in the same way that we would have if we had known it wasn’t going to happen. So you have been at this a long time and BUILD has done a lot of projects. Is this something that you are hopeful of, that you are highly confident in and I know you can’t put a number on it but I am still trying to get a better sense of your confidence level? Ms. Tan: I don’t think I could say highly confident I think I could say confident. It is more than hopeful. If it were only hopeful we wouldn’t be proposing it. Really, the tradeoff and I think Staff saw it as a tradeoff is do you provide 15 units moderate income housing or do you really try to stretch and get the 56 units of extremely low income housing? I think on balance we believe and I can’t speak for Staff but I think Staff also agrees it is worth the try. -Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with you on that but I do have a question With regard to the second alternative, which we hope we never go to. That would be liquidating the asset which is the land and at that time paying what amount of money to the City? Ms. Tan: It would be whatever we have left and at no time would it be below $4.5 million. The reason it is lower than the $7.3 million is we will be incurring funds all along in good faith trying make the senior project happen. I am sorry I did not bring the accounting with me but we actually provided Staff with an accounting of what where we thought we would be if after six ydars we were unable to get funding together. There is actually about $4.0 million left but City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 12 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Bridge has made a commitment to come out of pocket an extra $500,000 to make sure that w~ hit the $4.5 million. It could be that the market is great and somebody will pay a lot of money for that land. Anything in s.urplus would go to the City. I think there is a limit based on-$7.3 mlli~0n plus some interest assigned to it but essentially everything would go back to the City. Commissioner Bialson: The six-year period of time is one that is perhaps alterable by you or by the City agreeing that you do not have an opportunity or will not have a chance to build this out as you would like and the City can request that you liquidate the land earlier? Ms. Tan: We have four years by right and there is a two-year extension that the City could say no to if they believe that there is no chance of getting funding together. On our side we will try very hard for the first two years, we will fight very hard for six years but for the first three years the primary focus will be on the senior project because that is everybody’s primary goal. If after two years the funding doesn’t seem to be coming through then we have the option of converting to the condo project so that within a four year period one of the two would happen. If it doesn’t happen by four years it is really up to the City to give us the two-year extension if we all feel that there is a chance of still having something happen. Commissioner Bialson: Do you give the City accountings of what you are spending and how often do you do that? Ms. Tan: Yes. I don’t think we have talked about specifically how often but we are happy to do it as often as the City would be interested in it. Commissioner Bialson: Maybe I am misunderstanding but my understanding is we are dealing with a pot of $7.3 million and as we make effort to develop this project in the way you and we hope that it will be you are using and expending those funds for purposes of trying to move forward that project. As the funds are being deducted from the $7.3 million it seems like there should be a recording and reporting requirement to the City and some influence that the City could have over how those funds might be spent. Maybe you need trigger points of after $1.0 million is spent so that the amount is reduced to $6.3 million that there might be some different relationship between yourselves and the City with regard to approving any additional expenditure of funds or having at least a reporting requirement. I am just concerned that sometimes these projects get a life of their own and the developer with all best intentions just gets very committed to something that the City perhaps should be able to have input in with regard to the likelihood of its success especially if that City is bearing the burden of the costs. Essentially that sounds like what we are doing. We are to a certain extent the developer there. It is to our economic interest to have some say in how those funds are expended. I don’t know how you would work that out with the City but I do think that there has be some written agreement and trigger points at which the City has perhaps a little more influence in how the project goes forward. Ms. Tan: One of the requirements is that there is an Affordable Housing Agreement that negotiated and drafted before City Council sees this project, which I think is scheduled for September. So I think those comments can be incorporated but in response what I would say is we are happy to report. We have given the City Staff a budget as to how we think the dollars are City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 13 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 going to get spent. We are happy to stick to that budget. We can certainly work on a trigger.- I think $1.0 million is too low. The other thing that you should understand is in this b_udget ther_e. is no stafftime so for the six years Bridge will be expending its own stafftime in support of trying to get the project done. Given that and given our mission I-would hope that you would feel like we are doing everything we can to try and make the project work. Commissioner Bialson: That is understood but I do think there are heightened levels of involvement that are called upon once certain amounts of money are spent and whether that is just one trigger point or some other mile post along the way I think that if you are going to set forth in a four year or a six year relationship you need some rules that will establish the leverage points shall we say. Thank you. Ms. Tan: Thank you. Chair Burt: I appreciate that you stated that you didn’t happen to bring the ledger of how the funds are anticipated to be spent. Can you just give us a little bit of a general sense of the categories? Are they for architectural design and grant application orwhat kinds of things? Ms. Tan: It is all those things. There is money in there to acquire the site from BUILD. There are dollars in there to pay for the architecture and the permits and the planning fees that we have been paying all along. There is money in there for funding applications. Every time we make a funding application we either have to update our rental phase one/phase two reports or we have to put together a marketing study so those sorts of things are in there. I am trying to recall, what else but those are the big ones. What we were not planning on doing is spending a whole lot more money on architecture until we know we have a funding source in place. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense right now to spend more money right now. Chair Burt: So a good portion of this funding is compensation for funds that BUILD has already expended and this is the agreement ..... Ms. Tan: Some of it. That’s correct. Chair Burr: Okay. Lee, you had questions for Staff?. Thank you, Lydia. Commissioner Lippert: In the Staff responses on page six, question 19 1 don’t know if my question has actually been answered adequately. I remember reading in the Staff Report that there was an out for the applicant in terms of not having to have the shuttle if they did not have the congregate care and assisted living units. Mr. Turner: So you are saying that if the Jewish senior residence portion of the project goes away that then they would not have a requirement for the shuttle? Commissioner Lippert: There is an out in there that they didn’t have to provide or if they didn’t have to provide the shuttle service. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 14 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Turner: I think part of the response is saying that. as a requirement of state licensing, perhaps the applicant can explain this a little better, that in order to provide those types of housing units that they need to provide a shuttle. A .shuttle is required in order to .be licensed for those types.of living units. So as long. as they are a licensed facility they would be required to have that shuttle and then that shuttle would be used as part of their benefit for the senior houses on the adjacent site. Commissioner Lippert: Then it also says in here that it is not a traffic mitigation measure but a concern of the neighborhood is traffic and that the idea is that this shuttle would be used for say satellite parking to bring people to the site during events. Mr. Turner: The applicant could explain that. I believe the intent is really the shuttle only for the Jewish senior residential units not for providing transportation to and from the community center during those special event times. Commissioner Lippert: Does the applicant want to address that? Mr. Jim Baer, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life: Hi, Jim Baer on behalf of the Taube-Koret. Campus for Jewish Life. The statement Steven Turner answered correctly. The statement that the shuttle being provided for the JSR was not included as a mitigation measure and by the way neither was the TDM program with its 20 percent target reduction for employees means that we didn’t ask for credit against trip generation as a result of the TDM or the shuttle being provided for JSR residents. That answers the first part of the .question which is when it says it is not part of the mitigation doesn’t mean that we aren’t committing to provide those it means that it didn’t reduce trip count. We were assessed with the full trip count as if we weren’t providing a TDM or a shuttle. The second part of that question was also answered correctly which is the shuttle used by the JSR and then shared with Bridge Housing low income senior has nothing to do with the special events shuttle that may be required if the campus can’t show proximity and adjacency of parking for special events and a shuttle is necessary. That would be an independent shuttle and if necessary more than one shuttle in o~der to bring people to the campus from offsite. This is just for the JSR onsite use of its residents and those of Bridge. Commissioner Lippert: I understand it. I don’t know if I like it. Chair Burt: Thank you. Next questions? Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel: You want comments? Chair Burt: I guess if we don’t have questions we can move right into comments. This is the easier half of the two. Commissioner Cassel: As I read this, my comments are that I like the Bridge project and I am not having problems with it. It meets the parking requirements, it meets the height limits, it provides middle/moderate-housing needs, which are hard to get. It is very hard to get middle City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 15 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ~38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 income housing in this community. There are mechanisms for other things but middle-income housing is actually the hardest to get in that middle-income range and a little bit of high moderate. It provides lo.w and very low-income housing2 The units for the combined site is units per acre and we tend to lose that because if they just look at that when they divided it out the units per acre is high onthe affordable units but lower than you would have normally in a 40 units per acre on the other and I think we need to keep that in mind. Based on what happens in the future it needs to be noted that this was originally designed as one project and then it got divided out for reasons that have to happen which gives one site a higher density than the other but falls within that 40 units per acre. The BMR sometimes becomes an issue when you say you are not providing exactly the same units as you would for the market rate units but I think we are much better off with more very low-income senior units and that creates the balance .that we want. In addition to that there will be some subsidy for people purchasing the condominium units. So basically I am satisfied with this project and I am satisfied with the explanation of the BMR program. Chair Burt: Who would like to comment next? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with all of Phyllis’ comments and except for the one point I have to make with regard to an alternative which I don’t think we ever find ourselves in, or hope we will never find ourselves in, I am in support of this project. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I will join Phyllis and Annette in supporting the project. I think it is an especially good job of bridging the gap between some of the residential uses that are on that side of the site and the rest of the project that is in there. I think it addresses a number of the uses that Phyllis has articulated quite capably. I think that the way the parking has been handled in particular with the housing along the street to help lessen the impact of that parking from the street works very well. I think is a summary of my comments. Thank you. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: One of the nice things about sitting down at this end is that everybody gets to comment first and all I have to say is I concur, I agree. I support this project as well. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I am pretty enthusiastic about the project the only concern that I have is with regard to the shuttle~ Since we are viewing the Bridge project first if the Campus for Jewish Life didn’t move forward it is tied the potential senior housing element shuttle to the Campus for Jewish Life. So that is really my only concern. Chair Burt: I would support the comments made by my fellow Commissioners. The issue that we had discussed with the Bridge representative regarding the what if for some reason the funding were not able to be obtained for the proposed project I think is most of all a policy decision for the Council because it is a risk of sorts that the anticipated project would not occur City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 16 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 but I think it is one that everyone will understand the potentials going into it and I think the sense of the Cbmmission is that we consider it a reasonable risk and presumably the Council will continue to feel the same way as we have throughout this process. This is not new r~ews to Us.- So I guess that concludes our discussion of item number two. We will not yet be taking a motion on item number two. We will move into questions and comments on item number three and then we will return to vote on combined FEIR and then we will go into votes on the projects. We just have to remind ourselves because it is a more complicated process than normal. So item number three would Commissioners like to proceed with questions on item number three? Dan. Mr. Larkin: Actually this is where I wanted to speak up. Chair Burt: Okay, go ahead. Mr. Larkin: On number four of the recommendations, and the Commissioners can anticipate what I am goingto say, the recommendation was to approve the Architectural Review t(esolution including findings for the DEE for .... and I would just make one revision to that. The Commission should strike the words ’finding for the DEE for’ and just have it ’approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the height of the sculptural tower’ but not the findings for the DEE. Chair Burt: That is because that is really not our purview, correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Chair Burt: Great, thank you. Everybody clear on that? Okay. Dan would you like to proceed? Commissioner Garber: Some questions for Staff. Could the Staff and/or the architect review perhaps with the help of these drawings on the wall- here the height of the building? If you could simply walk down San Antonio and the Charleston street sides and show us the heights of the building relative to the existing 50-foot mark and then describe to us how the flood plane works to show us those three data points along each one? There may be a better drawing that you can put on the overhead. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects: Good evening Chairman and Commissioners. I think if I could just interpret your question if I might you would like to understand the heights of the buildings along the perimeter streets. You mentioned the flood plane, with yourpermission I would like to just adjust that and share with you’re the criteria that we feel have impacted the heights. If I could just explain that then I would be happy to give you the heights as we move around. Commissioner Garber: Of course. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 ,Page 17 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Steinberl~: The flood plane is an issue but much more significantly is the issue of the condition of the soils and the requirements that we have had to adhere to from theRe_gional Water Quality Control Board. Those are simply that we on this particular site are not able to excavate below existing grade. So we ha~e to accept existing grade as it is. Ordinarily on a site you would be permitted to excavate below grade and put your parking below grade and then be able to put habitable space up to 50 feet on top of that. In this case we are not able to do that so just as a frame of reference the depth of that parking structure that would ordinarily be below grade is approximately 12 feet. So what we are challenged with here is developing a site at a comparable site where you would be allowed 50 feet plus the 12 feet so it would really be close to 62 feet. That would be the combined total height of parking and housing that would normally be permitted. So as we move kind of keeping that 62 feet as a frame of reference we move along San Antonio and perhaps it might be easiest to use the model, we are about 41 feet. Can you see this building? Okay? So with my 62 feet frame of reference and then I should just add that in addition to the 50 feet you are also allowed an additional 15 feet for mechanical equipment. If you took the combination of that it would net you 77 feet. So with that in mind this building right here is 41 feet, it drops down to 26 feet, it steps up in this building to 55 feet, 55 feet with a small element internal which has mechanical up to 70 feet, 59 feet and a very small component that has mechanical that steps up to 75 feet at that edge. If we go along Charleston this building is the 59 feet that we talked about, it steps down to 40 feet, 55 feet, 36 feet and again steps up to the 55. So if you take a typical 50 foot building and you add the 12 feet and the total of 62 all of the buildings are below that height with the exception of when we step up in one place along the edge with mechanical and we are still below what would be permitted if you understand that we have 12 feet for that parking garage in question. Commissioner Garber: Thank you for the explanation and your methodology of how those numbers have. been calculated. The backside of the site is where relative to the flood plane? And it goes uphill as we get to Charleston, is that correct? Mr, steinberg: Yes, there is about three to four feet being higher along Charleston and the site is falling as it comes and it is about four feet lower at this corner. It is pretty imperceptible to the eye as you look at that. Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you. If you would you can stay there I have another question. The tower that is there, what actually is driving the height of that tower? Mr. Steinberg: permit me just to start and kind of talk about the tower in kind of a holistic way before I go right into the dimensional aspects of it. When you think about a tower and you think why would someone design or try to create a tower there are probably a couple of reasons that you might consider that might come to mind. Many times a tower deals with functional aspects. A tower Could be used for defense, for security. It is not in this particular case. Many times it is used for telling time, a clock, bells, a sense of awareness, and a sense of place. Many times a tower is an expression of optimism, of optimism for the future of what is to be. I would say thirdly a tower is frequently used as a sense of way finding. Many times on campuses or cities the Hoover Tower, the Campanile are used a frame of where am I and what is my. orientation and City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 18 of S! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 sense of location. That really is the sense here. This is in many ways a campus or a small community and it has a variety of different buildings and different - it is an intergenerational campus meant to accommodate a wide variety of people and ages and needs and meaTnt as a sense of order and way-finding that tells people where they are in relationship to the center and the town square of the campus. Currently on the site there is a building that goes up to about 98 feet, it is 200 and some feet long, and we have taken and we would like to suggest that we take a much, much smaller footprint. A footprint something in the range of 10 or 12 feet square and we use that as a symbolic.art object, an object of optimism, an object to help orient people around the site, and what we are proposing is that the height of that be tall enough so that from different parts of the campus one can see it. If you look at the drawings on the wall behind you there are two elements. There is a solid portion and then a little bit lighter portion shown on each of these drawings, which is also reflected on the model. The 65 feet on the drawing from many portions of the site would in fact not be visible. So what we have done is try to look at sight lines in the site and this is a section through the site. If you are standing here in order to see and to get that sense of way-finding from different parts of the site we are in the range ofg0 feet or 95 feet in height in order to do that. That said we wanted to also be very sensitive to any impact to adjacent offsite uses. So what we are proposing is that we come up to the 65 feet which is per the code with a solid building form and that we have the flexibility of an additional 30 feet of a much more open, transparent expression that would be really in the form of artwork that would allow us to have that additional height so that people could see it from onsite. As our process, and I happy to share that with you tonight, going through this with the ARB we have gone around the site and we have done photo simulations. We have looked from the neighborhood over here. We have looked from the residential neighborhood over here. We have looked from the intersection at Charleston and San Antonio. I would be happy to share these images with you but I can tell you the impact is negligible. It is very hard to see from offsite. So that is the thinking of the tower. In addition to everything that I have said, as went through this process with the Architectural Review BOard I think that they had thoughts and gave us input into the design of the tower and I could share that thought with you or we have a representative from the Board that might be able to share that perspective as well if you like. Commissioner Garber: Sure. I would be very interested to hear about that. Ms. Judith Wasserman, Chair, Architectural Review Board: Thank you. I am Judith Wasserman from the Architectural Review Board. I find myself to be hard-pressed to be more eloquent than Rob Steinberg so I won’t even try. He has covered the Hoover Tower and the Campanile and the graceful artwork that I was all prepared to talk about: We felt that this tower was important enough to actually condition it into our approval. We knew that there was controversy. We knew that there questions. We knew that it exceeded the official height limit of the City and we. felt that it was a significant enough part of the composition of this project in a sense of proportion, as a sense of a landmark, a punctuation, I think of it more of a spire than a tower because it has a graceful form to it that we felt it was really important to keep it in regardless of what the formalities of getting it would be and what kind of exceptions would have to be approved and whatnot. We felt it was a significant part of the composition of the project. City of PaloAlto July 26, 2006 Page 19 of 57 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Commissioner Garber: Issues of way-finding and landmarks such as this are fairly common .£nd 2 do operate in my experience in much the way that you have described and do help anchor the 3 way that one finds their way through the project, etc. Let me just ask you, not to be 4 confrontational, but if the tower were half the size say how much of an impact would that have on the aesthetic functions that you have described? How impact would that have on your project? Mr. Steinberg: Well the project itself would still be in tact. You would still beable to get to a classroom. You would still have a campus. There would still be preschool. I think that the lost opportunity would be very, very significant. Because the impact of it is almost exclusively internal to the site I think it would be a real shame to have lost that oppoitunity from an architectural perspective. Would the facility be able to function? It would. Commissioner Garber: Let me just go through a couple of other examples and sort of draw out the conversation. Some of the other examples that were cited for instance Hoover Tower is a significantly larger object, 256-plus feet or something of that sort and exists in a much different scale of campus. Campanile also is significantly larger and exists in a much larger piazza. I am thinking at Northwestern University they have a clock tower that exists at the end of a street not exactly inside of a campus, which would be significantly smaller than this. I am guess it is about 30 or 40 feet high and clearly seen at its cross-axis as it is organized. The primary benefit of this is going to be either as you walk down from one of the two axes that it is in the lotus of. So once again I am going to ask the question in this scale for this size does it truly have a significant impact if it was not as tall? Mr. Steinberg: In my opinion, yes that would be a significant reduction in the impact of what it is trying to achieve. I say that because the concept or the plan is one of a sense of a medieval city where the idea is that the sense of journey and movement is as important as the arrival at the point of destination. For that reason there isn’t a formal axial geometry but in fact it is a series of cou~yards and outdoor rooms that have different proportions and different spaces that move underneath into another Outdoor room. So if for example we were to take this element and cut it in half you would be able to see it from one outdoor room and possible from a second outdoor room but from the eight other outdoor rooms that make up part of the composition it would be neutered. Commissioner Garber: That is all from me for the moment. Thanks. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Let me go at this from a different point of view. Is there FAR or access to this tower element? When I say FAR is it a structure in which people can actually go into this and go up in the tower? Mr. Steinberg: The structure itself accommodates an elevator and a stair and incorporates mechanical exhaust from our parking structure. So it has three functional components to it. You cannot go up to the top of this because like Judith pointed out it really is more of a piece of City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 20 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 artwork than it is a building or a tower but it does service getting you from grade up to the podium and up to the second level to accommodate our accessibility issues. Commissioner Lippert: So the part that people would use is really accessory to the buildings and the rest of it is really artistic, correct? Mr. Steinber¢: Yes. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: Judith, I am going to put you on the spot as a former member of the Art Commission. What determines a piece of art? You have been involved in the ARB and you have been involved in the Art Commission. What draws the distinction between something that is architectural and something that is artistic? Ms. Wasserman: Not too small a question is it? Commissioner Lippert: No it is a very big question. Ms. Wasserman: Well from the point of the Public Art Commission one of the salient determinants is whether it was designed by an artist or whether it was bought off the shelf as a catalog item. So I am expecting this piece of sculpture to have an artist design it. I was told that that was going to happen, yes? Mr: Steinberg: Well, I would like to define what an artist is and ..... Ms. Wasserman: I don’t think we are going to do that here tonight. Mr. Steinberg: Let me try it again. Let me just say that it is not something that is going to come offthe shelf. It is going to be creative, as we identify a donor to be able to support this effort it will be something that will very custom and very unique and-specialized to this particular moment. Commissioner Lippert: Let me ask you, this is a private development here, it is not subject to the Art Commission but the Art Commission does have criteria in terms of artist selection and how they go about doing that. Would you be following similar criteria in terms of looking at a number of artist’s portfolios in terms of awarding the commission? Would you then give the artist somewhat free-range in terms of creating this tower? Mr. Steinberg: I think that that is a very hard question for me to answer tonight because I don’t think anyone in this room has the full authority to make that decision. This is really dependent upon having a benefactor. I don’t think we could commit to a process or lock that in tonight. What I will say is my first choice is to not give this to someone else to come out and to do but to integrate very much into the history and the theme of everything else that is taking place but that is a decision that will made downstream. 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: Where I am going with this is that there is a certain part of it, which has 46 a functional aspect to it, which is really the elevator aspect to it. Then from that height on up is City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 21 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 more of an artistic aspect and I am trying to find some middle ground here. If we did go ahead and approve the full height on it there might conditions or criteria associated with it that does. p_ut it into the artistic realm to. be assured that it is an artistic expression. Ms. Wasserman: We did condition it to come back for review. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I had one other question for Staff. Is there any height limitation for art in Palo Alto? Are there any criteria limiting the height of artistic pieces? Mr. Turner: I think that we could see those types of pieces perhaps as a structure that might be one way to take a look at it and structures are limited to specific heights depending upon the district. In this district 50 feet would be the maximum height. If it was not a structure but perhaps a statue I think that we could still want to meet the intent of the height rules even though it may not be defined as a structure. I think that we would probably apply ... Commissioner Lippert: You didn’t mean statue you meant sculpture, correct? Mr. Turner: Or a Sculpture. Commissioner Lippert: I would like to point out that both myself and Amy French I think are probably the two professionals in the room that have gone to art school. Ms. Wasserman: I beg to differ. Chair Burt: Okay. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I think pretty much my question was answered. The last comment was that I think architects would consider themselves artists. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I beg to differ with my fellow Commissioners. I get a sense that the height limitation of 50 feet is being rather inappropriately applied to this tower because it does have the purposes that were so eloquently described. Having experienced projects of approximately this size or actually a little smaller it would have been quite an advantage to have sort of a place marker for reference so that one knew where one was. I think it makes the entire project look a little smaller or more inviting and more of a community to have something of that height because the buildings are the height they need to be because of constraints of the location. We can go back .and forth on the discussion about whether it is or is not appropriate but I think the Architectural Review Board understand the importance of that for the entire project. We recognize this is a unique project and one where we are very much in favor of the objectives of it. I think this tower plays a very large part in trying to achieve those objectives and I am very much in support of it. Chair Burt: Let me take a little bit different angle on it. First I am comfortable with ~cknowledging the reasoning for the tower as a way-finding component, as providing a sense of City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 22 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 place, and as being an object of art. I think that it would achieve those things. The struggle that I have is that I think it falls outside of the policy framework that we have been operating under for years. The project itself has height variances that would be considered very significant, o~?er the last 15 or 20 years inthis community these are probably the most significant height variances that have been allowed and they have been allowed because of the particular circumstances of the project site along with the aggregate benefits of the project itself and the value that the community places on the project itself. I can tell you if this were a normal commercial project I doubt very much that these height variances would have been granted. It is the special nature of this project that has caused those to have the support that .they have. So my question to our ARB representative and Staff is that given that a structure like this can provide all of the benefits that Mr. Steinberg has articulated for a project in general where do we feel about these kinds of artistic components of this scale in other projects? Is this something that we now would say is an approved practice? I am not passing judgment on whether I would or would not support that sort of recommendation to change our policies to allow for something like that. I think that is a valid policy discussion that perhaps should occur. How does it fundamentally differ from if the developers of 800 High Street had an artistic component that enhanced their project and many of the same things that Mr. Steinberg has described and made it architecturally and artistically a better looking project and stood up 40 feet above its current height? How would we feel about that or any pi’oject in the City? Why couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to any project? Mr. Turner: Well, in looking at this project and in considering the exceptions that are being asked we do want to make.sure that there are unique conditions and circumstances that apply generally to this site and this site alone. We do that so that we don’t create a precedent. If an applicant wanted to come in and suggest a new building with similar heights we would take a look at that and make a judgment on that proposal based upon the findings that we would have to make in order to grant it. So although you can see this as perhaps precedent setting for the neighborhood Staff really does try to do a good job in determining the unique conditions and making sure that we do not set a precedent for granting of variances. Mr. C. Williams: I would like to add to that that I think that theoretically anyone could ask for that and a Board could look at that and advise us on it. I think the reason why it is appealing in this circumstance is because while this is a privately owned project it has many, many public components to it. I think that distinguishes it from most other projects. It has shared recreation facilities, it has the cultural hall, which will be used for public events ten times a year or whatever the number is, it has accessibility to the public in many ways and the programs there. I think that is a big difference and it is part of the public benefit package that they are proposing, a large part of it is that public connection. So I think that we see that as being different. I don’t know ifARB sees that as being a distinction as well but that is certainly something that we see in this project that makes it possible and something to be considered that 800 High or many other projects would not have. There is sort of a reason to maybe call attention to that plaza area in the center of the development in that way. Ms. Wasserman: I think that is a really excellent question because this is the sort of thing that we should be facing all the time which is the desire to create something kind of new and exciting and see how it fits into the City and how it can enhance the urban fabric and the life of the citizens. The reason that we have a 50-foot height limit is not because a tall stick is a bad stick it Ci.ty of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 23 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 is because we don’t want a tall city with canyon-like streets and buildings looming over us. So if you keep that in mind then this kind of spire has nothing to do with that at all. It is the absolute reverse. It looms over ngthing. People keep saying you are not going to be able to see it fr6rn- the surrounding area, to which I say, "oh, phoo, that is too bad." We should be able to see this because it is going to be a great thing to have in our town. We shouldn’t be so fixated on the, I don’t know exactly how to put it, the letter or the specifics that we lose sight of the big picture. Yes, if there was some project had - there would be no reason for 800 High Street to have a tower that would help them with way finding they are an internal project. But if there was another project of similar scale that needed this sort of thing or to which it would be a benefit I definitely think we should consider it. Do I think we are going to have Coit Towers all over Palo Alto? No, I don’t think it is going to happen. I think if we get one or more than this I will be really surprised. It is a unique situation. It is not a situation of if we let them do it everybody is going to do it.. Nobody is going to want to do it. Why would you want a 10-foot square spire in the middle of your project? It is not getting you anything unless it really adds to the project. It is like let your FAR govern your height limit. Nobody is going to build a 100-foot building that big. They are going to build buildings that work. Chair Burt: I think those are great points. I would just clarify that the issue isn’t whether it is a 10-foot square spire but whether it would be a prominent artistically oriented architectural component that would exceed that. Paula and then Dan. Ms. Wasserman: A good thing, too. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I appreciated your comments earlier and since I am still in my freshman year here, I am not intimately familiar with all of our policies, I would certainly like to see a discussion of some kind of policy change if there need be one to accommodate something as interesting for the eye as this tower can be. I am having a lot of trouble - I guess I am not sure why it is so offensive when it is as tall as but not nearly as bulky as that unfortunate structure that currently exists on the site. I drove by today and that Sun building has boarded up windows. In my opinion it is blighted and that area is blighted. I just feel so - not being an architect but being an appreciator, I appreciate the element of the tower in this project. I appreciate the texture of this design that not everything is flat and one-sided. I know this isn’t my purview because I am not on the Architectural Review Board and that is not what this meeting is about but I certainly wanted to lend m3) support and make supportive comments about what I think is going to be a wonderful landmark for our community and what I think is going to be a catalyst for . redevelopment and upgrading of that San Antonio corridor. I think that personally it will enhance my pride in my community to have something as new and interesting and as exciting as this. Ithink the tower is a component of that. I guess that is all I need to say about that. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I want to Second your comments, Judith. It is very well stated. The point I intended to make was that when we speak of the 50-foot height.limit we need to look at the purpose of that policy. The purpose of that policy does not apply in this situation City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 24 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 except if you have a terrible fear of setting precedent and have no faith in either Staff or any policy-makers that follow us that they would be able to distinguish this from an over 50 foot structure that would be i.nappropriate and offensive. So I have no prOblem whatsoe£er withtl~ spire as you call it. I also want to.point out that it is unfortunate that it will not be visible from other spaces because we have often talked in the past, it hasn’t come up recently, of gateways into our City. Of somehow marking the entrance to our City and San Antonio Road is not one of the best gateways we have. I think this spire is something that would add a lot to that area and to that entrance to our City. Chair Burt: I will just a response to that as I said before I think the arguments on behalf of the tower are persuasive and that this is will add benefit to the architectural aspects of the project. Having said that, I think it is beholden to the Commission and to the Staff and to the Council to be able to explain in a clear way, not just that we like this and it is a neat thing, but what are the reasons why we feel that what was perceived as a policy should not apply. I think we have to be able to make those arguments in a sound way and what it suggest is that if we are able to make those arguments in the case of a specific project then we probably need to look at the basis for that in the context of policy. I do not agree that questioning those things and holding ourselves accountable and the project developer accountable for an answer to the community for what perceptions there may have been about the context of that height limit shows a complete lack of faith or a fear of precedent or any of those things. That is not my point of view. So any characterization to that affect I would like to clarify that that’s not my reasoning. So, having said that, it sounds like we have addressed the tower issue in good depth. Who would like to move on to another issue? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I think about single family residences that are currently located in flood planes and that in those cases where houses need to be elevated up out of the flood plane we do make allowances for those houses to in fact have minor protrusions into the daylight plane and even in some cases exceed the height limit a little. So what I am thinking of here these are multi- family residences, the majority of the site is, and again it is the same sort of development where this does need to be an elevated building. So in general the whole plan I see us being able to allow for that whole element to be raised up out of the flood plane accordingly. In addition to that I think that not just the tower but the comer building where you have the public theater building there is a significant element there also that is asked for relief for height because it contains mechanical there. What it does it is create a distinction among all the other buildings in that area. I think a lot of us have been to Europe and we have observed villages and cities in Europe and if you notice there are certain elements that do peak up above all the other surrounding buildings there to alert you to their function and that they are there. So I think in some ways what Architect Steinberg here is in some .ways a small village and those elements do need to identify themselves above the other elements of that small town. Chair Burt: Dan. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 25 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: I really don’t want to dominate the questions so if they want to kick ~e under the table they are welcome to. Let’s go back to the cultural hall and focus on Charleston here for a moment, which has been a focus of mine over the last several meetings that the pl~oj~ct has been before the Commission. Just a couple of questions before i have a question directly for the architect and this is of Staff. This is a commercial area as opposed to a residential or a retail one. Perhaps Mr. Turner or Mr. Williams could succinctly describe some of the salient characteristics that differentiate a commercial from the other two. I am thinking specifically of how those projects address the street, what their criteria are. Are there a couple of salient things that would help us understand those differences. Mr. Turner: I think in this neighborhood in particular it is a neighborhood that has not seen a lot of development whereas other portions of Palo Alto have. This is a very unique area in Palo Alto where there are a widevariety of commercial and industrial uses. Within this area the design and architecture may be described as tilt-up buildings surrounded by parking, very little street trees, very little pedestrian activity, and a place where you really need to use your car to drive. Commissioner Garber: If I may interrupt you for a moment. However the areas that are in the City that are thought of as retail area such as California Avenue, Midtown, University, etc. have a very high level of street use because of the uses that are found along those streets. Residential has slightly less however it has a completely different sort of nature because it is residential. How would you describe the sort of street traffic treatments in a commercial area that would be different than those other ones? Mr. Turner: I think what you are saying then is how could we apply design characteristics to this site that would try to achieve some of the same results that are found in other commercial and retail areas? Commissioner Garber: If you like, sure. Mr. Turner: I think that there could be any number of ways. There could be a widening of a sidewalk, there could be additional street trees, there could be creating architecture that links both the private areas to the public areas. All of those would enhance an area. It may not turn into a retail-commercial area but it would start to bring these industrial areas closer to that. Commissioner Garber: So this site, which is introducing a_ of residential use but not in a traditional Palo Alto residential neighborhood, is sitting in a commercial area. Given just Charleston here are you expecting to see people along Charleston as you would in another commercial area where presumably not may people go. There are tracks and things of that sort. How is the Staff sort of reconciling or applying some values to that? Mr. Turner: Well, the opportunities are present in terms of the design to bring activity to the area. What I am thinking specifically along Charleston is the entry stairway from the public sidewalks up to the podium level and the cultural hall. There is also the Jewish senior residence porte-cochere where that would be a pick up and drop off area for the senior residences for the site. The opportunities for creating interaction in that area are there. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 26 of 57 2 Commissioner Garber: That is a perfect place to let me ask you a couple of different questions. 3 The drop off area is for the building that is all the way on the Fabian side of the street. IfI am 4 recalling correctly either bus stops or shuttle stops are along Charleston as well or do those only 5 occur on the Fabian side? 6 7 Mr. Turner: I believe that there is a VTA stop along Charleston. 8 9 Commissioner Garber: That would be, perhaps the architect could help us here, is that bus ..Stop 10 in front of the car drop off or before it? 11 12 Mr. C. Williams: It is very close to that. 13 14 Commissioner Garber: Very close to which? 15 16 Mr. C. Williams: To the driveway in off Charleston. 17 18 Commissioner Garber: Can you use your pointer, please? 19 20 Mr. Steinberg: It currently is approximately in that area. 21 22 Commissioner Garber: All right. So let’s just hold those thoughts for a moment and then for the 23 architect the cultural hall we know is going to be used certainly presumably the 10 times that it 24 has the agreement with the City. I assume it would be used more frequently than those 10 times 25 throughout the year. 26 27 Mr. Steinberg: Yes. 28 29 Commissioner Garber: Presumably it is for larger events that are occurring on evenings and 30 weekends things of that sort as opposed to during the day. Is that a correct assumption? 31 32 Mr. Steinberg: Perhaps with your permission I should ask a representative from the campus to 33 share with you how the operations of that would take place. 34 35 Commissioner Garber: Sure. 36 37 Ms. Sandy Sloan: Your question is is the cultural hall going to be used more at night than in the 38 day? 39 40 Commissioner Garber: I am trying to get a better understanding of how and when it will be 41 used. 42 43 Ms. Sloan: Well I think that it is anticipated that it would p~obably be used more in the evening 44 and it is also anticipated that it would be used more often on the weekends, not Friday night but 45 Saturday night would probably be the most common. Alan Sokaloffwho is the Executive City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 27 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Director of the JCC is here. He might be able to be more specific. Would you like to, be mor~ specific, Alan? Mr. Alan Sokaloff, Executive Director, Jewish Community Center: Hi. It is somewhat of a simple answer. It will probably be used 100 percent of the time that we are open for some use. There are few meeting spaces in the City so I gather that there will be many other not-for-profit organizations that would like to use the space for their meetings. Some of them may be small, some of them may be large, and it will be used during the day and also at night for meetings. Commissioner Garber: Okay. What I am trying to get at is when or how the sidewalk or street is going to be used in front of Charleston. Mr. Steinberg: The whole exposure on Charleston has a number of opportunities and some challenges. There is a fair amount of vehicular traffic and concern about impacting or impeding traffic flows on the corner. So for that reason we have been discouraged from having vehicular access into the site anywhere near the corner of the Site, having drop offs, having vehicular activity that could cause offsite congestion. So for that reason we have really moved and kept vehicles away from the corner intersection. Someone asked a little bit about or mentioned the idea of gateway and what the site will feel like as you come into the community. I will just step back a little bit as we go around the corner and share with you that right now as you move along Sun there is older vegetation that has sort of a soft edge but it is primarily parking and many of the tree have lived their natural life and are starting to thin out. What our proposal is is a very strong alley of trees, a double row 0ftrees, which are staggered that bring you all the way down San Antonio. As you move from the freeway and move through San Antonio I think that feel of this band of green and this alley of trees will be very powerful. I think it will be very consistent with the values that we put on trees and vegetation here in Palo Alto. As you come to the corner there is again a little different alley of trees that really begin to form a softening of the corner at the intersection itself. We have worked very closely with the ARB and are actually proposing somethinga little bit different. Instead of having the sidewalk and people walking along the traffic what we are proposing is actually taking the sidewalk and doing more of a meandering walk through this alley of trees, again sort of being able to begin to soften that corner. What we wanted to do even though we couldn’t have vehicular access at this point is we wanted to make really a very grand public gesture of welcoming to the community. So we have a very wide stairway that is not just a single run up but it is a few steps that go to a wider landing, a few steps that go to a wider landing, and again so that that transition from the street moving up and the view up is v, ery welcoming, very broad, very open. In fact if you look carefully at this drawing you will see that this part is the lobby to the cultural hall with the theater and the seating. This is a glass box it is all transparent. So at night you would be able to look up and see the people moving through, the activity as people are at intermission, during the day you would actually be able to see through that building. If you look very carefully you can see that not only have we taken these broad steps here we have actually carried them through the glass wall into the building. So what we are trying to do is make a very transparent, welcoming gesture in a grand civic way to the community. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 28 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Unfortunately we won’t have drop off and cars take the advantage of that but certainly anybody walking, taking public transportation, driving by would feel a very warm sense of arrival and welcome. We then go from that space because we are now moving from the busy intersection- more to the mid-block where we are starting to move into the residential. So we are transitioning from the plaza to a very soft, more natural kind of landscaping than the more geometric, the more urban kind of landscaping in order to make a very soft separation and transition to the housing. At that point there would be a curb cut that would allow vehicles to come in underneath the porte-cochere where they would be picked up by a valet and then taken into the garage. So we see quite a number, of different levels of activity both for someone passing through in a vehicle, someone at the pedestrian experience and someone arriving at the site. We have tried to address all of those in the presentation along Charleston. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have a question. People coming into the porte-cochere area that want to go up to the plaza and into your theater area but who are mobility limited how do they get there? Mr. Steinberg: People coming to this facility would be discouraged from using the residential entry. They would be encouraged to actually come not here but to come around the site and come in the main drop off and then there are several ways to get up to the plaza. There is elevator access right at the drop off so you could be dropped off and come right up to the plaza. You could come into the garage and there is a large opening in the garage with elevator access that brings you up to this part of the site or you could come to this part of the site and again there is elevator access with a large opening in the plaza that allows natural light and planting in the ground that would come up through the plaza that would give you both a sense of way-finding when you are in the garage and again a very graceful transition to go from the parking up to the podium level. Commissioner Cassel: So there is no way to into the porte-cochere area and come up and go directly to it. You either walk up or ..... Mr. Steinberg: If you were a resident of the senior housing you could. You could come in and you could go into your lobby, in your front door. You could come up one level and you could go internally through the building but that is a private residence and that is not being offered to anyone coming to the cultural hall. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Chair Burt: Lee and then Dan. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to follow up on one of Dan’s earlier questions. This is for the Executive Director of the facility. Alan, with regard to the cultural center facility you had indicated that it would be pretty much in operation the hours that the whole Jewish Community. Mr. R. Williams: Many of the hours that the facility would be open. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 29 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: So it could be leased out to say a corporation for their Board meeting or marketing purposes, correct? Mr. R. Williams: That possibility exists. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, and it could also be in operation for not just Jewish religious holidays but possibly other religious holidays if they needed a large space for worship as welt? Mr. R. Williams: Yes, it could be. It depends on what else is going on at the campus and we would have to look at parking and everything else to be sure we could accommodate it. We understand that we have a responsibility to overload the campus at any point in time. So any time we are looking at any kind of a rental we also have to look at everything else that. is going on on the campus. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Thank you. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I wanted to follow up on your description, Rob. What you have is a really wonderful pedestrian space on this podium and resolves itself in these very wide stairs, which beckon activity to occur on them. What concerns me is that people have some place to go to enjoy it that draws them there other than simply the opportunity to enjoy the architectural space. This gets to uses, etc. and comes back I think to some of the first sets of conversations we had back in September in the preliminary review about getting other uses on the street level there. If I am recalling from our past meetings on the Charleston edge we are significantly one, above the flood plane; two, outside of the issues but we wouldn’t be going beneath the soil in any case, and even if they are small they would give reason for people to utilize the stair as well as opening up access for those that may want to from the residence more easily go from the residence to that area in the way that you have described through the sort of meandering paths that you said. I think all those things would give greater use and would create more enjoyment and greater activity along that street so that we could avoid perhaps the comment that was in this which stated that the stairs were intended to serve no practical access. I would hope that they wouldn’t be just symbolic but there could also be ways to use and integrate them with the actual life and street and see that activity so it really connects with the community. Thos are comments. Mr. Steinberg: If we had submitted and I am not sure of that particular phrase but that sounds a little odd to me. Perhaps we left a word out here but certainly any stairs that we are putting in are meant to serve very definitely a purpose. I neglected to share with you one other thing and that is the current thinking is this particular piece right here is being reserved at the moment for a day spa that would be open to the public, residents and anyone that wanted to use it. We have located it there so it would have good if you will sort of commercial visibility that people would know that there is retail opportunities, that there are reasons to come here. So we definitely see these stairs as playing a role so if we misstated it in some of the documentation I apologize for that. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 30 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: I was just trying to make it meet your goals. Chair Burt: We are at nine o’clock. Should we go ahead and take a break at this time? about a 10-minute breal¢. Thank you. Who has next item, issues? Phyllis. Okay- Commissioner Cassel: Well let me touch a difficult one. I think I have two difficult ones in two different areas. The first one is noise and it isn’t the noise coming from off the site on the site that is all being mitigated and handled with standard techniques and methods. Rather, we have people who are very concerned about amplified noise coming from the site and offthe site to the offsite areas. We have talked about different ways of dealing with that. My first question is to Staff to see what the latest updated position on that is. Mr. Turner: As part of the Architectural Review Resolution there are conditions of approval and one of those conditions, condition number nine, specifically addresses amplified sound. Commissioner Cassel: Let me find that. Exactly where are you? This week’s report. Mr. Turner: Attachment D. Commissioner Cassel: In the Staff Report from this week. Mr. Turner: From this week. Commissioner Cassel: And it is in Attachment D? Mr. Turner: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: And then where are you? Mr. Turner:Page 10. Commissioner Cassel: This volume is the four Staff Reports. Okay, page 10. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Turner: So condition number nine on page 10 states that the condition relating to outdoor events with amplified sound limitations. Essentially what we are conditioning the project is that all amplified sound shall cease operations no later than ten o’clock in the evening seven days per week. Noise level shall not exceed the limits prescribed in the Noise Ordinance and if Staff receives substantial complaints about amplified sound these hours may be further restricted by the Director Planning or referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for review. Commissioner Cassel: Then we received a report that was done as a supplement to the EIR I believe from Salter Associates that talked about the noise. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 31 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Turner: That’s right. In that noise report I believe the conclusions were that any amplified sound would be still consistent with the Noise Ordinance and that essentially would meet th.e __. Noise Ordinance up to 1.0:30 in the evenings and Staff has taken that under consideration and restricted that slightly further so that ten o’clock was the cutoff time. Mr. Larkin: If I can just add one of the recommendations that I would make if this was approved by the Commission would be that this condition get put into the PC Ordinance itself so that we can quantify those Noise Ordinance regulations. There actually isn’t a specific noise ordinance that applies to the outdoor, plazas but the intent of the condition would be that the residential Noise Ordinance would apply. Commissioner Cassel: I know that amplified noise can be done well and not go offsite. I know that it can be done poorly and drive everyone nuts. If it is done right no one is going to hear it. If it is not done right it can really be annoying. Is there any way to measure this from offsite to see if people are hearing it and put that in the conditions? Mr. Turner: Well, part of the conditions also include regular communication between the nearest neighborhood, the Palo Verde Neighborhood and the JCC. What we have requested and they would most likely do this anyway is to trade contact information so if the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association hears from the residents that there is a problem with noise then the neighborhood association can contact the JCC and determine what happened on a particular night and is there a way to tone it down and what adjustments can be made in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again. So we feel that the neighborhood association is going to be very interested to make sure that there are not any noise impacts and if there are the City wants the neighborhood association and the JCC to work it out. Now certainly if there is excessive noise that does not meet the residential Noise Ordinance the City wants to be involved and make sure that those are corrected. Commissioner Cassel: Could we put in our PC a conditional use permit for amplified noise in general so that it could be withdrawn if it doesn’t comply? Mr. Larkin: We could craft language that would allow for the revocation of the right to have amplified noise in the courtyard and we could craft some language that would do that and put that into the PC ordinance. Commissioner Cassel: That would then allow the amplified music which when done well will not be heard but gives some leg to handle it if it doesn’t. Mr. Larkin: I won’t be able to do it on the spot but I think that is language that we can develop. Commissioner Cassel: I guess I am interested to see if other Commissioners would be so interested. Chair Burt: Lee. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 32 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to remind you that during the last hearing we had a lengthy discussion and we decided that the residents of the senior element are probably going to be the biggest critics in terms of the loudness of the amplified music. If anything they are ~oing tohg*e the most to say about it ~is the closest people living near the source. Commissioner Cassel: That is what we heard but that depends on the event that is happening perhaps. It is the neighbors beyond that that are extremely concerned and I guess I am aware that you can have enough knowledge of the subject to know that you can in fact have amplified music in this area and have it under control and have it function very well and not be heard beyond this particular kind of structure or buildings that they have. I am also aware that people doing a gig could care less and it is too late. So it needs some kind of balance I think in that we need some way to be able to have control. My concern is how do you say no if you have nothing to apply that. Chair Burt: While I recognize Commissioner Lippert’s.point that the absolute exposure to the noise may be greatest to the seniors there as we have in many projects we recognize that if someone is acquiring a property or moving into a property with that as an understood condition that is different from a new exposure being imposed on someone who didn’t buy into that. It doesn’t mean we have an overwhelming problem necessarily but that is how I would make a distinction and I think we have in the past as well. Any other comments on that? Phyllis, could you repeat what you would be recommending? ~ Commissioner Cassel: What I am suggesting is that we add to the language of the PC document a conditional use for amplified sound up until ten o’clock at night. Thepurpose of that is that if there are problems that don’t resolve when a neighborhood association or a group of neighbors calls who are having a problem then we have some way to have leverage to get that problem corrected. Chair Burt: So it gives Staff greater discretion to respond if there should be a problem, correct? Commissioner Cassel: As you know we have problems with the Noise Ordinance being enforced. Mr. C. Williams: I just wanted to add that we are fine with trying to craft some language like that as this moves along. I was just talking to Don and I think the language probably would not specifically be a conditional use permit but it would be an equivalent that allows us the same kind of enforcement potential. Chair Burt: So when we go to make motions you will have suggested language or is that at a later time? Mr. C. Williams: Well our suggested language would probably be that we include a condition in the PC Ordinance that provides for these restrictions on noise levels in an enforceable manner equivalent to a conditional use permit. Chair Butt: Okay. Lee. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 33 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: We did have one other situation that was very similar to this which was with regard to Antonio’s Nut House and the residents that lived immediately adjacerit to that Site. In that case what we had done is we had requested that on an annual basis I believe that in fact if there had been any complaints that it be brought before us. Maybe a similar sort of situation could be applied here where say the first four years of operation it be reviewed just on an annual basis to see that it is not creating a problem. Chair Burt: That might be a good approach. I would be a little hesitant to try to define the best approach tonight as opposed to something more along the lines of what Curtis suggested but when we get to that vote we will hear more precisely Staff’s language. Mr. C. Williams: I just want to add that I do have some concern with that because it sort of assumes that there is going to be a problem and I just as soon not equate them with Antonio’s Nut House as far as potential noise. I would rather go the other way. It is certainly up to the Commission but I would rather go the other way and assume there is not a problem but have an enforceable mechanism. If there does end up being a problem then maybe we go to something like that. Commissioner Cassel: And an enforceable ordinance of some sort usually comes here for appeal so we don’t have to do that since we are not having problems. We just want to give ourselves a little leverage. Chair Burt: Great. Anyone have next issues? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have another issue but I didn’t know if anyone else wanted to go first. The TDM program. Most of the TDM program is very good. In addition to the standard items in the TDM program many residents onsite will be participating and active in the events onsite, which will provide its own TDM program. I am concerned however, and this goes back to the shuttle question that Lee was talking about, I am concerned that trying to get employee use up for mass transit is going to be very difficult because this is the kind of site in which employees are not coming for the most part from nine to five or eight to four. They are coming on. rotating shifts for all of the different uses because they are part-time and they are covering a recreation program from three to seven in the evening or because they are providing meals to people in the senior residence and they come at six o’clock and leave at 2:30 in afternoon. They come seven days a week So it is not where you have the majority of the people coming at the same time. There is a great deal of potential in doing something with people who are coming to use the JCC site in general. So my concern is that even though they have added in the fact that they will be doing some public education and some incentives for those people show are coming to use the site that it still doesn’t provide any assurance of good bus service or good shuttle service for in particular students who are coming from the schools to use the after school program at that time of day and people who need to get to the publictransit that is available. ~ Now it is possible that the 88 bus can cut over from Meadow which will then take it closer to the East Meadow Circle for both businesses and the new apartments and new homes that are there and then cross over to Fabian and come down Fabian to pick up people who are from the new Jewish high school that is City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 34 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 in that area, the businesses there, this site and then go back down Charleston towards where tl~e 35 bus comes down and then down to the train station or something of that sort. The 88 goes down Charleston but crosses the 35 which gives you connection into more frequent 15uses. Ifttiat doesn’t happen then we ~eally don’t have a good bus near this site. I would rather like to add a condition that some kind of shuttle service be added for these uses if the arrangements can’t be made to either help fund the shuttle service we have to provide that service or to convince the VTA to make that extra route. Even then there is some need to deal with the schools. This is kind of a long way around but I am kind of wondering how the rest of you are -feeling about that portion of the TDM program. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I don’t want to get into - there is a fine line between micro managing the TDM program and actually making it work but would conditioning running the shuttle service for the employees of the senior housing down to the San Antonio Train Station during hours that those employees would be coming and going from work alleviate some of your concerns? Commissioner Cassel: I guess I was thinking in a broader sense of other people beyond employees. Employees in these kinds of situations work such erratic hours and some of them will be able to use public transit and some of them will because they are very low income many of them so they will use public transit but there are just so many more people involved and there is so much more potential. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I understand your concerns Phyllis and I don’t want to go into specifying how things are handled in the TDM program. I would ask Staff.what their suggestion would be. How would they like to receive direction from us to make further inquiry and to try to craft some sort of TDM plan that they would find acceptable in addressing the concerns that Phyllis and I share? Mr: C. Williams: You might want to ask the applicant if they have any ideas about the ways they could that but I think we would probably suggest that if that is your inclination that we add to the requirements related to the TDM program that they incorporate a shuttle component of that and if you want to throw out some ideas as far it perhaps provide service to the train station and you might enumerate a couple different places but leave any of the details of that to Transportation Staff to work with the applicant on making that change to the TDM program. Chair Burt: Would the applicant’s representatives like to comment on this? Mr. Baer: Yes, we appreciate the advice Staff has given and would ask you the collective experience of those of you talking about transportation alternatives in a difficult comer of the City we really respect and recognize. To impose that as a condition when you ask in your two questions of the applicant and Staff last time looked at client programs and go to a 20 percent target we responded precisely to those asks. Council will have heard this issue that you are yoicing tonight the costs are so large the ability to be predicting the effectiveness of different City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 35 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 elements of the program that if you said let’s make this a condition we would all be figuring but how to negotiate so the Council would modify that condition rather than making clear your concern and we have some time to work with Staff and look at our Own analysis of ~vhat wbuld be the most effective wfiys to achieve the objective. We have heard you we just don’t want to be in a circumstance where impromptu a set of conditions are issues that we know are extremely costly and complex and figure out how do we get the highest effectiveness out of what it is you are asking without tying ourselves to a shuttle cost that we can’t predict the success of. But we really hear you and understand the importance of employees and after school kinds of opportunities. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your comments, Jim. I agree we should not impose a condition that requires a shuttle. I think that may be a solution but I think that is something for you and Staff discuss and work on together. So I would see us crafting a motion that would include reference to this and directing to the extent we can that Staff seek some agreement with the applicant. Chair Burt: First, Curtis could you repeat what you were suggesting as possible language to address this issue? Mr. C. Williams: What I had suggested was essentially that the TDM program and I would modify this now but let say first what I said before which is that the TDM include a shuttle component that provides access to a variety of users and destination such as for schools and for train station and employees but leave that then for us to work withthe applicant as to how that happens. I think it would probably be better to make that motion as separate from a condition and tell us that you would like us to work with them to address that issue of enhancing those kinds of access whether it is through a shuttle or some other means as part of that TDM program when it goes to Council. Chair Burt: Thank you. Dan. Commissioner Garber: If I am understandingCommissioner Cassel’s concern part of the TDM is the coordinated management of the various aspects of the program as it goes along. Perhaps the language you are talking about is simply writing in another criteria to be monitored such that if it becomes an issue there is a contingency or a way of addressing that as it goes forward. Chair Burt: So I am glad that we have a framework for that issue. I think we share that concern that that’s an area that needs to be strengthened and I think it goes back two years in the discussion of this. It is a comer of the City that is not well served by public transportation. We may also see that with the development of this project and others in that area that we will be able to get additional county bus service in that area as well. That would compliment whatever action is going on here. So I think Commissioner Cassel is correct the most likely way that we can reduce trips is by finding ways that local users of the facility will do something other than drive their cars there. So other than the shuttle the other big one is bicycle trips. There will be people who will live close enough that they will actually walk there but I think there is a greater. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 36 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 potential in bicycle trips. The project can’t do much on dealing with bicycle use outside theft project although the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan should help facilitate bicycle travel to this destination. I did want to look a little more deeply at how the bicycles are addrdssed orice- they arrive at the vicinit) of the campus and within the campus. Just one example that I noticed was that I think it is the driveway that goes in from Fabian the plan described sharing a sidewalk between bicycles and pedestrians and that runs contrary to our bicycle plan for roadways in the public area. This is on private land but I would like to see that sort of thing readdressed. Now you are not going to have .bikes running around throughout all these buildings once people arrive but could Staff and if the applicant would like to comment on it could both parties address a little bit more the bicycle master plan for this development. Mr. Steinberg: The way that we would like to encourage bicycles to arrive at the site is really from Fabian. So the bicyclist would come in what we refer to as sort of our loop drive, the main entrance to the site, there are sidewalks on both sides of the entry drive that take you down to a plaza at the termination of that drive and there bike racks both in this location and bike racks in that location. There are elevators adjacent to both of those aswell as a stair, a major stair, which would take you up to the podium. The policy is to discourage bicycles on top of the podium but you would arrive at the site, the main entrance, there would be multiple opportunities to store bikes in secure areas in the garage and then to come up. Chair Burt: So on that main entrance from Fabian your intention is to have bikes and pedestrians share the same sidewalk, is that correct? Mr. Steinberg: Yes it is. Chair Burt: Have you looked at the potential for segregating bikes and pedestrian in that key area? Mr. Steinberg: No we haven’t. It is certainly possible but there are a number of things going on within that space. We are trying to balance the needs of it. The policy that we have talked about is encouraging people as they arrive at the site to dismount and to walk their bikes and to share the sidewalk with pedestrians as you move along the site. If we wanted to separate bikes and pedestrians it is going to be at the expense of landscape along that entry drive. I think that there probably is a way that we could share that space and that is the direction that we have been going to date. Chair Burt: My sense is that your optimism on getting bicyclists to dismount on entrance is maybe a little wishful. Mr. Steinberg: Perhaps. Ms. Sloan: You can ride your bicycle on the street too. So I think in reality probably most people will ride their bicycle in the lane where the cars go and then cut over. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 37 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Okay. Does Staffhave any comments on either the internal bicycle use, which fire predominantly that big entry drive and the approaches from Fabian and elsewhere and how well the ease and the safety of bicyclist are promoted by the design? ....... Mr. C. Williams: I will let Dennis make comments here in a second. I haven’t looked at this real extensi~,ely but I guess one comment I would have or question I would have is if somebody is coming on Charleston on a bicycle I sort of doubt that they are going to try to go all the around to Fabian to that entrance. I kind of wonder what happens if they turn in there at the Charleston entrance and how the applicants see that working. It seems like it would be useful to have access for cyclists coming in there because I think the reality is that they are going to. If they can’t get there straight from there somehow they are going to get up and be riding on the podium. So it looks like maybe there could be some more work done in terms of making that access work too. Chair Burt: We have our transportation consultant. Mr. Dennis Struecker, Korve Engineering: The best access for bikes to the site would be off Fabian that is where we have the class two bikeways. Curtis is correct that Charleston at least today would not be the best way to get there. As far as coming in offthe Fabian entrance in terms of safety it is going to be a traffic driveway but it is not going to be a high-speed driveway. So Sandy is correct that the bicyclists in the absence of striped lanes would probably stay on the road and be there with the cars. Because of the low speed I don’t think it would be a big safety issue. To put bike lanes there you are talking four or five feet on each side of the road to have striped lanes there and that space has to come out of someplace and as the architect said it is probably going be the landscaping. So that is really the tradeoff that you are looking at. Chair Burt: Right and I appreciate it is a tradeoff. I fully anticipate that we will not only have adults who will be coming and some of the adults will be comfortable with sharing a lane with cars and some will be less so. More importantly we are going to have families arriving and parents will be coming with their young children on bikes and I can tell you parents are paranoid about kids interacting with vehicles coming and going. I am not saying it can’t be done safely but I think it is something that has to be looked at. My first sense here is that we need to go further than we have tO try to promote the bike safely. It is probably in the end going to be one of the most cost-effective ways to meet ihe TDM requirements. So just from that standpoint doing as much as we can to promote the bike trips is going to be a lot less expensive than paying for buses. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: In that subject if there is a way to come in if you are coming down Charleston, we are not going to have a whole lot of people coming north on Charleston but we will have some and if they are going into the theater area they would tend to want to and try to find a way to come in the porte-cochere and go into there or go in the valet entrance into there and park underneath the theater area. I would hope that there is some way tO do that, it won’t be a large quantity, and some way to park a bicycle safely over there. I am not going to put that in the motion or anything I just think that knowing bicycles, knowing myself when I ride a bicycle I am not going to want to come all the way down, go all the way around and go all the way back. I am going to find some other way to do that if I have to get off and walk. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 38 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Maybe where we are headed on this one is similar to the shuttle issue. Maybe we can look for Staffto suggest language that would encourage improved addressing of these issues as opposed to u~ attempting at this point in time to come up with specific solutions. -Mr. - Steinberg. Mr. Steinberg: We are happy to explore that with Staff. One of the challenges that we have is a requirement for security and controlled entrances to that garage. So for that reason we have limited and have very controlled points of entry to the garage. So we are happy to explore this but there are a series of complications that go with opening different points of access that are uncontrolled to the garage. Perhaps that is something that we can deal with but right now entry from this area goes into a controlled and secured valet parking for the senior housing. There are a number of piecesthat all have to respond and we are happy to continue to explore that idea. Commissioner Cassel: Your very limited access for bicycles is going to backfire someplace if you don’t find a better one. They are either going to carry them upstairs onto the patio or something or tie them to the trees or something. Mr. Steinberg: Okay. Chair Burt: Could you explain a little more when you were talking about the way in which the garage security entrance tied in with the issues that we were raising? I am not quite following the connection because when Commissioner Cassel for instance was talking about the entrance from east Charleston I think she was envisioning that they wouldn’t necessarily go to the garage. Commissioner Cassel: I did but I think it is not worth discussing here tonight. I think the point is that I think that needs some work on it. Chair Burt: Sounds good. Mr. Steinberg: Thank you. Chair Burt: Okay. I think .we will be hearing back from Staff when we go to make motions and they will have some language suggestions to address that. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I am sorry but I have a number of these. This is the last One I think. The parking situation as far as I can see is well parked for everyday activities that isn’t the question. The question that came up was event parking and my first question on that is we need to have not at this point in this ordinance but somewhere along the line a definition of what a special event is that is going to trigger it. What the numbers are going to be or how you are going to do that. If you leave it just at 380 when you fill that hall it will be easy to plan an event that doesn’t quite fill the hall. We need some number like 80 percent or 85 percent or something of the hall. That may not be the whole issue. The issue may be that other things are happening at the same time. So I don’t think you have a definition of it in this that I could find. Now it may be that I couldn’t find it there is a lot of data here. As you work along I think you need to come to an agreement of what a special event is and what special events are actually going to trigger parking offsite. That City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 39 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 can be a different number on a weekend, a much larger number on a weekend, there are 400 - parking spaces. There may be a number for the weekend for big fest!vals and that k!nd of th-i.n_g. Chair Burt: Curtis. Mr. C. Williams: Currently on page 13 of Attachment D with the project conditions is the requirement that shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking be provided for special events. We talked a little bit today in considering this because we were aware of this issue. Where it says for special events that we could be more specific there and say for events that involve more than say 350 or 380 is the number they have been using, but say 350 expected attendees at the cultural hall and/or outdoor events or something like that so that we are addressing anything that is happening outside the cultural hall. Now if that is happening in addition to the cultural hall being generally full or close to full then that is something that ought to also trigger that. It might be just an outdoor festival but if it were generating that kind of traffic then that also would cause the need for us to address this potential overflow parking issue. Commissioner Cassel: In my Opinion this is only weekdays and you need a larger number for weekends. There isn’t a number for weekends you presume there is nothing but if is a very large event and that won’t happen very often it will need something on a weekend I would think. This place can hold a lot of people. Mr. C. Williams: That’s right. We can ask Dennis to look at what the number was on the weekends and how much additional .... Commissioner Cassel: They have about 400 parking spaces on a weekend. Mr. C. Williams: So if it is 200 then maybe the number instead of being 350 on the weekend is 500 or something like that. Commissioner Cassel: People coming from offsite because there are people onsite that are already parked. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: A question with regard to the special events. Who holds the responsibility for handling that? Would it be the people putting on the event or the facility itselt’?. The reason I ask this question is we are given as part of the public benefit 10 events a year for the City. So would the City then be responsible for taking care of the traffic elements associated with that or would the Campus for JewishLife be responsible as the owner of the property? Mr. C. Williams: The owner would be responsible for providing us with documentation of how they are going address that concern and then for the operations that are involved in addressing that. The City is not going to provide for the parking monitoring or stiuttling people back and City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 40 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 forth that is all the property owner’s job and then they work out with the operator of the special event. Or are you just talking about the City events? Commissioner Lippert: Not just City events. Mr. C. Williams: Most City events I think clearly are the owner’s responsibility to take care of. The City events I guess that might be a different issue if additional parking is required for that but I think all of those details and Jim Baer can probably elaborate on this Some more as far as City events will be encompassed in the agreement that will be drawn up with the Parks and Community Services Department. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: In thinking about Some of the previous conversation let me just come back to in the ordinance page nine, Permitted Use, there are three that are called out Continuing Care, Retirement Community, Community Center Use, Parking Garage. Within the Community Center Use are captured the spa I believe in there was also ifI am recalling a community like stop and shop sort of facility inside up on the podium. Is that correct? And that would be inside as a part of those uses that would be in there, a small store of some sort. Mr. Steinberg: Yes, there is a small gift shop. Commissioner Garber: So ihat use is captured inside the community center use description. Mr. Turner: There is. Part of the description of community center use is... Commissioner Garber: Oh, retail and personal services. Mr. Turner: That’s right eating and drinking services. Commissioner Garber: So my question really for the other Commissioners is does it make sense and perhaps it should be first asked of the Staff if it the ordinance can be used in this way, does it make sense to give the owner flexibility to introduce other retail uses to create another use that allows that to occur whether they utilize that or not? Commissioner Cassel: What other use would you need? That is pretty broad. Commissioner Garber: I am thinking about the opportunity of- well, here is the thing. What this suggests is that all of this is sort of internal to the activity that occurs on the podium. What I am trying to do is give them the latitude to bring activity down to the street. Commissioner Cassel: You mean such as along the Fabian Way entrance where they are going to have other community group activities or offices? Commissioner Garber: It certainly could be or say that there are coffee shops or something of that sort that are adjacent to the theater or the cultural hall but along Charleston for instance. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 41 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 They would obviously if they are on the street then they are not obviously serving just the residences they are also serving the more general community as well. Commissioner Cassel: Such as a mobile cart that sells coffee? Commissioner Garber: No I am think ofa Starbuck’s that they can walk into. That is just an example. Commissioner Cassel: You just want to get permission in case they change that. Commissioner Garber: Right. I want to give them the opportunity because I think once again it extends the project into the community. Mr. Turner: Staff in establishing the permitted uses on the site did not specifically identify those areas on the development plan that would be used as community center use. You could assume .that the continuing care retirement community would be in the areas where the residential units are located but that doesn’t necessarily mean that at the podium level of a residential building a small retail space or eating and drinking facility could be located technically in the residential building but it would still be a part of an allowed community center use. So we didn’t strictly define again where those uses could be located. It wouldn’t preclude a similar use to take place in the garage or at the perimeter of the site. Commissioner Garber: So the way that it is written, would not preclude that from occurring? Mr. Turner: No. Commissioner Garber: They would nothave to come back and ~ipply for a change? Mr. Turner: No, we would see that as all permitted. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Mr. C. Williams: The only caveat being that it be within the square footage of use that we are talking about. If it were some addition of 5,000 square feet in addition to that then we would have to look at that and it would be an amendment at that point. Commissioner Garber: If it goes above 5,00,0 square feet? Mr. C. Williams: If it were a few hundred square feet it is probably something that at Staff level we could deal with but if it gets to be much more substantial then it affects parking requirements and those kinds of things so we have to look at it differently. But certainly within the square footage that is outlined here there is some flexibility to be able to locate that a little differently. Chair Burt: Annette. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 42 of 57 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Bialson: I am hoping that we are now at a point where we could consider making a motion. Are we there yet? I understand you have finished your final comments. Chair Burt: Do we have any other major issues that people want to bring up? Okay. So I think we might want to just first do the motion on the FEIR and then projects or we could roll it all together. Commissioner Bialson: I am interested in the logistics so to speak of how we would roll this together. Whether the Staff would like me to make a motion sort of tracking the language set forth in the recommendation in agenda item two and then agenda item three with the modifications that were suggested by Staff and another modification with regard to the noise condition. Then it sounded like you wanted a separate motion with respect to some of the other things we have talked about the TDM. Mr. Turner: I think perhaps your first motion should be on the environmental document and if you can find that per Staff’s recommendation that the impacts have been addressed adequately in the document and make a motion on that then that would cover both projects. Then you can start to make a motion on each individual project. Chair Burt: So the sequence as I understand it would be motion on the FEIR, then a motion to cover the BUILD development and then a motion to cover the Campus for Jewish Life and there might be a supplementary motion on item three. Mr. Turner: That is fine. That is appropriate. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Okay. So do you want me to proceed on that? I would like to propose a motion that finds the FEIR adequately addressing the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. I know that the CEQA Resolution is provided as Attachment B to both agenda item two and agenda item three. I don’t need to speak to that motion I think we have addressed it already. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Burt: Okay. We have a motion to approve the FEIR on items number two and three by Commissioner Bialson and seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Any discussion? Then I would like to call the vote. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes by a vote of six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 43 of 57 1 Commissioner Bialson: Fine. Can we go on then to the next motion, which would be with - 2 respect to agenda item two and I would be tracking the language? Do you want me to restate it 3 of the Staff recommendation? No, I don’t think you want me to. "- ~- 4 5 Then I think with respect to that looking at these additional items that we have spoken about I 6 think the special event definition in terms of triggering the offsite parking, the additional work 7 regarding the bicycle access. 8 9 Mr. C. Williams: Excuse me, this is the item two the BUILD project. 10 11 Commissioner Bialson: All these are separate motions because they come after three as well, is 12 that correct? 13 14 Mr. C. Williams: They relate to item three the CJL project. 15 16 MOTION 17 18 Commissioner Bialson: So you want me to bring them into three. So ignore the rest of it. The 19 motion is with respect to proposing Staff’ s recommendation with regard to all the items that are 20 set forth on the page of the Staff Report. 21 22 Chair Burt: So that would be recommendations two, three, four and five of the Staff Report on 23 agenda item number two. 24 25 Commissioner Bialson: That is correct. 26 27 Chair Burt: Okay, do we have a second? 28 " 29 SECOND 30 31 Commissioner Sandas: Second. 32 33 Chair Butt: Seconded by Commissioner Sandas with the motion by Commissioner Bialson. 34 Any comments? 35 36 Commissioner Bialson: No comments. 37 38 Commissioner Cassel: I made my comments earlier in that summary. 39 40 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) 41 42 Chair Burt: Anyone else have any comments to the motion? All right then we will take a vote. 43 All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes by a six to zero vote with 44 Commissioner Holman recused. 45 City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 44 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 So now we can move to item number three on the agenda, which is the Campus for Jewish Life. Commissioner Bialson would you like to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Yes I would. This motion would be with respect to Staff’s recommendations two, three, four, five and six however with regard to four we would be striking the words ’findings for the DEE’ in the first line of item number four. In addition the motion would include a condition being included in the ordinance, which would be regulating noise equivalent to what we have in the residential requirements, by some means equivalent to a conditional use permit, some sort of enforceable mechanism. Commissioner Cassel: I think that we want the noise to end at ten o’clock as it says in the ordinance. Commissioner Bialson: Excuse me? Commissioner Cassel: You referred to residential and we want this noise ordinance to be effective at ten o’clock. Commissioner Bialson: Correct, at ten o’clock. Commissioner Cassel: This is for amplified noise. Chair Burt: Do we have a second to the motion? SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Second. Chair Burt: Motion by Commissioner Bialson and seconded by Commissioner Sandas. If I might get a clarification from Staff the other I think three items will be addressed in a separate motion? Okay. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just need a clarification. With regard to the sound and the amplified noise cutoff at-ten o’clock that doesn’t mean that the event needs to end at ten, the event could continue without amplified sound. Chair Burr: As long as you keep your voice down. Mr. C. Williams: I just wondered is there a reason why we wouldn’t have the other motions as part of this? Commissioner Bialson: You asked us to make separate motions with regard to... City of Palo Alto July 26,2006 Page 45 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: Oh, as far as directing - because two of them weren’t actually changing conditions they were directing us to work with them to make ~he changes. So should those be separate motions? Chair Burt: The third one was the trigger. Commissioner Bialson: It is the definition of special event or some other indicator being used to determine when offsite parking would be required. That seems to me to be part of the ordinance " unless I am reading it incorrectly. Chair Burt: Curtis, is there language change based on our discussion that would differ from what is in the previous proposed ordinance? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think what I had tried to suggest and I will be a little more specific is that condition number 21 on page 13 says shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking onto adjacent facilities for special events when required by conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures which right now is for weekday events. I would say that for special events we would put in parenthesis events in the cultural hall or outside with anticipated attendance of 350 persons or more. So the combination thereof or either/or would trigger that requirement. I did talk to Dennis briefly it still doesn’t look like it would be necessary for weekend events. So I think we just have to see how that went but it looks like there are hundreds more spaces available on the weekends. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so what you are saying is the motion should include reference with respect to that change. Mr. C. Williams: Right, I think we can do that right now. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so I would make my motion include that so we would have the Staff’ s recommendation as modified with respect to item number four and in addition we would deal with the regulation of the noise as set forth by yourself just now. Okay, that’s the motion. Chair Burt: Does the seconder also accept the modified motion? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Chair Burt: Okay. Does the maker of the motion wish to comment on the motion? Commissioner Bialson: No. Chair Burt: The seconder? Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I had one other question and it is just a clarification and maybe the applicant can address this. When it talks about the public benefit and the use of the cultural hall it mentions that the facility is closed on holidays, which is obvious, but do Saturdays count as holidays? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 46 of 5! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Baer: Commissioner Lippert: .Thank you. Chair Burt: Dan and then Phyllis. No, Saturdays don’t so Saturdays would be allowed for use by the City. Commissioner Garber: Having not done this before I would like to propose an alternative motion and that is to proceed with the motion as has currently been iterated but excluding item number four which is the tower with the intent to take that as a separate conversation and motion. Commissioner Bialson: No, I would like to have the tower included in this motion. I think that would speak more succinctly to Council and the community. I would like to hear from .... Before it can be discussed since it was offered as a substitute motion we would need Chair Burt: Mr. Larkin: a second. Commissioner Lippert: I will second. Commissioner Cassel: We are not working with a substitute motion. Chair Burt: Yes, Commissioner Garber would you like to speak to your substitute motion? Commissioner-Garber: The reason I have offered the substitute motion is I am struggling with the tower and am struggling with how to evaluate it. In one hand I do not feel constrained atall by the 5Ofoot demarcation that exists within Palo Alto for its height. I find that it has relatively little impact outside of the project itself so for it to have the height that it does is therefore acceptable. However it does not add .anything to the community outside of the walls of the project and it does not operate as a way finding or it doesn’t operate in the symbolic and the functional way outside of the project itself. So then therefore why does it need to be any higher than any of the other buildings that are there? I wanted to have some further discussion to see if I can discern from that discussion a way to evaluate what its height should be. Chair Burt: Lee, do you have any comments on your second? Commissioner Lippert: I have similar issues to Commissioner Garber. I am not in any way looking to exclude the tower or make it something that is not approvable here. I actually am seconding it in anticipation that we actually emphasize the importance of the tower. From that my line of ques.tioning looks at it more as an element of artistic expression rather than a building element in this case. So I think our purview in terms of looking at it from a zoning and use point of view somewhat limited and I would like to put more emphasis on the artistic or the decorative element that it represents. Chair Burr: Annette. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 47 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 46 Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the reason for the substitute motion and the desire to emphasize the desirability of the tower, which is what I am taking from your conversations. I- think the Architectural Review Board also did that by calling out and conditioning their approval on the existence of the tower. I do think that we all see the reason for the tower. Not strictly as an element of artistic impact. I do think it serves a purpose for the individuals within the community that we are creating here. I am not an architect such as the maker of the substitute motion and the seconder but having lived in communities somewhat akin to this and traveled quite a bit I see it as a necessity and not just as an artistic element. I see it as an important architectural element. I think it is part and parcel of the project. I will go along however the Commission wants to present this to Council but it seems to me by taking the Staff’s recommendation and moving that forward with a strong support showing by us is just as good but ! will go along whatever the Commission calls for..- Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Well, the tower is just one part of many pieces and presents the conflicts that I think Pat mentioned in terms of we put a 50-foot height limit in for a reason and yet when we did it we forgot our art and our architecture and our enjoyment of other spires in other places. I have missed them. If someone puts up a religious institution it can’t put up a spire or a piece of architecture or a dome or anything that goes over that 50-foot limit and we have lost something in that beauty that we enjoy elsewhere. So I was going to support the tower. I think there are a lot of other very important pieces to this project that we need to deal with. When this is up it is not going to be seen from very far away. I look at the tree near our house, two houses down, I have been watching it and it has to be at least 75 feet tall, it is a redwood and may be 100 feet tall and you can’t see it from Middlefield Road. We are only one deep block in and you just can’t see it from that far away. It is pretty. A little height done well in the right spots is lovely. We just don’t want massive buildings that tall. Chair Burt: I. suspect the thinking behind the maker of the motion has a nuance in his reasoning for the motion that he would like to share with us. Well, the rationale that I think you are getting at is something that is I think different from what I have been hearing from the other Commissioners as far as where you are coming from on this. So why don’t you share a little more? Commissioner Garber: Let me ask a question of Staff. Is it important that the height is defined given that part of the conditioning of the ARB is to review itat a later date? Mr. Turner: The conditions that have been presented to the Commission tonight call for a specific height of a tower. I’d say a solid portion that is not to exceed 65 feet and an artistic light sculptural element is not to exceed 30 additional feet. The Commission can adjust that if they so choose and make a different recommendation of that condition to Council. Mr. C. Williams: I would add that I would have a little bit of concern that the environmental review has looked at a tower of 96 feet and so if it is a few feet more than that that would be one thing but if it were much more than that it might trigger further environmental review. That City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 48 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 might be part of the option there that it could be in that vicinity but if it came in higher than that then there might be some kind of addendum to the environmental report. Mr. Larkin: To add to what Curtis said, the Commission is going to be making recommendations to Council on an ordinance and the ordinance is not going to include vague language about the height. The ordinance is going to identify the height. So to answer the specific question ’height to be determined later’ probably wouldn’t work. Commissioner Garber: Is 96 then a maximum or does it have to be exactly 96 feet? Okay, let’s call the question. Chair Burt: Paula and then I would like to. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I have a question for our attorney as a point of clarification. I am wondering if this particular motion doesn’t pass then what? Mr. Larkin: Then we go back to the original motion. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. Chair Burt: So the objective of the maker and the objective of the seconder are somewhat different and they are both intriguing. I think that if we were at liberty to look at what we think would be the most engaging architectural approach without consideration for the sentiments of the Surrounding neighborhood whether we would agree with them or not then I would lean with Commissioner Garber. But I think we are already in a realm where we may think this is great and not everybody is going to agree with us. So architecturally I think in an abstract manner I think Commissioner Garber’s points are sound. From a pragmatic standpoint of balancing what we might think is a best project with the acceptance of the surrounding community I think I would lean toward keeping it essentially as the architect has proposed. The other proposal is to have an even more deliberate artistic process focus on this. It doesn’t fall within the purview of our Arts Commission in that it is on private property. We certainly have many examples today where we have careful architecture and we have examples where the architecture is an art form in itself. I think that over the last two years we have seen enough indications that the architect and the developers of the project are very committed to the architecture being an essential part of what this new community is about that I would be willing to defer to that. If I were to have my druthers I would say that something along the lines of Chartres Cathedral that you only allow them to add ten feet per decade and allow the evolution of the tower to change as our thinking changes about our view of the world. But I don’t think I would get a second to that one. Yes, Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have one other comment which is with regard to this being the Campus for Jewish Life and one element that has not been discussed here is the fact that this is in some ways or it could be construed as being used as a place of worship in which case the Supreme Court has already ruled on having limited ability to regulate things like spires in this case. So I .just bring that other element into it. I don’t know whether this tower does represent a religious element or not but it could ~;ery well be. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 49 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Butt: I think I would defer to our City Attorney if that were an issue. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I understand I think the separate reasons for the seconder and the maker of the substitute motion but I would really ask the Commission to speak with a clear single voice. I will not be supporting the substitute motion because I want to go back to the original motion and just move that forward so it is clear that we support what is going to hopefully be a very good addition to this city. Chair Burt: Any other comments? So we will be voting on the substitute motif)n, which is to exclude the tower from the motion. All those in favor? (aye) We have one in favor. All those opposed? (nays) So we have Commissioners Cassel, Bialson, Sandas, Lippert and Burt opposed. So that substitute motion fails one to five. Now we will return to the main motion. So do we have any other comments on the principle motion? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Well I know we have done an awful lot of discussing on this but I always find it helpful if we summarize some of the main issues just a little bit so that when it goes to Council they have a chance to do that. Chair Burt: And you won’t be including those two things that we plan on adding? Commissioner Cassel: No. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Basically the TDM program does a lot and has a lot to offer there I mentioned that before. They have been very cooperative with this. The noise issue we have addressed. The height issue we should summarize that this is a unique situation and we always need to emphasize that when we do a variance or a PC when we are doing something different. It is unique because it combines both the flood plane portion of it and problems with the contaminated soil, which doesn’t allow us to depress the parking at all. Normally we would depress that parking somewhat and gain that difference. The public benefits we have not mentioned because they are very interesting and very good. The City has access to the community center, it has a community center in itself that is a benefit to the community, it is giving exceptional BMR support in addition to the units that it is providing in this special environment it is also providing service support for those BMR tenants and that is unusual. I think we have some of that in the city but it is very little and it is very unusual in general and a great benefit to the members of that community who will gain that benefit. Then there will be discounted membership to the residents both of BUILD and of this community into the community center. I think that provides good public benefit for the total community. We have been talking about the tower and I think we have said enough on that. I think that covers most of the basic issues. Chair Burt: Thank you. Paula. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 50 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Sandas: I just wanted to provide one more wrap up statement of my own because I believe that Palo Alto is fortunate to have the opportunity to change the use of the site that Sun is.presently deteriorating on and have BUILD and the Campus for Jewish Life projects, In addition to the public benefits that Phyllis outlined that are provided at the CJL through the BUILD project Palo Alto will also benefit from additional housing for middle and low-income people allowing for greater diversity in our community. One of the things that concerns me a lot about Palo Alto is that we do work very hard to build low income housing and I am grateful for that but at the same time the rest of the housing prices are kind of out of sight. So we are really squeezing out middle income. So I am glad to see that there is also an opportunity here for middle-income people. Finally, I think Palo Alto will also benefit by the renewal of a rather large, unattractive, blighted parcel with an imaginative and unusual campus. I think we are really lucky to have this not only as resource for our community but as a showpiece and a gateway into Palo Alto that we haven’t had for a long, long time. I am really proud of it and I look forward to the day when we cut the ribbon and get to go in for the first time. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I voted against the substitute motion because I think this does need to go forward with the strongest voice possible not that it diminishes anything that my colleague, Commissioner Garber, had to say or myself. I still believe that this tower element is very important in terms of an artistic expression. However, what is probably more significant than this is that Palo Alto has a presence and when you get to the southern most corner of our city it lacks definition. What this project brings to our community is to define a corner of our community and does it in a very powerful way. You drive through our city and it is really hard pressed to say what building defines Palo Alto. What piece of architecture defines it? In variably people point to this building or they point to another one of the mid-rise buildings in the city. In some ways what the tower element does is it becomes another one of those elements and it defines another point or another corner of our city. It does it in an architectural way, it does it in a very modest and it also does it with defining a new village or community or area within our city. So my hat is off to you Rob Steinberg. Your group did a marvelous job. Hats off’to the people behind the Campus for Jewish Life I think you have done a great job. I think that this is going to be really an exemplary project. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I just want to thank the discussion with the architect this evening, It has been extremely helpful for me to understand in greater detail some of the important parts of ~he project that I have been most concerned about. Having worked for the company that provided Sun Microsystems the real estate and facilities services for this site for the latter half of the 1990s I have intimate knowledge of just how difficult this site is to actually deal with. To second Commissioner Sandas’ comments the willingness of the applicant to take on these issues and come up with a bold plan to overcome them is one in a million. The more likely path for this piece of property was going to be for it to remain essentially as we see it today for many years to come because of the unwillingness of many people to take on these issues.. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 51 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The two issues that I have been primarily focused on are how to connect the .project, which is- 14 feet in the air with the community around it. I think we have spent a great deal of time and I am satisfied that that connection will support the community not only that is on the site but thatis- immediately adjacent will become also recognized as Commissioner Lippert has mentioned a landmark within the community. The other issues the concern of mine of this creating a precedent isn’t that it would create a bad precedent in fact just the opposite that it create the right one and just architecturally which the ARB has taken great pains to define in rather expletive .terms has more to do with use in our purview. This does suggest how this comer of Palo Alto should be used and developed. So I support the project wholeheartedly including the tower and will lend my vote to the motion. Thank you. Chair Burt: Well, I would just like to endorse the comments of my fellow Commissioners. I think they have captured all the essential points and ! am glad that the record really includes the rationale and those things that we thought are important. I would like to add my appreciation to both the Staff and the ARB for their extensive contributions throughout this project. It really is in a tree sense a planned community. We have had a long discussion about whether PCs are approp~’iate or not appropriate and we have reduced the use of PCs in Palo Alto and in most circumstances that is probably been a correct approach and tried to have zoning address many of the issues that previously PCs addressed. This is a really good example where you could never do something like this or approach it without a PC. So it is an interesting illustration we won’t have many if any projects on this scale in the future but aside from the scale the elements that have gone into the PC planning process exhibit that there are still cases where that is the right planning tool. So I just wanted to add that for the record. I want to thank everyone involved. We still are going to have one small additional motion on top of this primary one. I haven’t forgotten to call the question. Thank you all very much. Annette, were you wanting to say something more before we vote? Commissioner Bialson: Just that it is obvious that I am very enthusiastic about this project and I do endorse the comments of my fellow Commissioners and especially yours with respect to the PC. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Burt: Okay. So at this time we would like to call the vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. So we have one additional motion to entertain. Commissioner Bialson. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: This motion is with respect to certain additional items that Staff has indicated that they feel would be an appropriate direction to them to discuss further with the developer. Those two items are with respect to the TDM program to be modified to address the City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 52 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 concerns that were raised by Commissioners and while we commented on shuttles there was - some discussion with regard to working out a new arrangement with VTA and I can’t come up with anything else. It is just that there be some discussion with regard to enhancing-the TDM- program. In addition we wanted to have bicycle access to the project improved and additional thought given to dealing with some of the problems that we can anticipate which were described by Commissioners. Chair Burt: Before we entertain a second perhaps we would like to have Curtis restate the language that would be incorporated in the motion and then seconder be endorsing that particular language. Does that seem reasonable? Commissioner Bialson: Yes. Mr. C. Williams: I will give that a shot. The first part is to direct Staffto work with the applicant to enhance the TDM program to improve access to train station and for after school facilities and for employees. We weren’t using the word ’shuttle’ specifically but just expand the TDM and it would probably say something like expand TDM including but not limited to those particular items to evaluate those. Then the second one would be to work with the .applicant to evaluate ways to enhance bicycle access including but not limited to access from Charleston and improve safe access from Fabian Avenue entrance. Commissioner Bialson: Yes, that doesincorporate the thrust of the motion. Chair Burt: Do we have a second? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second. Chair Burt: Motion made by Commissioner Bialson including the language stated by Mr. Williams and seconded by Commissioner Cassel. Annette, would you like to speak to your motion? Commissioner Bialson: No, I think we had a very good discussion about both items earlier and I feel no need for a discussion at this point. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I agree I think that Curtis picked up the details that I was concerned about with the public transit. There is not just necessarily a train but buses may or may not work. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 53 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Before we vote I just wanted to thank both Annette and Ph~211is. I thiialk this is a fitting way for 3)ou to finish your terms here on the Commission. It was a pleasure to work with you all these years. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Butt: We will have a moment after finish this item to address any comments from Commission Members so we can go into further detail at that time on that. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Okay. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. So that completes are items number two and three and once again we would like to thank everyone involved. We look forward to your successful and speeding progress on this project. Thank you all very much. Item number four was withdrawn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Burt: We have no minutes to approve tonight. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. Chair Burt: Any Reports From Officials prior to efitertaining comments from officials? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I had City Council this month so it has been a busy month. We had a mixed-use project on E1 Camino that was near Oregon and E1 Camino that passed. I didn’t even get a chance to open my mouth. That passed just right away they didn’t even hardly discuss it. No problems. We had a conditional use appeal that came to us on Miranda for a cell tower that went through on Consent Calendar. Again it was not pulled off and there were no questions about it. The discussed the Municipal Service site for the auto mall and I think they were disappointed with the results that came to them that it was going to be complicated and difficult. They asked the Staff to go back and look again and see if there were any other alternatives. I think that is the best way to summarize it. They spent all evening doing that. Then they went on to the PTOD and they took testimony but decided to delay that until this Monday night. That only passed by a five to four vote. They used option B. They withdrew the Fry’s site from the option. Those people who were opposing this really didn’t feel we should have spent the time doing it, which was a little strange since we did it at the request of the City Council. I think the request to do that was prior to the current composition of the City Council. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 54 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burr: Phyllis, could you clarify request to do what? The PTOD in general or the Fry’s site inclusion? Commissioner Cassel: No the PTOD in general. It only passed by a five to four vote. Chair Burt: My understanding was some of the Council Members who opposed it opposed it because the Fry’s was not being included by other Council Members. Commissioner Cassel: I didn’t get that sense. Mr. C. Williams: I don’t want to speak for Council Members but I believe that is true. Two of the Council Members voted to keep Fry’s in and then voted against the ordinance. I believe they did that because Fry’s was removed and they felt that it weakened the effect of the ordinance. Commissioner Cassel: Be that as it may-it has passed. It is an ordinance. It does not include the Fry’s site. They will give Staff the job to go backand look at that issue. They very much want Fry’s there. They very much want it as a retail space. They Very much want this specific to Fry’s. Now we aren’t allowed to do that on this Board and they recognize that you can’t keep Fry’s, you can’t demand that Fry’s stay, nor that the ordinance cannot be that specific but they want it tailored to make that possible. So we will see where that goes. They may come back at Fry’s with this or some other way and perhaps a PC would work. They were very concerned about additional housing and of course it is zoned as a housing site. So you will see that again in some other form. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question. By excluding the Fry’s site from the PTOD doesn’t that in fact say the opposite which is that the Fry’s site needs to continue on the amortization that it is on so that in 2019 it has to be housing? Commissioner Cassel: Well, yes except that they expect the staff to come back with some other proposal. They do not expect this to wait until then. They made it very clear they want Fry’s. Chair Burt: As I understood it the sentiment of the majority of the Council was that they.wanted to make sure that what was done at the Fry’s site was most likely to achieve the intended outcome. They want to take action to try to make sure that we do what is possible to retain Fry’s as a long-term .occupant and revenue source for the City. They want to make sure that whatever action is done is the most likely one to achieve that outcome and they weren’t sure that inclusion in the PTOD was the most likely to do so. So they just wanted a more targeted reconsideration of what to do with the Fry’s site. I don’t think that they felt that they had an answer at this time they are turning to Staff and probably ourselves to do a more thorough consideration of the ramifications of different alternatives. Mr. C. Williams: I think that is a very good characterization of it. It was not let’s not do PTOD here and just sit back and relax. It was let’s not do PTOD because we want to be more aggressive than PTOD. Some of them made comments this might be a good step but it is not good enough and we want to be sure that we are looking at a commercial development potential City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 55 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 out there so we need to look at other ways to zone the site to achieve that. So it is our charge to come back to you and to them with addressing that for that site specifically. Commissioner Cassel: The owner of the property, the owner of Fry’s, was not there to be able to comment because the public session had been closed and they had not further commented some of the Council Members had discussed it. That is about all I think we can do tonight or we will get into discussion and our attorney will object. Chair Burt: So Lee as long as it doesn’t go into discussion of the topic. Commissioner Lippel~: No. The other question I had is it is not only the Fry’s site that they took out but the adjacent properties to Fry’s so that we don’t have the contiguous basis by which to bring Fry’s back into it, correct? Mr. C. Williams: They excluded the R-1 lots along Olive Avenue, they excluded basically everything south of Olive Avenue which meant the R-1 lots, Fry’s and then the three or four GM lots that are south if you continue along Olive Avenue across Park that are south of that. So all of that is excluded from it. It is basically pretty much everything that is outside the 2,000-foot circle. So we are back pretty much to the 2,000 foot. Commissioner Lippert: The more things change the more they stay the same. Chair Burt: When I listened to their discussion on the MSC site as a possible automotive site my sense of where Council was coming from was similar to the Fry’.s. They still are very strongly interested in achieving an outcome of creating an improved area for automotive dealers and the fiscal impacts of relocating the MSC were such that that alternative was far less attractive than they had hoped. They have given Staff once again a strong request to look at all possibilities again and that may come back to us. Maybe we can come up with some incentives of some sort. Okay, any other Reports From Officials? COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chair Burt: Now we are in our comment period. Any comments from officials? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I just want to say that I have very much enjoyed my tenure of nine years plus on the Commission and I appreciate working closely with Phyllis. She has been a great inspiration to me and it has been wonderful to have her be there to lead us through many difficult times, many discussions of the Comp Plan and discussions of zoning ordinance changes. I will miss having all of you here but I am concerned about extending the meeting and having Staff continue to sit here listening to us. This is the last time you get to hear me but you get to hear others. So I ask you all to please take that into consideration. Chair Burt: Phyllis. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 56 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 . 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: I also have really appreciated working on the Planning Commission~ It has been a lot of fun for me. There have been of course days when I gnashed my t_eeth but. m_any more days in which I have had a lot of fun preparing material and ieaming about what is going on and then being able to go out into the community and people will say what is that or what is this? And I can say well, that took us a bit of work to get to that. Did you see this piece of art over here? We reviewed art projects before Art Commission did. A lot of different material and it has been a lot of fun to know so much about the City and to participate and to have that honor to do that for 13 years. So thank you Pat for being President this year and thanks to Karen for that and thank all of you for having a chance to get to know you better and to the Staff for the good work and Zariah for the behind the scenes work. It has been nice. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I just want to know who is going to kick me under the table when you guys leave? Chair Burt: We will seek volunteers. Paula, Commissioner Sandas: I will stay over here. I wanted to thank both Annette and Phyllis for being an inspiration. I am still cutting my teeth and you both have inspired me quite a bit and given me things to learn. Too bad I can’t work with you longer. I wish I could. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I said my comments before. It is too late. Chair Burt: Well I would just like to reiterate the comments of my fellow Commissioners and thank you for the contributions you’ve had and your great knowledge, your commitment and your affinity for the community. It has been a great deal of sacrifice of your personal time for contributing to what you believe in and for the betterment of the community. You have been very effective advocates for those things you have believed in and helped fulfill. I think certainly the greatest milestones are the Comprehensive Plan approval and the near completion of the ZOU are going to be long standing impacts that you will be able to look back on and as you see things happen over the years you certainly will know that they are the outcome of those very fundamental and far reaching aspects of your work. I think you should and will. feel great gratification as you continue to enjoy our community. So thank you very much for your service and we don’t have a sheet with all the whereas’s and I think we are saved from that but thank you all very much. On that note we will adjourn. NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting at 7:00 PM on August 23, 2006. ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 57 of 57 City of Palo Alto City Man ager ] r! TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 CMR: 346:06 SUBJECT:901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [05PLN-00295~ 06PLN-001141: REQUEST BY STEINBERG ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF THE TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS OF JEWISH LIFE (TKCJL) FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REZONING TO A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT AND OF A PROPOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 134,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMUNITY CENTER, INCLUDING A CULTURAL HALL,COMMUNITY MEETING ROOMS, ADULT ACTIVITY SPACE,PRESCHOOL, AFTER SCHOOL CARE FACILITIES,FITNESS CENTER, ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT AREAS AND 193 SENIOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING UNITS. THE PROJECT REQUEST INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, A TENTATIVE MAP TOSUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL AND CREATE SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM UNITS, A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 50-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, A DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION (DEE) TO ALLOW A SCULPTURAL TOWER ELEMENT TO EXTEND TO APPROXIMATELY 96 FEET ABOVE GRADE, AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)FOR THE BRIDGE URBAN INFILL LAND DEVELOPMENTAND TKCJL PROJECTS HAS BEEN PREPARED. ZONE DISTRICT: GM. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the project, ask questions of staff and the applicant, conduct a public hearing, provide comments, and continue the project to the September 25, 2006 City Council meeting to receive and review the Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreeement letter. Although staff has recommended that that project be continued, the recommendation at the September 25, 2006 meeting would be as follows: CMR: 346:06 Page 1 of 8 That the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR (Attachment B); Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use (Attachment C); Grant a variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.110(c) to allow portions of the proposed building to extend above 50 feet, based upon the findings as listed in the draft ordinance in Attachment C, Section 4; Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including findings for the Design Enhancement Exception for the height of the sculptural tower, subject to the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D; Approve the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan, including a total of 24 assisted living and congregate care units with associated housing services provided by the Jewish Senior Residence available to low income seniors (Attachment E), to be provided prior to the September 25 meeting and, 6.Approve a Tentative Map that would create one mixed-use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units (Attachment F). BACKGROUND An application for a Planned Community (PC) district, including a Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendment, environmental impact analysis, a Tentative Map, Variances, and Design Exception has been filed for the redevelopment of an 8.5 acre parcel at the former Sun Microsystems site at 901 San Antonio Road. Attachment G provides more detail about the application processing and components of the project. The request for a PC district includes TKCJL’s specific site development plan for a senior housing project, the Jewish Senior Residences (JSR) containing 118 units of congregate care and 75 assisted living units (193 total units), a 134,150 square foot Jewish Community Center (JCC), and an at grade parking garage that would provide automobile and bicycle parking for all uses within the project. New landscaping, pedestrian access ways, and a private driveway would link the project with the adjacent BUILD project. The mixture of units and floor area for each use is outlined as follows: Senior Housing Community Center Total Summary Project Table-September 2006 193 298,130 0.81 134,148 0.36 193 units 432,278 1.17 610 spaces *For the entire 8.5 acre site Attachment I contains a detailed project description, staff reports and verbatim minutes from the June 28 and July 26, 2006 Commission meetings. CMR: 346:06 Page 2 of 8 DISCUSSION Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Prior to approving a request for a PC district, the City Council is to review the applicant’s Development Plan (the project plans), Development Statement and Development Schedule (Attachment G). CMR 346A:06 for the BUILD project contains a detailed description of the required findings in order to approve a PC district. The PC District Ordinance (Attachment C) contains the specific findings for establishment of the district (Section 5, Page 4). Public Benefits Section 18.68.060 of the PC district regulations requires specific findings to be made in order to establish any new PC district. The required findings are described above in the Planned Community Zone Change section of this staff report. Finding #2 requires a determination that the development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general district or combining districts. The applicant has described the public benefits that would result with the PC zone change in the Development Program Statement, contained in Attachment G. The significant public benefits include: Community center uses shared with the City of Palo Alto and the BUILD/BRIDGE project; Discounted memberships to the JCC for BRIDGE’ senior residents; Transportation assistance to the BRIDGE senior residents, who would use the shuttle service that would be established for the JSR. These public benefits are described in the June 28, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment I). Height Variance The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the 50-foot maximum height established by the PC district. The arguments in favor of the variance are the location of the site within the "AE" flood zone and the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. Federal and local regulations require that all occupied development within the flood zone be constructed at least eight feet above sea level. The existing site is as low as three feet above sea level. The site is subject to a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) cleanup order due to the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. By constructing the community center and housing on a podium above the at-grade parking garage (and by applying specific construction methods and design features), the project would meet the requirements of the RWQCB for the location of sensitive uses within these cleanup areas. The podium development plan would result in a unique condition where the tallest buildings would exceed the 50’ maximum height. In order to develop the site in the manner requested by the applicant, a variance would be required. The specific height variances requested are described in the June 28, 2006 Commission staff report (Attachment H) and findings are included in the proposed PC ordinance, Section 2 and Exhibit B. CMR: 346:06 Page 3 of 8 Sculptural Tower The project includes a design for a proposed sculptural tower element that would be approximately 12’ x 12’ and rise to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade. The tower would contain elevator equipment that would serve the parking garage, the podium level, and the two floors of Building C. The tower would have a solid portion that would extend no higher than 65’ above grade and a skeletal or transparent-type section that would extend to no more than 96’ above the solid portion of the tower. The tower would be approximately 46’ taller than the 50’ height limit established by the PC district. Planning staff has determined that the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)process is the appropriate mechanism that would permit the construction of the tower to the height as requested by the applicant. The purpose of the DEE is to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties. The tower, with a footprint of approximately 144 square feet, is a minor architectural feature of the project. Although the proposed height of the tower exceeds the height limit, the impact the tower would have on the adjacent commercial and residential uses is not significant. The DEE process as described in PAMC 18.76.050 allows, generally, minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. This tower feature meets the intent of the DEE process for minor adjustments that would result in an improved overall design. The findings supporting the DEE are included in the Architectural Review resolution in Attachment D. BMR Program and Other BMR Contributions The Project will provide 24 Below Market Rate congregate care and assisted living housing units and the associated residential living services within the 182 unit Jewish Senior Residence. All 24 BMR units will be one bedroom, one bath units ranging in size from about 730 to 870 square feet. In consideration of the applicants’ agreement to offer the full range of services to BMR residents at reduced monthly fees, staff recommends accepting the reduced number of BMR units and has not required the BMRs to reflect the range of unit types and sizes in the Project, as is normally required. The applicant’s original BMR plan, including alternatives, is described in the Development Program Statement (Attachment G, Section 8). Staff and the applicant have not completed the formal BMR agreement in time for City Council’s review on September 11, 2006. The agreement will be presented to City Council at the September 25, 2006 meeting. The PC ordinance (Attachment C) would be revised to reflect the BMR agreement that would be presented to City Council on September 25, 2006. Driveway Names The applicant’s fundraising efforts include the naming of the shared driveway from Fabian Way and the porte-cochere entrance on Charleston Road for donors to the facility. As these features would be considered driveways and not public or private streets, no further Council action would be required. CMR: 346:06 Page 4 of 8 Other Review Items The June 28, 2006 Commission staff report includes discussion regarding tandem parking, architectural review, the tentative map, the project phasing & schedule, and development impact fees. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On July 26, 2006 the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the FEIR and the project to the City Council. The Commission reviewed the project in conjunction with the review of the adjacent BUILD project, as a single EIR was prepared to encompass both projects. Prior to the July 26 meeting, the Commission agendized the project on June 28, 2006 to accept public testimony and ask questions of staff and the applicant. The Commission requested that staff and the applicant review the follow project components and prepare a response for the City Council: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program The Commission requested that the TDM program be enhanced to provide transportation alternatives for employees of the JCC and JSR. The JCC and JSR have committed to a 20% trip reduction goal, offering shuttle services to the senior residents in the JSR and members of the JCC. Trip reduction would also be reduced by offering shuttle services and alternative transportation information to employees of the JCC. In addition to the elements in the TDM program, the JCC will provide shuttle services for senior members of the JCC who cannot transport themselves and who live in Palo Alto, Los Altos, .and Mountain View. The JCC will also provide a "pick-up" shuttle service for Palo Alto school children for the JCC’s after school programs. The JSR has also committed to providing shuttle services for employees to and from transportation depots if the demand for such services is evident. The TDM program has been revised to include these trip reduction goals. A copy of the updated TDM program is included in Attachment H. Bicycle Access Improvements The Commission requested that the Development Plan be modified to improve the bicycle access from Fabian Way and Charleston Road. The current design would accommodate bicyclists from Fabian Way, but similar provisions for Charleston Road had not been built in to the project. The applicant had responded by improving bicycle access from Charleston Road to the project site. Improvements include a new bicycle storage facility adjacent to the exterior stairway and the Cultural Hall. This facility would be accessible only to members of the JCC. Non-members would be required to pass through security at the Fabian Way entry. The bicyclist path of travel from Charleston Road to the bicycle parking area is attached to the updated TDM program in Attachment H. No additional improvements have been proposed for the Fabian Way entry, in that the focus of this entrance is on security, the pick-up and drop-off area, sidewalks, and efficient movements of vehicles in and out of the site. Bicyclists may utilize the driveway and sidewalks to gain access to the bike parking areas. Special Event Parking The FEIR analyzed the parking impacts at the TKCJL site based upon all the proposed uses being in use at the same time. The conclusion from this analysis was that the parking facility CMR: 346:06 Page 5 of 8 could generally accommodate all uses at the maximum capacity. The DEIR identified a potential impact, however whereby special events during weekdays could result in a parking demand that would exceed supply. A mitigation measure was proposed (Impact B.5.1) that would require off- site special event parking on weekday evenings. This analysis and recommended mitigation was based upon a parking facility that would accommodate approximately 90 shared parking spaces with the adjacent BUILD proj ect. The BUILD project has been modified to reduce the total number of dwelling units on the site. This change would eliminate the need for 90 shared spaces. Thus, more spaces would be available for TKCJL events. The proposed mitigation measure for off-site special event parking has not changed, and includes notification at least two weeks in advance of a weekday special event and commitments for off-site parking and other measures (shuttle, valet, etc.) if necessary. Condition of Approval #21 (Attachment D, Section 4) outlines this condition. The Commission requested that specific triggers be added to the condition that would require an off-site agreement for both weekday evenings and weekend special events. Staff has proposed that a special event (using the Cultural Hall and/or outdoor facilities) that would attract 350 or more additional visitors to the site on weekday evenings, or 500 or more additional visitors on weekends would require an off-site parking agreement. This condition would be a precautionary approach for weekday and weekend special events, in that it is likely that the parking facility could accommodate special events at all times. The condition has also been modified to allow the Director of Planning and Community Environment to adjust these triggers based upon the actual conditions once TKCJL has been built and is fully operational. Outdoor Events with Amplified Sound Limitations Staff had proposed a condition requiring that all outdoor events with amplified sound shall cease operations no later than 10:00 P.M., seven days per week. The Commission requested that the regulation of noise be accomplished by a more enforceable method. Staff has proposed to remove the amplified sound limitation from the conditions of approval and include it within the PC ordinance. This would give the City more regulatory control over outdoor amplified sound. Section 8 of the PC ordinance (Attachment C) contains the use limitations for amplified sound. RESOURCE IMPACT This project will have impacts on fiscal and community resources in the City of Palo Alto. Discussion of these impacts is restricted to development of the project site as proposed and its effect on the City’s revenues and expenses. This narrative does not discuss impacts on the Palo Alto Unified School District nor the public benefits Palo Alto residents will receive from the recreational facilities provided by TKCJL (Attachment C, Section 4). The construction of 193 senior residential units will result in the addition of an estimated 278 residents; therefore, the City will provide incremental services and realize additional revenue. Staff concurs with the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report that the TKCJL projects will not result in a "significant" impact on facilities and services such as the need for a new library, fire or police station or additional FTEs to service the site. The City can CMR: 346:06 Page 6 of 8 expect, however, incremental calls for fire, police, public works and utility services as well as increased usage of City facilities and other services. As the EIR indicates, "the Palo Alto Fire Department estimates a five percent increase in calls for services to Station 4 from the proposed project." Paramedic calls will increase given the profile of residents in assisted and congregate care units on the TKCJL site. This analysis assumes that the City’s costs for evaluating, monitoring, and implementing this project will be recouped through its fee structure. Planning, inspection, and utility connection fees, for example, will be levied to achieve cost recovery for these services. Likewise, it is expected that Utilities will recover its supply, operating, and capital costs through their rate structures. In addition, there will be significant impact fees. These one-time fees, by definition, are intended to fund development and capital improvement costs associated with the facilities (parks, community centers, libraries) and roadways (San Antonio, Charleston) that the TKCJL community will eventually utilize. Impact fees for this development are estimated at $179,000. Substantial fee credit is provided for the community and recreational facilities proposed on the site. Once this project is built and occupied, the City can expect ongoing, annual estimated General Fund sales and Utilities User Tax revenues of $53,000 from the TKCJL development. Because of expected property tax exemptions and the nature of transactions for the apartment units, the City is not expected to receive property or documentary transfer taxes from development of the TKCJL site. In summary, the City can expect that the BUILD and TKCJL projects will result in incremental City services and revenues. While these projects, which add approximately 600 new residents in total, will not result in the immediate need for new City staff or facilities, it is possible that when combined with other new, large residential projects such as Hyatt Rickey’s, there may be a need for additional staffing in the future. The ongoing General Fund revenues cited above will mitigate these costs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project, including the permitted uses and the and the site development regulations applicable within the District, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The site is a designated Housing Opportunity site in the City’s adopted Housing Element. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is detailed in Attachment C, Section 5(d), Page 5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site encompassing both the BUILD and CJL projects. The FEIR is comprised of the Draft EIR (DEIR, under separate cover), Responses to Comments on the DEIR, and text revisions to the DEIR. The DEIR addressed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR" and the BUILD and CJL projects as a "Project EIR." The Program EIR component of the DE!R focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project- specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the DEIR addresses project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. CMR 346A:06 for the BUILD project contains a detailed CMR: 346:06 Page 7 of 8 description of the environmental review process. The BUILD CMR also Contains the staff report and verbatim minutes from the March 29, 2006 Commission review of the DEIR. PREPARED BY: STEVEN TURNER Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STEVE EMSLIE ~ann ~og~/anN~. "ty Environment. Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS A.Location map B.CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan C.Planned Community Ordinance D.Architectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval E.BMR Program Letter - to be provided to the City Council in the Sept. 25 meeting F.Record of Land Use Action: Tentative Map Approval G.Development Program Statement and Development Schedule H.Transportation Demand Management Program and Charleston Road Bicycle Access Improvements I.Project Background and Description, Staff Reports, and Verbatim minutes (separate document) J.Correspondence (separate document - Council only) K.Development Plan (Council only) L.Final Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed) COURTESY COPIES Interested Parties List CMR: 346:06 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A ]! ATTACHMENT B NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE~ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR TWO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AT 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the development of 901 San Antonio proposed jointly by the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life ("TKCJL") and BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development, LLC ("BRIDGE"); and WHEREAS, 901 San Antonio Road consists of two properties totaling approximately 12.5 acres in the City of Palo Alto ("Project Area"). The northern 4-acre property of the Project Area ("BUILD site") is owned by BRIDGE and is proposed for development of 159 9-24} residential units of which 56 ~ will be below market rate rental apartments for seniors ("BUILD Project[). The southern 8.5-acre property of the Project Area ("TKCJL Site") is owned by TKCJL and is proposed for development of a recreation/community center, preschool/day care, and 193 ~-84} senior assisted living and congregate care units ("TKCJL Project"). The BUILD Project and the TKCJL Project are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and FEIR and deems the FEIR to be complete in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and state and local regulations; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that certain Findings be made regarding the significant environmental effects identified in connection with the approval of a Project for which an EIR has 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED been prepared and that identifies one or more significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all staff reports and all other information in the record andhas considered the information contained therein, includingthe written and oral comments received at public hearings onthe Project, and makes the Findings contained in this Resolution. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Certification. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council hereby finds that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, has been presented to the City Council for its review and consideration and reflects the independent judgment of the City, and therefore recommends certification of the FEIR. SECTION 2. Mitigation Monitorinq and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") prepared for the BUILD Site and the MMRP prepared for the TKCJL Site, both of which the Commission reviewed and which are on file with the City Clerk, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The MMRP for the BUILD Site identifies impacts of the Project on the BUILD Site, corresponding mitigations, designation of responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action. The MMRP for the TKCJL Site identifies impacts of the Project on the TKCJL Site, corresponding mitigations, designation of responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action. SECTION 3. Recommendation. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with respect to the significant effects on. the environment of the Project, as :identified in the FEIR, with the stipulation that all information in these Findings is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the Project, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these Findings, and that any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by a commenter to the DEIR and were not adopted as part of the FEIR are hereby 060622 syn 0120131 2 NOT YET APPROVED expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to the comments set forth in the FEIR and elsewhere in the record. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director Of Planning and Community Environment 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED EXHIBIT A FINDINGS & MITIGATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD PROJECT I. PROJECT IMPACTS. The following impacts were determined by the City of Palo Alto and identified in the FEIR to be impacts directly resulting from the Project. The letters and numbers assigned to each impact below correspond to the letters and numbers assigned to each impact in the FEIR itself. A. Transportation. Impact B.I: The Project will result in a significant adverse level of service impact (critical movement delay and demand-to-capacity ratio) to the intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure B.I-I:Intersection LOS Impacts. The City of Palo Alto is planning to implement traffic~adaptive signal technology at a series of intersections, including the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection, as recommended in the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor Study. The City of Palo Alto has adopted a fee program and included funding in its budget for this program. Mitigation Measure B.I-2: Transportation Demand Management. The TKCJL Project shall implement a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan for employees, designedto achieve a 15 percent alternative mode-use for employeesto address local traffic concerns. The Plan shall include,at minimum: "a guaranteed ride home program "carpool parking []bicycle lockers []showers []a transportation information kiosk 060622 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED []on-site transportation coordinators []on-site supporting amenities to eliminate the need for midday trips, including a cafeteria, childcare/preschool,recreational and athletic facilities, automatic teller machines,postage and mailing outlet, and on-site sundry shop. An annual survey of employees shall be conducted to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. A summary report of the annual employee commute survey shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto. Impact B.2: Without specific improvements to an existing mid-block crosswalk on Fabian Way, a significant operational safety hazard from increased pedestrian traffic would occur. Mitigation Measure B.2-1: Off-Site Pedestrian Facility. Markings and other improvements to the existing mid-block crosswalk across Fabian Way at the northern edge of the BUILD Site shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Environment prior to occupancy of the BUILD and/or TKCJL Projects. These improvements include: []Removal of several on-street parking spaces and installation of a raised median to provide an American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") compatible pedestrian refuge area []Marking of the crosswalk with white diagonal lines or longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow to increase the visibility of the crosswalk [] Advance warning signs alerting motorists of the crosswalk ahead []Modification of the existing curbs on each side of the crosswalk to be ADA compatible Impact Bo3: Left turn access into the TKCJL Site from Charleston Road would create an adverse queuing condition and/or unsafe turning movements. Mitigation Measure B.3-1: Site Access Impacts and Queuing on Charleston Road. Allowed turning movements at the two access driveways on Charleston Road shall be modified to avoid identified queuing impacts on southbound Charleston Road to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division of the Department of 060623 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED Planning and Community Environment. Left turn access to the site from Charleston Road shall be prohibited. Signage and channelization improvements to preclude such movements shall be designed and submitted to the Public Works Department and the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment for review and approval prior to approval of the Final Map for the Project. Impact B.4: Operation of a loading space on the TKCJL Site adjacent to San Antonio Road could result in a traffic safety impact. Mitigation Measure B.4-1: Loading Area. The proposed loading area on San Antonio Road shall be designed to avoid traffic safety impacts. The loading area will only receive trucks between the hours of I0 AM and 3 PM. Trucks using the loading area shall be limited to right turns out to the dedicated right turn lane onto East Charleston Road, a City truck route. Plans for the loading area and adjacent sidewalk and traffic lane shall include signage, striping, materials, dimensions, sidewalks, and landscaping and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment, prior to approval of the Final Map. Standard City sidewalk configurations shall be followed along the San Antonio Road frontage consistent with the current sidewalk configuration along the San Antonio Road frontage. Signage shall indicate that the loading zone is to be maintained by the property owner and a maintenance agreement with the City shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. Impact B.5: The demand for parking during occasional special events on weekday evenings could exceed on-site parking supply resulting in parking spill over onto adjacent streets where there is limited allowed parking. Parked cars could block driveways and affect vehicle circulation in these areas. Mitigation Measure B.5-1: Special Event Parking. For special events on weekday evenings or other events that could exceed parking supply on the TKCJL Site, notice of the location of off-site special event parking shall be provided to the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment at least two weeks prior to the special 060623 syn 0120131 3 NOT YET APPROVED event. The notice shall include the date of the special event, the parking lot location, number of spaces available, and whether shuttles will be used. If an agreement is made between TKCJL and an off-site facility that covers several events or a specific time period, notification for individual special events may be waived.Documentation of any agreements and their time limits shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. If parking is provided on a nearby site, attendees can reach the TKCJL Site on foot. For any off-site parking that is located at a distance from the site, van shuttles shall be used to transport attendees to the event. Other measures to minimize parking impacts to nearby neighborhoods may include using temporary signage for events or TKCJL personnel to direct attendees to off-site or alternate parking sites. FINDING:Implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and would avoid or reduce level of service, queuing, traffic safety and overflow parking impacts from the Project to less than significant levels. B. Noise. Impact C.I: Proposed residential uses on the BUILD Site would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of the levels identified as acceptable in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Noise Ordinance, and the State Building Code. Mitigation Measure C.I-I: Exterior noise levels. Final building plans shall demonstrate how building massing will be used to shield outdoor activity areas from traffic noise and industrial noise sources surrounding the Project’s perimeter wherever possible. Common outdoor activity areas shall be designated within the acoustically sheltered portions of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Mitigation Measure C.I-2: Interior noise levels. Prior to the issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses, 060623 syn 0120131 4 NOT YET APPROVED in conformance with Section 1208 of the 1998 California Building Code, shall be conducted as part of final design for the proposed multi-family residential uses. The Project shall incorporate sound insulation treatments into the buildings so as to achieve an interior Ldn of 45 dBA or less with the windows closed. Such treatments may include, but would not be limited to acoustically rated windows and doors, acoustical caulking at all exterior wall penetrations and noise control treatments for all air transmission paths associated with mechanical ventilation systems.Forced-air mechanical ventilation, or air- conditioning, shall be incorporated as necessary to provide habitable interior environments with the windows closed, satisfactory to the City Building Official. Impact C.2: Proposed residential development and community and recreational facilities on the TKCJL Site would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the levels identified as acceptable in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the State Building Code. Mitigation Measure C.2-I: Exterior noise levels. Final building plans shall demonstrate how building massing and a six foot sound wall adjacent to the proposed preschool areas will be used to shield outdoor activity and gathering areas from traffic noise at the Project’s perimeter to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Mitigation Measure C.2-2: Interior noise levels. Prior to the issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses, in conformance with Section 1208 of the 1998 California Building Code, shall be conducted as part of final design for the proposed residential and preschool uses. The Project shall incorporate sound insulation treatments into the buildings so as to achieve an interior Ldn of 45 dBA or less with the windows closed. Such treatments may include, but would not be limited to acoustically rated windows and doors, acoustical caulking at all exterior wall penetrations, and noise control treatments for all air transmission paths associated with mechanical ventilation systems.Incorporate forced-air mechanical ventilation, or air-conditioning, as necessary to provide habitable interior environments with the windows closed, satisfactory to the City Building Official. 060623 syn 0120131 5 NOT YET APPROVED Impact C.3: The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial temporary increases in noise levels during construction. Mitigation Measure C.3-I: Construction Noise. Allowable hours and construction noise levels for construction shall be consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance and construction equipment will be operated and maintained in accordance with requirements outlined in Section III. C. (3) Noise Mitigation and Avoidance Measures. Impact C.4: Demolition of the existing building on the BUILD Site could potentially generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels at the adjacent Space Systems/Loral facility. Mitigation Measure C.4-I: Demolition Vibration Coordination. The BUILD Project will coordinate the timing of use of hoe-rams and any other large impact tools (such as a demolition ball) with Space Systems/Loral. A Vibration Coordinator, and/or the Construction Manager, will inform~ Space Systems/Loral of the timing of planned demolition activities and coordinate with Space Systems/Loral on a routine basis. Initially, the use of large impact tools would be started at a location on the property as far as possible from Space Systems/Loral and monitored. If vibration levels are found to substantially effect operations at Space Systems/Loral, a detailed coordination plan to avoid impacts on sensitive Space Systems/Loral activities shall be developed. Coordination with Space Systems/Loral shall continue as the impact generating activity moves closer to adjacent facilities. In the event large impact tools cause vibration that is deemed excessive by Space Systems/Loral, alternative demolition methods that generate acceptable ground vibration levels shall be evaluated and may be required by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Building Official. FINDING: Implementation of the Mitigation Measures described above is feasible and would avoid or reduce the noise impacts to future residents and construction noise and vibration impacts to a less than significant level. C. Air QualitIm~. 060623 syn 0120131 6 NOT YET APPROVED Impact D.I: Construction activities related to the proposed Project, particularly generation of construction dust, could result in significant short-term air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure D.I-I: Demolition Impacts. The BAAQMD has prepared a list of feasible construction dust control measures that can reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. The following dust control measures shall be implementation by Project contractors during demolition and shall be reflected as notes on the Project plans prior to issuance of demolition permits: []Water to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. Concrete crusher should add water to material at point(s) of entry and whenever material will be dropped or dumped []Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site []Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible Mitigation Measure D.I-2: Construction Impacts. The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction on the Project site and shall be reflected as notes on the Project plans prior to issuance of grading or building permits: []Water all active construction areas at least twice daily []Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind []Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard []Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites []Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets []Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas []Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 060623 syn 0120131 7 NOT YET APPROVED []Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour Install erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways " Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible FINDING: The proposed Project will not result in significant long-term regional or local air quality impacts. Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid or reduce short-term construction related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. D. Hazards And Hazardous Materials. Impact E.I: Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change and specific development proposed on the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would allow residential and community center development adjacent to or on properties where releases of volatile organic compounds have impacted soil and groundwater. In the event volatile organic compounds from these releases were allowed to build up under and enter residential or community center structures this could result in health hazards to future residents on both sites or to users of the TKCJL Site. Mitigation Measures E.I-I (BUILD Site) and E.I-2 (TKCJL Site): On-Site Contamination Impact. The BUILD and TKCJL Projects shall both implement risk management measures as a part of site design and during and after construction as described in the Final Risk Management Plans for each site. These Final Risk Management Plans shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Measures in the plans are provided to avoid possible build up of volatile organic compound vapors in residential buildings and measures to avoid construction impacts. These measures include, but are not limited to: []Groundwater Use. Local groundwater on the site shall not be used for any purpose (including domestic and construction purposes) []Vapor Barriers. Vapor barriers (i.e., liners) shall be installed beneath all buildings, including buildings constructed over above-ground parking garages and crawl spaces Ventilation. All future residences shal! be 060623 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED placed over parking garages or crawl spaces that are ventilated with fresh air []Elevator Pits and Stairwells. No below-grade structures, such as elevator pits, shall be constructed below five feet below the ground surface [] Evaluation of Risk Mitiqation Measures. Prior to occupancy, air samples shall be collected with ventilation systems running and concurrently from outside air at locations considered representative of background conditions []Measures to Reduce Miqration Of Impacted Groundwater. The lateral migration of impacted groundwater along underground utility lines shall be avoided by the use of low-permeability fill or cutoff features []Construction Plan Reviews. Construction plans shall be reviewed by a California registered professional engineer for conformance to the requirements of this RMP prior to construction. Copies of each Construction Plan Review Report shall be submitted to the RWQCB for formal comment and to the City of Palo Alto for review and approva!. [] Construction Measures. The BUILD Project includes provisions such as the preparation of Health and Safety Plans and soil management protocols during construction []Post-Construction Maintenance and Monitoring []Notification of Future Residents (Covenant and Environmental Restriction) m Annual Monitoring Review []Contingency Plan for Modification/Adjustment of Ventilation Systems [] Trust Account for Post-Construction Contingency Plan Refer to Section III. E. (3) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation and Avoidance Measures in this EIR for a detailed description of measures to avoid exposure of people to vapors from impacted groundwater for both the BUILD and TKCJL Projects. Impact E.2: Implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment could create a significant hazard to the public by allowing residential uses near and/or adjacent to industrial properties that use and store toxic and volatile hazardous materials. While routine emissions of hazardous materials do not appear to pose a health hazard, residents and other users 060623 syn 0120131 NOT YET APPROVED could be exposed, to hazardous materials in the event of an accidental release. Mitigation Measure E.2-1: Hazard Assessment and Emergency Preparedness. Shelter in Place and Evacuation Plans for residents and other users shall be prepared for the BUILD Site and the TKCJL Site. These plans shall provide protocols and directions to follow in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials on adjacent or nearby sites. The Plans shall be prepared based upon a Hazard Assessment and guidelines provided by the City of Palo Alto and shall be reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Fire Department prior to occupancy. Appendix L of this EIR provides an example of emergency preparedness guidelines for day care facilities and schools in or adjacent to industrial zones. FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and the mitigation and avoidance measures included in the BUILD and TKCJL Projects (and as incorporated in the respective Risk Management Plans for both sites) will avoid or reduce hazards from existing soil and/or groundwater contamination to a less than significant level. Implementation of Program Mitigation Measures and preparation of Shelter in Place and Evacuation Plans will avoid or reduce hazards associated with locating residential and other sensitive uses in close proximity to industrial uses that may use toxic and volatile hazardous materials. E. Hydrology And Water Quality Impacts. Impact F.I: Redevelopment of the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would substantially increase the quantity of stormwater runoff from the site or result in capacity impacts to the stormwater collection system within the Project vicinity. Mitigation Measure FoI-I: Runoff Control. The BUILD and TKCJL Projects shall avoid increased stormwater flows from the site by detaining additional runoff on site. The Project shall provide detention to limit peak discharge from the site to not exceed existing peak storm water discharge. Detention may be accomplished through the use of oversized pipes, a rock sump in landscaping, or similar measures that provide adequate storage to detain, at a minimum, additional runoff during a 10-year storm event. The final design of these measures shall be 060623 syn 0120131 10 NOT YET APPROVED reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. Impact F.2: Construction activities on the Project site, including pavement removal and earthmoving, could result in adverse impacts to the water quality of San FranciscoBay. Mitigation Measure F.2-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the Project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. []Stormwater inlet protection consisting of burlap bags filled with drain rock will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system [] All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary [] Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities will be .suspended during periods of high winds []Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered [] All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard []All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction sites will be swept daily with water sweepers []Vegetation in disturbed areas will be replanted as quickly as possible. Impact F.3: Redevelopment of the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site would disturb more than one acre of area and stormwater runoff from the proposed development could contribute to a degradation of surface water quality of Adobe Creek, and ultimately, San Francisco Bay. 060623 syn 0120131 !1 NOT YET APPROVED Mitigation Measure F.3-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Project shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to construction grading for the proposed land uses, the applicant shall file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which addresses measures that would be included in the Project to minimize and control construction and post-construction runoff. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The following measures shall be included in the SWPPP: []Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system []Effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control during the construction and post-construction periods []Coverage of soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events and perform monitoring of runoff [] Inspection and maintenance of SWPPP. measures before, during and after each rainfall event [] Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system When the construction phase is complete, a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the General Permit for Construction shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Public Works Department. The NOT shall document that all elements of the SWPPP have been executed, construction materials and waste have been properly disposed of, and a post- construction stormwater management plan is in place as described in the SWPPP for the site. As part of the mitigation for post-construction runoff impacts addressed in the construction SWPPP, the Project sponsor shall implement regular maintenance activities (i.e., maintaining on-site drainage facilities and landscaping that receives stormwater runoff, litter control)at the site to prevent soil and litter from accumulating onthe Project site and contaminating surface runoff. An annualpost-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared andsubmitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building 060623 syn 0120131 12 NOT YET APPROVED permits. include: Other post-construction source controls and BMPs may maintenance of landscaped areas as necessary to maintain soil structure and permeability site maintenance, including routine catch basin cleaning; and maintenance of landscaping with minimal pesticide use, including landscape maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid significant flooding impacts on the Project site. The proposed redevelopment on the Project site will not substantially increase peak storm water runoff from the site if subject to requirements to provide for on-site detention of storm water runoff. New residential buildings and landscaping could be a source of additional non-point source pollutants in storm water. With implementation of NPDES construction and municipal permit requirements, the Project will not result in significant storm water runoff or water quality impacts during construction of post-construction periods F. Biological Resources Impacts. Impact G.l: Protected native birds and bats, and their nests and roosts may be present in landscaping or abandoned buildings and could be impacted by the implementation of the proposed BUILD and TKCJL Projects. Mitigation Measure G.I-I: Protections for Nesting Birds. Project sponsors shall remove potential nesting habitats (vegetation) only during the non-nesting season between September 1 and March i. If vegetation is to be removed or otherwise impacted during the nesting season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, and if active nests are found, disturbance-free buffer zones shall be established. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed no more than 30 days prior to the start of demolition/vegetation removal or no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season. If nesting birds are located on or immediately 060623 syn 0120131 13 NOT YET APPROVED adjacent to the site, a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the active nest shall be established for the duration of breeding until young birds have fledged. Mitigation Measure G.I-2: Protections- for Roosting Bats. The following measures are included in the BUILD Project to avoid potential impacts to native roosting bats, such as the Mexican freetail bat: ¯Preconstruction surveys for bats shall be conducted no more than 14 days in advance of the demolition of the building on-site. Surveys shall be conducted on several consecutive days/nights to assure the identification of all roosting bats inthe building. Demolition shall not proceed until aqualified bat biologist has adequately surveyed the building, removed any bats, and determined that all bats have been captured [] If a maternity roost is present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the extent of construction- free zones around active nurseries since these species are known to abandon young when disturbed. If either a maternity roost or hibernacula is present, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. CDFG should also be notified of any active nurseries within the construction zone []If an active nursery roost is located, demolition of that building can commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March I) or after youngare volant (flying)(i.e.,after July 31).The disturbance-free buffer zones described in the mitigation above shall be observed during the maternity roost season (March 1 - July 31). FINDING: Implementation of the above mitigation measures is feasible and would avoid possible impacts to nesting bird and roosting bats on the BUILD Site and TKCJL Site. G. Cultural Resources Impacts. Impact J.l: Development of the Project site, including excavation and grading,could result in the disturbance of archaeological resources. 060623 syn 0120131 14 NOT YET APPROVED Mitigation Measure J.l-l: Pre-Construction Surveys and On- Site Monitoring. Prior to the start of construction or at the time of removal of landscaping and asphalt, a visual inspection and monitoring of the Project site shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist, approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.Monitoring shall consist of coordinating subsurface work to allow for the careful examination of vertical and horizontal soil relationships for the purpose of defining positive archaeological finds (prehistoric and/or historic).After written approval, the Planning and Community Environment Department shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or other subsurface work on the site and the applicant shall provide a written protocol that stipulates the manner in which the applicant shall comply with the monitoring requirements. The monitor shall maintain a field log of their presence and observations, carefully noting soil conditions. In the event archaeological deposits are discovered all work within the proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeologist can examine the find and document its provenance and nature. If the find is deemed significant by the archaeologist excavation shall be performed to allow for the mapping of the aerial extent of any deposits as well as to understand their depth below the existing surface. Maps shall be prepared by professional surveyors to aid Project designers in the avoidance of impacts to these deposits if at all possible by relocating structures and utilities, and/or by placing fill over them to allow construction and/or use as landscaping or for parks which could be done without any damage to the resources themselves. Work shall only proceed on the Project site once a Treatment Plan is submitted by the archaeologist to the City and adequate mitigation measures are adopted or the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In the event that the proposed Project cannot be redesigned to protect any buried archaeological deposits, a program of hand excavation into areas of Projected impacts shall be conducted to determine the significance of the resources. Recommendations shall be prepared for the mitigation of impacts to any resource areas that are found to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. Mitigation could include but is not limited to an additional program of data recovery through hand excavation along with archaeological monitoring of all Project related earthmoving activities inside 060623 syn 0120131 15 NOT YET APPROVED the borders of the resource areas to allow for the recording and/or removal of significant archaeological materials and/or information and human burials. Mitigation Measure J.l-2: Notification of Archaeological Finds. In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and the archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of Findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of state law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. FINDING: Implementation of the identified mitigation measures is feasible and would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. If.ALTERNATIVES. CEQA requires an evaluation of the comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed Project. The following alternatives were evaluated in the EIR: 060623 syn 0120131 16 NOT YET APPROVED A. No Project Alternative. Scenario i: Under the first scenario, the existing office building (currently vacant) would remain on the site and would be refurbished for office uses. Renovation or improvements to the existing parking lot and landscaping would also be required for the existing office building to be reoccupied. Scenario 2: Under the second scenario, the approximately 12.5 acre site could be redeveloped with up to 273,000 sq.ft, of office or light industrial uses at an FAR of up to 0.5. This would replace an approximately 265,000 sq.ft, office building and a 2,500 sq.ft, fast food restaurant at the corner of San Antonio and East Charleston Rd. FINDING: Scenario 1 would avoid the land use, transportation, noise,hazardous materials, and cultural resources impacts and would substantially reduce the air quality, noise and water quality impacts associated with construction. Scenario 2 would avoid noise impacts other than those from construction impacts, would avoid the hazardous materials impacts, and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative traffic. However, Scenario 2 would have construction impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. While both No Project scenarios are environmentally superior to the proposed Project, neither would meet the Project goals of either BUILD or CJL for developing residential uses, a community center and a preschool site nor would it meet the City’s housing goals of providing very low and low income housing for seniors, including the development of this site as a Housing Opportunity Site. B. Reduced Scale Alternative. Description: Under this alternative, the allowed development on the BUILD and CJL Sites would be reduced by approximately 40 percent and would include the following components: []96 condominiums and 40 senior apartments on the BUILD Site; and []66 congregate care and 42 assisted living units, 67,800 square feet of recreation/community center 060623 syn 0120131 17 NOT YET APPROVED uses, and a 10,200 square facility on the TKCJL Site foot preschool/daycare FINDING: This alternative would result in similar land use, noise, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, traffic safety and construction impacts (air quality, noise, water quality, and cultural resources) as the proposed Project. All of these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures similar to those included in the proposed Project. The Reduced Scale Alternative, would however, eliminate the significant impact at the Charleston/ Alma intersection during the PM peak hour and significant parking impacts. The Reduced Scale Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project because it would avoid these transportation impacts. However, this alternative has not been selected because the mitigation measures included in the Project avoid or reduce all of the identified significant impacts to a less than significant level and because the Reduced Scale Alternative does not support all of the Project’s goals and objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project objectives of developing the maximum number of housing units to address the City’s jobs/housing imbalance or to provide the greatest number of senior affordable units that can be developed on the site. It also may not be able to meet TKCJL’s goal to enable the Jewish Community Center to restore the full range of services essential to its long-term financial Viability. Because of the reduced number of residential units, it also may not meet the financial objectives of BUILD or TKCJL. C. Building Height Alternative. Description: This alternative would conform to building height and roadway setbacks specified in the Palo Alto Municipal code. Buildings would not exceed 50 feet in height and would be set back a minimum of 24 feet from San Antonio Road, 24 feet from Charleston Road and 15 feet from Fabian Way. As a result, this alternative would be a smaller development, representing a less intense use of the site. FINDING: This alternative would result in similar land use, transportation, noise, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and construction impacts (air quality, noise, water quality, and cultural resources) as the proposed Project, although the extent of these impacts would be reduced somewhat. 060623 syn 0120131 18 NOT YET APPROVED As with the proposed Project, all of these impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures similar to those included tin the proposed Project. The Building Height Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project because it would result in similar significant impacts to those of the proposed Project. Furthermore, it does not support all of the Project’s goals and objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project objective of developing approximately 400 housing units to address the City’s jobs/housing imbalance or to provide the greatest number of senior affordable units that can be developed on the site. It also may not be able to meet TKCJL’s to enable the Jewish Community Center to restore the full range of services essential to its long-term financial viability. Because of the reduced number o residential units, it also may not meet the financial objectives of BUILD or TKCJL. 060623 syn 0120131 19 Exhibit B [~.- ~ o o o o ~ 0 r~ o 0 o 6 oo 0 o ~ o I I I I ~ o ~k ~ ~ 0 ~=o I ~ 0 o ~ o ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE PROJECT FROM GM TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Application and Hearings. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing commercial parking lot at 901 San Antonio Road, and the construction on an approximately eight and one-half acre site bounded by San Antonio Road, Fabian Way, and Charleston Road of a ±432,200 square foot mixed-use building including 193 condominium style congregate care and assisted living senior dwelling units, ±134,100 square feet of community center space, and an at-grade parking garage (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of May 18, 2006 considered the Project and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning Commission, after e-duly noticed public hearing~ held June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006 recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2.Variance. The Project requires a variance from the height requirements of Section 18.68.150 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, 060907 syn 0091188 which sets the maximum height of building within the PC district at 50-feet above grade. The extent of the variance request is contained in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (a) The Planning Commission, after e--duly noticed public hearing~ held June 28, 2006 and Jluy 26, 2006 recommended that the variance be granted. (b) The Council finds, property, that: with respect to the subject (i) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. The TKCJL project would be located on a site in a flood zone designated as Zone "AE" of the 100-year tidal flood plan which, in the case of a 100-year storm, could flood up to 8 feet above sea level in the event of over-tapping or failure of Bayfront levees. The City of Palo Alto and FEMA require that the first floor of occupied area shall be at least 8 feet above sea level. The site currently ranges as low as 3 feet above sea level to a maximum of 5.5 feet above sea level. Furthermore, the project site is subject to a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) cleanup order. This order requires that any change in use from the current surface parking lot and office building to a more environmentally "sensitive" use requires approval and implementation of a Risk Management Plan ("RMP") approved by the RWQCB. Senior housing, classrooms, adult education and recreation areas are all considered sensitive uses. Among the requirements of the RMP are: (i) the entire site must be protected with an elaborate membrane to serve as a vapor barrier; (ii) no occupied building can be placed on a slab that is in direct contact with soil; (iii) areas under an occupied building must be mechanically ventilated; and (iv) there can be no excavation or lowering of the site for construction of parking. These requirements necessitate the construction of a parking facility that is above grade. In order to reduce the visual impact that a multi-story parking facility would bring to the site, the applicant has proposed a single-level parking facility with the residential and community center uses on top of the parking podium. The project, when 060907 syn 0091188 2 developed with the garage and four stories of buildings, would exceed 50 feet in height. (ii) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project site contains unique conditions as described in Section 2, (b) (i) that require specific construction methods and techniques be used that would result in the residential and community center uses to be located adjacent to grade. (iii) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), in that the project would comply with all other provisions of the PC district as described in PAMC 18.86 and with the applicable policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan as described in Resolution No , Section 2 (Architectural Review). (iv) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The TKCJL project is a large parcel adjacent to Highway i01 and San Antonio Road with minimal impacts on developments to the east. The BUILD project adjacent to the north would be a PC Zone, and has been designed specifically to be compatible with the TKCJL project. The TKCJL buildings create a transition to commercial buildings on Fabian Way and Charleston Road. There are no residential buildings adjacent to or across the street from the TKCJL project. The single-family neighborhoods to the west are separated from the project by arterial streets and would be located approximately 225 to 300 feet from the closest residential buildings, (c) A variance from the height and daylight plane requirements of Section 18.68.150 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby granted. The extent of the deviation from these height and daylight plane requirements shall be that shown on the final development plans reviewed and approved pursuant to Section 6 below. SECTION3.Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 901 San Antonio Road (the "subject property") from "GM General Manufacturing" to "PC Planned Community No." The subject property, consisting of approximately 8.5 acres,is 060907 syn 0091188 shown on the map labeled Exhibit incorporated herein by reference. attached hereto and SECTION 4.Amendment of Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, is hereby amended by changing the land use of certain property known as 901 San Antonio Road- TKCJL from "Light Industrial" to "Mixed-Use" The subject property, consisting of approximately four acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5.Findings for Approval of Planned Community District. The City Council, in approving the Planned Community district, hereby finds that: (a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are such that general or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the Project on the site will provide public benefits not otherwise attainable, as more specifically described below. (i) Conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for residential uses containing diverse housing types. The project would result in the redevelopment of a site listed in the Housing Sites Inventory list of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to a mixed use project containing 193 total units consisting of assisted living and congregate care units. Congregate care units would provide services and assistance for more independent seniors who wish to live in a supportive and structured environment. Assisted living units are for seniors living less independently who require more personal and individualized services. (ii) Community Center Uses Shared with the City of Palo Alto and the BUILD/BRIDGE Project. TKCJL wil! enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of the Jewish Community Center (JCC) facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance/aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms with sinks, a playing field, large meeting rooms, a large cultural hall and performance center and the teen center, among other components of the facility. In conjunction with the City, the JCC and the City will develop a schedule of jointly-sponsored programs, as well as programs and 060907 syn 0091188 4 portions of the facility made available for programs sponsored only by the City. The specific provisions of the agreement, including hours of operation and payment of incidental fees, would be initially reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services with follow-up reviews on an annual basis. TKCJL would also provide reduced cost memberships for the JCC for residents of the adjacent BUILD/BRIDGE project. (iii) Project design goals. The project would include construction of residential and community center buildings that would serve the proposed uses of the site and that would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The publicly accessible edges have been designed to create connection between the public and private edges, such as the street level administrative office space for community serving organizations units along the shared driveway with the BUILD.project and the stairways and walkways along the Charleston Roadside leading to the podium level and cultural hall of the project. The residential and community center areas are oriented into the central landscaped courtyard of the site. The buildings are well designed and have been determined to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings. (c) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole one with substantial public benefit. (d) The uses permitted and the~ site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The existing industrial office building on the site, at approximately 90 feet in height, is visually prominent. The proposed BUILD project would remove this building and allow buildings up to 70 feet in height (as granted in conjunction with the variance described in Section 2) on a site bordered by tall trees on the east and one- and two story buildings (up to approximately 15 to 30 feet in height) to the north, west and south. The size and scale of proposed residential and community center structures on the TKCJL Site would not be visually overwhelming or incompatible with surrounding Uses, including two- story industrial buildings with parking along the Fabian Way frontage. 060907 syn 0091188 (ii) Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project would redevelop an existing vacant office building and parking lot to uses that would be beneficial to the immediate region and the City, in that the project would provide diverse housing types and community center uses in an under utilized area of the City in the form of assisted living and congregate care living units. In addition, the project would include community center, open to the public that would include uses such as a preschool and cultural hall, a fitness center, play areas, administrative office space for non-profits, and community meeting areas. The development of the plan and associated studies included input from the public and project stakeholders. (iii)Policy L-II: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The project would be compatible with nearby neighborhoods, in that the design and location of the high density housing, community center and the buildings that would be constructed to contain the uses are separated from single-family neighborhoods by arterial streets and smaller scale commercial uses. The architecture and neighborhood compatibility has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and was found to be well designed and of a appropriate scale to the immediate context of the area. (iv) Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. The proposed project is the designation of land for mixed-use development which would allow for the development of variety of housing types. The TKCJL site would be developed with assisted living and congregate care units. The project would be consistent with this policy as a result of the varied housing types and increased density proposed as a part of development. (v) Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The proposed project would allow for~ the redevelopment of a vacant industrial property along San Antonio Road, Charleston Road, and Fabian Way and a smaller commercial use at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road. The TKCJL 060907 syn 0091188 6 project would include residential and community center buildings of varying size and architectural features that would support the uses contained within the buildings. Those portions of the project adjacent to the site edges, although exceeding the maximum height that would normally be allowed in the PC district, would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood of smaller scale commercial buildings and uses, in that these componentsof the project have been evaluated by the Architectural Review Board and have been found to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings. (vi) Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots.. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The proposed BUILD and TKCJL projects include at-grade par.king with residences, recreational, and community center uses built atop a podium structure above parking areas. This will avoid negative physical aspects of surface parking lots. Views of at-grade parking areas will be minimized through the growth of landscape plants surrounding the podium structure and by bringing some development down to street level to screen the parking area from the street. (vii)Policy T-I: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The proposed housing development located on San Antonio Road is one of two major transit corridors identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being desirable for increased housing densities. The BUILD and TKCJL projects include measures, including pedestrian walkways, to encourage pedestrian access within the entire 12.5 acre site. One bus route, VTA Express Route 104, operates adjacent to the 901 San Antonio Road site along East Charleston Road. Bus service on this route runs only on weekdays between Palo Alto and San Jos@ during morning and late afternoon commute periods. (viii) Goal H-I: A supply of affordable and market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. The TKCJL project would contribute 24 units toward the fair share housing needs of Palo Alto. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. The proposed TKCJL project includes residences for seniors in the form of assisted living and congregate care in a licensed residential facility. (ix) Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non- residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for 060907 syn 0091188 new housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion of non-residential land to residential or mixed use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion. Policy H-3: Continue to support the re- designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would convert a Light Industrial site, which currently contains an office building and fast food restaurant, to Mixed Use with housing anticipated to be one of the primary uses. The land use, density, and affordable units proposed by the BUILD project and TKCJL project are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan program measure and policy regarding the conversion of non- residential and underutilized lands to residential or mixed use development. (x) Goal H-3: Housing opportunities for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low, and moderate income households. The proposed BUILD development would offer housing opportunities (rental apartments) to very low and low income seniors and the TKCJL project would provide assisted living and congregate care for seniors. The projects, therefore, would diversify the City’s housing stock in the project area. (xi) Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. The BUILD and TKCJL projects would protect trees to be retained and replace trees removed from the site in conformance with the City’s Tree Ordinance and Tree Protection Manual. Street trees along the Fabian Street and San Antonio Road frontages will be replaced as required by the Department of Public Works. Two large redwood trees on the adjacent Space Systems/Loral property and healthy trees within the San Antonio Road right-of-way also will be protected from damage during construction activities, as described in Section II. G. Biological Resources Mitigation and Avoidance Measures. (xii)Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. The project includes a mix of uses and shared parking to reduce the need for on-site and nearby residents to drive. In addition, much of the housing wil! be designed for seniors, which will result in 060907 syn 0091188 8 fewer vehicle trips. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, such as bicycle parking and van or shuttle service, will be incorporated into the projects to further reduce trip generation. SECTION 6.Development Plan Those certain plans entitled Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Palo Alto, California prepared by Steinberg Architects dated June 21, 2006, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. SECTION 7.Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. to the following: The permitted uses shall be limited (i) Continuing Care Retirement Community: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as the Jewish Senior Residence ("JSR"), 193 units will be licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services as a "Continuing Care Retirement Community". The uses within the JSR include senior independent living (congregate care), assisted living, including memory care units, but not including skilled nursing care. Ancillary uses to the 193 residences will be food service, limited retail and personal services, meeting rooms, classrooms, administrative offices, medical and professional offices ancillary to a senior residence, recreation and gathering spaces and parking ancillary to the residential uses. (ii) Community Center Use: In the area designated on the Development Plan as part of the Jewish Community Center ("JCC), including day care for pre-school and school age children, private education, teen center, retail and personal services, eating and drinking services, class rooms and other adult meeting rooms, adult cultural activities, administrative offices, limited medical and professional services ancillary to community center activities, dance, music, photography and art studios, commercial recreation including pools, playing field, gymnasium and other fitness rooms, locker rooms and spas, a community cultural hall for major events, including seated meal services, religious services, and parking ancillary to the community center uses. (iii) Parking Garage: The following parking ratio shall be required: For the Continuing Care Retirement Community, 0.41 spaces per congregate care unit and 0.50 spaces per assisted 060907 syn 0091188 living unit. For the Community Center, 3.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 3.16 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the preschool uses. SECTION 8.Outdoor Events with Amplified Sound Limitations All outdoor events with amplified sound shall cease operations no later than i0:00 P.M., seven days per week. Noise levels shall not exceed limits prescribed by the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance. These hours may be further restricted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment or referred to the Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council for review. SECTION 9~.Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures adopted by City Council Resolutions No. and (i) Any exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Tree Protection. The Development Plan requires the planting and protection of specified new trees within the development. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (c) Parking and Loading Requirements. Two spaces per townhome residential unit and 0.41 spaces per congregate care unit and 0.50 spaces per assisted living unit shall be reserved for the use of the residential portions of the project; 3.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the Community Center and Commercial recreation uses; 3.16 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the Private Educational Facility Use. The ,plans indicate a loading facility accessible from San Antonio Road. A total number of 151 Class I and Class III bicycle parking spaces shall be included in the project. (d)Special Conditions (i) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. 060907 syn 0091188 10 The Project shall provide 24 Below Market Rate congregate care and assisted living housing units and the associated id ti 1 li i i p id d by ~-~ ....’~ ~--’~-res en a v ng serv ces roy e ~~v~ ~~ ........... 899 Charleston Road.These 24 units would be made available at entry fee levelsthat comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMRProgram for--~9 ~. The BMR program would include continuing support for the residents of the BMR units by subsidizing all monthly costs associated with room, care, food and extensive support services at income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 ycars. The Project’s owner has described~the BMR contributions, making a commitment to provide this housing and associated services. A formal agreement must be executed prior to approval of the Final Map by the City Council. In addition of ~n ~ ~rst The provisions of this condition (d) (i) ~ ....m ........~ ~ w~" ~ ~4 Ag....... 3COt’ S O%A~Qr ~.... are set forth in an reement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing which shall be executed and may be recorded prior to the final passage of this ordinance. (e) Development Schedule. Phase One of the project, which will comprise 100% of the JSR and a substantial portion of the JCC will commence in 2007 and be completed within three years. The JCC will then proceed with subsequent construction phases for the reminder of the project, which would be completed during the years 2012 through 2022. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may extend these time limits once by not more than one year, as described in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A detailed phasing plan is is contained in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (i) Variations in Phasing- It is recognized by the City that, as a non-profit dependent on fund raising, TKCJL may not have the resources to meet the phasing schedule set forth above.Developer may, therefore, request a change in the order,sequence and phasing of particular aspects of the Project components, providing the Director with a written explanation of and the reasons for the proposed change in phasing. In no event, however, shall the completion of Phase 1 occur later than December 2012, or the completion of Phase 2 occur later than December 2022, so long as reasonable progress 060907 syn 0091188 11 is made toward completion. Within 30 days after receiving the request, the Director: i) shall determine whether additional environmental and/or architectural review is required; 2) may determine the timing of the construction or the dedications, exactions, mitigations, reservations, or other conditions of approval, including, without limitation, any public improvements, so that the improvements necessary to serve each component of the Project and to mitigate its impacts are completed before occupancy of such component; and, 3) shall approve or disapprove the requested change in writing. These variations in phasing supercede the extension provisions outlined in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, pertaining to Planned Community Districts. (ii) Condition of Site- Before any phase of the Project receives a building permit, the Developer shall have received ARB approval of plans for the temporary improvements proposed for the areas of the Project Site that are not proposed to be built under that particular building permit. (iii)Minor Variations in Project- Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b) (3) (D) for architectural review. "Minor" changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 9.Environmental Impact Report. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "901 San Antonio Draft EIR, February 2006;" "901 San Antonio Final EIR, June 2006", and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION i0.Certification. 060907 syn 0091188 12 The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. // // // SECTION ii. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 060907 syn 0091188 13 CHARLESTON ROAD FABIAN STREET The City of Palo Alto Exhibit A 901 San Antonio TKCJLProject This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ~s d~cument is a grapH~ representa~on only of besl ~allable source 00 z Exhibit B Exhibit PROJECT PHASING & DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE The schedule and phasing for the Project are important elements of the Project because of its complexity, size and $240,000,000 cost. The Project will be funded entirely through private sources of debt and equity, of which about $150,000,000 will be raised from charitable donations. Because of these fundraising requirements, the Project may need to phase construction, with the JCC constructed in two or more phases. It is the expectation of the TKCJL that construction of the entire JSR of 298,130 square feet, and Phase 1 of between 98,000 and 118,5000 square feet of the total JCC (of 134,148 total square feet), will commence in 2007 and be completed within 3 years. Thereafter, the TKCJL will proceed with Phase 2 and, perhaps, a Phase 3, as soon as financing is available. Nevertheless, the TKCJL must be provided with a conservative development schedule for Phase I and subsequent phases of the Project. A. Phase 1: January_ 2007 - December 2011 (1)Garage/Ground Floor Level. The entire garage/ground floor and pool deck area will be constructed during Phase I - except for that portion of the garage to be located under the outdoor playing field. Parking will be located on the surface in the area reserved for the outdoor playing field. The number of surface parking spaces on completion of Phase I will be at least the number of parking spaces that will be developed in the garage/ground level when the outdoor playing field is subsequently developed. (2)Buildings. All buildings, except a portion of Building "C" and, perhaps, Building "F’, will be constructed during Phase 1. Building "C" consists of 15,943 square feet of classrooms and community space. Building "F’, the Cultural Hall, consists of 20,555 square feet. B.Phase 2 and Phase 3: January 2012 - December 2021 (1)Building "C" and Building "F". Building "C" and, perhaps, Building "F" will be built in Phase 2 and Phase 3, respectively. The sequence of Phase 2 and Phase 3 shall be interchangeable. (2) (3) Interior Improvements. While the buildings, other than the portion previously mentioned of Building "C" and Building F, will be constructed during Phase 1, some building areas, though completed as "Shell Building Area," will not be completed with interior improvements during Phase 1. Outdoor Playing Field. The outdoor playing field of 41,022 square feet on Level I will be deferred until after construction of the garage/ground floor parking area under the outdoor playing field. C.Variations in Phasing It is recognized by the City that, as a non-profit dependent on fund raising, TKCJL may not have the resources to meet the phasing schedule set forth above. Developer may, therefore, request a change in the order, sequence and phasing of particular aspects of the Project components, providing the Director with a written explanation of and the reasons for the proposed change in phasing. In no event, however, shall the completion of Phase 1 occur later than December 2012, or the completion of Phase 2 occur later than December 2022, so long as reasonable progress is made toward completion. Within 30 days after receiving the request, the Director: (1)shall determine whether additional environmental and/or architectural review is required; (2)may determine the timing of the construction or the dedications, exactions, mitigations, reservations, or other conditions of approval, including, without limitation, any public improvements, so that the improvements necessary to serve each component of the Project and to mitigate its impacts are completed before occupancy of such component; and, (3)shall approve or disapprove the requested change in writing. These variations in phasing supercede the extension provisions outlined in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, pertaining to Planned Community Districts. D.Condition of Site Before any phase of the Project receives a building permit, the Developer shall have received ARB approval of plans for the temporary improvements proposed for the areas of the Project Site that are not proposed to be built under that particular building permit. E.Minor Variations in Project Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. "Minor" changes do not include changes in land use. Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (05PLN- 00295) FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO- TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE PROJECT (TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE, OWNER; STEINBERG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT) FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE PC- The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION i. Backqround. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that: A.Steinberg Architects ("the applicant") has requested approval of the demolition of an existing commercial parking lot at 901 San Antonio Road, and the construction on an approximately eight and one-half acre site bounded by San Antonio Road, Fabian Way, and Charleston Road of a ±432,200 square foot mixed-use building including 193 condominium style congregate care and assisted living senior dwelling units, ±134,100 square feet of community center space, and an at-grade parking garage (the "Project"). Bo Resolution No. for the Project. The City Council has previously adopted approving the Environmental Impact Report C. The Architectural Review Board on April 20, 2006 and May 18, 2006 reviewed and considered the designof the Project and recommended approval upon certain conditions. D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held e public hearing~ on the Project on June 28, 2006 and July 26, 2006 and recommended approval of the design of the Project based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below. E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing [ on the Project on September Ii, 2006 and heard and considered all public testimony, both oral and written, presented to it,together with all staff reports and the record of the proceedings before the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission. 1 SECTION 2.Design Approval. The City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 05PLN-00295, regarding the architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth below, finding that: a. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Architectural Review findings as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. b. The design, as conditioned, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project is consistent with the following significant policies and programs: Policy L-I: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy L-8: New Development Limit Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own district character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering plates. Policy L-II: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. 2 Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of. small scale local businesses. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Policy L-65: Encourage religious and private institutions to provide facilities that promote a sense of community and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of street and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with new development projects. Consider incentives fro including public art in large development projects. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-77: Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. Policy T-l: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Goal H-l: A supply of affordable and market rate housing.that meets Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. Program H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the City’s existing neighborhoods. Program H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residentia! use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion of non-residential land to residentia! or mixed use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion. Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. Program H-14: Rezone, where necessary, those sites identified on the Housing Sites Inventory, using appropriate residential or mixed use zoning districts, prior to 2004. Program H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. Goal H-3: Housing opportunities for a diverse population, including very low, low and moderate income residents, and persons with special needs. Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low, and moderate income households. Program H-34: Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed use projects that propose more affordable housing than the minimum required under the City’s BMR Program and for 100% affordable housing projects. Policy H-14: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to very low, low, and moderate income households. 4 Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Policy N-35: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Policy N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto. Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas. Program N-76: Implement the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas as illustrated in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. c. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the project would convert an underutilized office building and surface parking lot to a community center available to members of the public and higher density senior living units. The heights of the buildings would be compatible with adjacent commercial buildings and the residential neighborhoods in that the project is located 5 approximately 350+ feet from the nearby single-family neighborhoods and is separated from commercial uses by arterial roads (San Antonio and Charleston Roads). This separation would allow for taller structures without affecting compatibility with surrounding areas; d. The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs and objectives of the community center and residential uses proposed by the applicant; e. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the buildings, which although extend above the maximum height limits allowed in the PC district, would be set back approximately 350+ feet from the edge of the Light Industrial/Single-Family land use areas north of Fabian Way. The buildings would be designed to be compatible with the adjacent uses and architecture in the neighborhood; f. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site as this project is a residential and commercial infill development and would enhance, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure; g. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed community center uses, senior housing types, building design and landscaping are supported by shared amenities to ensure harmonious co-existence of the residents, visitors and users of the community center; h. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that appropriate private and public outdoor spaces are provided for the residents and community center uses that would serve the unique needs of all users and visitors to the site; i. Access to the property and circulation thereon is safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the main access point for vehicular traffic would be via a shared driveway on the adjacent BUILD site. These shared facilities would reduce the need for multiple access points at the relatively narrow street property line on Fabian Way. The driveway would not interfere with the movements of pedestrians and bicyclists, in that pedestrian safety devices would be incorporated at driveway entries over public sidewalks.. 6 j. Vehicular access to and departure from t.he site would be restricted at specific points in order to promote smooth traffic flow around the project site; k. Natural features have been appropriately preserved and integrated with the project where possible. Existing street trees would be retained. Few other significant natural features exist on the site; i. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that a color and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and plant materials, to add vibrancy to the site and to assist its integration with the surrounding properties; m. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors creates a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that a variety of species types have been chosen and landscape features have been designed that will enhance the streetscape and surrounding environment; n. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the combination of California native plants would have low maintenance and water use requirements; o. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements such as the following: Title-24 value calculations exceeding standards by i0 percent; spectrally sensitive low-E windows with appropriate Solar Heat Coefficient per proper solar orientation; high energy efficient cooling and heating systems; appliances with high energy efficient ratings; low-flow plumbing fixtures and faucets; operable windows; and low-flow irrigation combined with drought resistant plant materials. SECTION 3.Desiqn Enhancement Exception. The City Council hereby approves a Design Enhancement Exception for the construction of a sculptura! tower element as part of the 7 Development Plan that would extend to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade, where a maximum height of 50 feet would normally be the maximum height allowed in the PC District, subject to the conditions set forth below, finding that: a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that the project would involve the redevelopment of an existing underutilized office use and surface parking lot with a community center and senior housing. Due to flood zone requirements and the requirements of the state water resources board, the project would be constructed on top of a parking podium that would be approximately 12-feet to 16- feet above grade, at which point the base of the tower feature would be located. b. The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this chapter, in that the maximum height for mechanical equipment would be 65’ above grade. The tower would be a key element of the applicant’s submittal that would serve as the symbolic center of the JSR and JCC programs. The tower is intended to be seen from most points from within the project, and this would not be possible given the height limitations established in the municipal code. The tower, which would contain mechanical equipment for an elevator that would serve the project, would be a solid structure to a point at 65-feet above grade, and would transition to a transparent-type material and form for the remaining 31-feet. Approval of the exception would allow the applicant to include a design feature that would be integral and compatible with the project architecture, but would also be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods. c. The exceptions are related to a site improvement that will not be detrimenta! or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the exception would be granted for a structural element that would have a footprint of approximately 12’ x 12’ and located in an area of the project where off site views of the tower, especially from the residential areas to the west, would be minimal or non-existent. The design of the tower would minimize any impacts from off-site views, in that the top 31- feet would be constructed of a light-weight skeletal-type system and transparent or translucent materials. SECTION 4. General Conditions of Approval. Plan Conformance. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with approved plans dated April 6, 2006 with the minor revision and additions dated May ii, 2006, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. o Planning Division Oversight. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall place additional funds on deposit to the City for the ongoing Planning Division oversight of the project until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. o Project Compliance. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval set forth in the Architectural Review resolution .and the Planned Community ordinance that would be approved by the City Council. o The project shall be subject to the mitigation measures as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report’s Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City Council. The MMRP is attached an exhibit to the CEQA resolution. o The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the Below Market Rate (BMR) program as described in the applicant’s letter, dated June 20, 2006. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by BUILD and the City, and recorded against the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. °Prior to the submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a construction impact minimization plan for neighboring businesses, developed with cooperation from the neighboring business owners. The plan would identify the potential impacts from construction, the time when those impacts would be expected to occur during construction, and how those impacts would be minimized, including, but not limited to: temporary relocation of customer parking, loading/unloading areas and pedestrian access ways; identification of temporarily modified circulation patterns around the project site; and temporary signage providing identification to businesses that have views from public views that are blocked during construction. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and Public Works. Planning Division o Jewish Community Center (JCC) /City of Palo Alto Joint Use Agreement- An agreement describing the terms and conditions of the JCC/City of Palo Alto Joint Use Facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to building permit finalization. The agreement shall contain, at a minimum, specific information regarding the facilities that would be available to the City of Palo Alto, the days and hours the facilities would be available, any associated fees (if applicable) that would apply to the use of the facilities, and a timeline for periodic review of the agreement. Copies of the approved agreement shall be forwarded to the Planning Division and the Attorney’s office. o Cultural Hall Use Schedule- The JCC shall provide to the Planning Division a monthly calendar that includes all of the proposed events within the cultural hall theater space. Each event shall include a description of the event, hours, expected attendance, and a description of any other significant events taking place at JCC during the time of the event. o I0. JCC/Neighborhood Association Meetings- JCC management staff and the boardmembers of the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association (PVNA) shall meet periodically as agreed upon by the participants to discuss issues related to the I0 operation and use of the JCC facility. JCC management staff and PVNA boardmembers shall make contact information, including telephone numbers and electronic mail addresses, available to each organization. II.ARB to Review Sculptural Tower- The design for the proposed sculptural tower shall be submitted to the Planning Division for architectural review by the ARB. Review by the ARB shall be completed prior to submittal of building permit plans for the tower. 12.Sculptural Tower Design Guidelines- The sculptural tower shall not exceed a footprint of 12’ x 12’, shall have a lower solid portion not to exceed 65 feet above grade, and a sculptural design above the solid portion not to exceed 96 feet above grade. The sculptural tower design shall not include bright light elements as a primary design element. Low level accent lighting, if included as part of the design, shall be the lowest level possible to achieve the desired effect. Transportation Division 13.The Project design shall include upgrades to all existing bus stops and/or shelters along the project frontage along San Antonio, Charleston, and Fabian to full VTA standards for length, width, structural section, and materials. The bus stop/shelter upgrades shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Transportation. Division prior to approval of the Final Map. 14.TKCJL and/or BUILD shall relocate and upgrade the pedestrian crosswalk across Fabian currently located near the northern property line of the BUILD parcel. The crosswalk shall be relocated to align with the Fabian driveway into TKCJL. The crosswalk shall be placed on the immediate north side of this intersection and shall include the components and elements noted in the EIR traffic study. The crosswalk shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to approval of the Final Map. 15.The two Project driveways on Charleston Road shall be restricted in their allowed traffic movements to right turn in only at the easternmost driveway and right turn in, right turn out, and left turn out only at the westernmost driveway. These driveways shall be channelized and signed to limit access to permit only the allowed movements. The access channelization and signage shall be designed to the ii 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to approval of the Final Map. Once the project is constructed and occupied and if unintended movements occur that are deemed unsafe by the City’s Transportation Division, the City may require further restriction improvements prior to occupancy of a future phase. The Project driveway on San Antonio Road shall b@ limited to right turn out only with an acceleration lane provided to the right turn only lanes at San Antonio/Charleston. The driveway shall be channelized and striped to restrict movement to right turn out only. The access channelization and striping shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to approval of the Final Map. Once the Project is completely built and occupied, but not later than five years after occupancy of the initial phase of either the BUILD or TKCJL projects, traffic signal volume warrants shall be tested at the southernmost driveway on Fabian. The traffic signal warrant study shall be conducted in consultation with the Transportation Division at the expense of BUILD and TKCJL. Should the warrant study conclude that a traffic signal is warranted and the City desires that a traffic signal be installed, BUILD and TKCJL shall fully fund the design and construction of the signal with the cost apportioned between the two applicants at 12% for BUILD and 88% for TKCJL, based upon the traffic assumptions contained in the EIR. according to tr~p~. San Antonio Road is designated to have a future Class II bicycle lane. The Project applicant shall prepare and submit to the Transportation Division a conceptual drawing (or options) indicating how a five-foot bicycle lane could be accommodated in the future along the project frontage on San Antonio Road. The schematic plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to approva! of the Final Map. Future plans submittals shall show the bicycle parking, by class and location. Al! racks and lockers must be of a design acceptable to the City. Future plan submittals shall note the dimensions of access driveways, drive aisles, parking modules, wayfinding signs, or other components of internal circulation and parking to indicate the functionality of such components. 12 21. 22. 23. 24¸. 25. Shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking onto adjacent facilities for special events (whether indoors, outdoors, or a combination thereof), when required by conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures, that would attract 350 or more visitors on weekdays and 500 or more visitors on weekends must be submitted at least ~two weeks in advance of the event.~ Such parking agreements shall note the amount of parking available, the location, any restrictions to use, how access to CJL is accomplished from the off-site parking area, etc., and must be enforceable to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division at least 3 days prior to the special event. Unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Division, the Project site frontage shall include a minimum five-foot landscape buffer between the back-of-curb and the five-foot sidewalk on the San Antonio side of the site, in order to prevent pedestrians from walking immediately adjacent to the flow of traffic. The Project applicant shall contribute the Project’s fair share costs (approximately $10,750) towards the cost of the newly installed signals at the intersection of the San Antonio Road/NB US i01 ramp. The Project applicant shall pay it’s share of the Charleston-Arastradero corridor impact fee prior to occupancy of the initial phase of development. The truck loading area on San Antonio Road (nearthe intersection with Charleston Road) shall be subject tothe following conditions: ® The operation of the loading area shall be restricted to the periods of I0 am to 3 pm and 7 pm to 6 am. The City may further restrict these hours should operational issues arise. All trucks shall access the loading area traveling southbound on San Antonio Road from US i01. CJL personnel shall meet all trucks upon their arrival and shall assist the truck operator(s) in accessing the loading area. CJL personnel shall use orange vests and traffic control paddles to help direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Exiting trucks must turn right onto San Antonio Road and right onto Charleston Road and then right onto Fabianto West Bayshore to Oregon Expressway. No other exiting pattern shall be permitted. 13 Access to the loading area shall be designed to allow trucks to drive forward into the area in a single movement, clear the sidewalk and then back up to the loading door. Exiting vehicles must be able to exit in a single maneuver onto southbound San Antonio Road. The City may restrict access to any vehicle type that cannot access the area and leave from the area in a single maneuver. A five-foot landscape buffer shall be provided adjacent to the loading area, between the loading area and the sidewalk, only interrupted for the sections crossed by trucks. Signs and/or pavement markings shall be placed at the ingress and egress driveways alerting pedestrians that trucks may be crossing the sidewalk. The structural section of the sidewalk shall be able to accommodate the truck load. Any sidewalk degradation shall be immediately replaced at an improved load level. Trucks must depart immediately after unloading or loading. Truck layover shall not be allowed. Detailed design of the loading area shall be submitted prior to approval of the Final Map and shall be to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division and the Public Works Department. Building Division 26.A Fabian Way address shall be required for the Jewish Community Center and a Charleston Road address shall be required for the Jewish Senior Residence. The applicant shall submit a Change of Address Request form to the Palo Alto Development Center and the new address shall be assigned when the parcel map is recorded. 27.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work for all non-deferred elements associated with the proposed project. 28.Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan check agency to conduct the building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City’s Building plan check 14 fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 29.The applicant shall schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Building Division staff and the 3rd party plan checker to review the permit application process and to verify that the permit application will address all of the Division’s conditions. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. ® ® ® The entire project is to be constructed under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits. However, with prior approval, certain portions of the design may be deferred and submitted separately after issuance of the main permit. The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. A separate grading permit may be required if cut and/or fill earthwork will exceeds i00 cubic yards or more than I0,000 square feet of surface area. The location of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the Building Division and shall be located at " an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the. exterior. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. The plans submitted with the building permit application for the shell portions of the building shall include the construction of stair and exit enclosures serving each floor of the building. Due to the complexity of the proposed facility the applicant shall submit a preliminary plan and related documentation that explains the design approach for the following issues: Identification of the various occupancy classes Occupancy separations Occupant loads from rooms, floors, buildings, etc. 15 37. 38. 39. 40. Exit paths with identification and explanation of intervening rooms, corridors, horizontal exits, sta&r enclosures, etc. This package should be submitted to the Building Division and 3rd party plan checker as early as possible in advance of the building permit application. The occupant load factor (OLF) of 7 shall be used for all multi-purpose rooms such as the gymnasium and cultural hall. An OLF of 15 may be used for the gymnasium if it can be assured that it can never be utilized for purposes other than physical education or sporting events. In accordance with CBC Table 10-A, all babysitting/child care rooms shall be provided with a minimum of 2 exits when the occupant load exceeds 6. The OLF for nurseries and child care areas is 35. The installation of doors across hallways and corridors (cross-corridor) shall be understood to be creating intervening rooms in the path of egress.This understanding shall be incorporated into the exiting plans so that compliance with CBC Section 1004.2.2 is achieved. The "bridges"connecting the different modules to the building, in the paths of required exits shall be considered as intervening rooms in the path of egress. This understanding shall be incorporated into the exiting plans so that compliance with CBC Section 1004.2.2 is achieved. 41. 42. 43. The use of portions of the podium deck for "exit discharge" is acceptable provided they comply with the requirements for exit courts or yards and that the paths are clear to the sky and do not involve travel beneath the bridges or other overhang structures. According to the definition in the Building Code, the garage level of the proposed building is the ist story. In order to provide consistency with the Code and avoid confusion, the plans submitted with the permit application shall identify the floor levels in accordance with the Building Code. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmission requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12, Division IIA. 16 44. 45. The project site is located within a seismic hazard zone indicated on the State Geologist’s Mountain View Quadrangle Map and is thus subject to the requirements of the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). As such, the building permit application shall include a geotechnical report that identifies any site specific seismic hazards and provides recommendations for their mitigation. ~ Additionally, the report’s recommendations shall be incorporated into the building designs. The garage floor shall slope to floor drains that connect to an oil/water separator in accordance with CBC Section 311.2.3.1. 46.Interceptors or other grease retention devices may be required to be installed as part of the plumbing system serving the food service facilities in the building that have the potential to discharge contaminates into the City sanitary sewer system. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 47.Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required for the commercial kitchen construction. Two copies of the plans, stamped and approved by the Health Department, shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 48.Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required for the construction of the public pools. Two copies of the plans, stamped and approved by the Health Department, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. 49.A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of any existing building on the site. 50.The Final map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 51.Prior to building permit issuance, written approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) shall be submitted to the Building Division stating that all pre- construction requirements specified in the Risk Management Plan (RMP) have been complied with. PRIOR TO BUILDING OCCUPANCY 17 52.Prior to building occupancy, written approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) shall be submitted to the Building Division stating that all construction requirements specified in the Risk Management Plan (RMP) have been complied with. Planning Arborist PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 53.Site Plan Requirements. Extend the Type II street tree fencing to enclose the entire planter strip and from sidewalk to the outer branch dripline.The Site Plans shall denote Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as bold dashed lines enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Protection Report) as shown on Detail #503s Sheet T- i, and the City Tree ~Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. 54.The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information: Sheet T-I Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan ((http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/arb/planning forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. 55. 56. Tree Preservation Report (PTR) . When required, the most current version of the TPR by the Project Arborist. shall be printed on Sheet T-I and/or T-2 in its entirety. A prominent note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-I and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. " Prior to submittal of building permit, the applicant’s Project Arborist shall review the entire plan set. Corrections shall be modified as necessary for consistency with the approved tree preservation report. The arborist shall provide a letter of acceptance of the plans, specifying the date of the plans, to accompany the submitta!. 57.Site Plans shall denote Type I fencing around Protected Trees and Type II fencing around Street Trees a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section 6.35-Site Plans. 18 58. 59. 60. All civil plan sheets shall include a note directed to the trees to be protected, including neighbor overhanging trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 650- " Aboveground utilities shall be located on the site in such a way that landscape screening can grow adequately to interrupt direct view from street frontages. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted for review. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed, including street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c. Irrigation schedule and plan. d. Fence locations. e. Lighting plan with photometric data. f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.. g. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. h.Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30- inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. i. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger.Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube.The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards.Irrigation in the right-of-way 19 requires a standards. j.Landscape adequately screening fitted with visibility. street work permit per CPA Public Works Plan shall ensure obscured with the (e.g., shrubbery, dark green wire the backflow device is planting of appropriate landscape rock covering, cage, etc) to minimize 61.All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. DURING CONSTRUCTION 62. 63. 64. Tree Protection Verification. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 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 enc!osure 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 65.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification 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. POST CONSTRUCTION 2O 66.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00 and 5.00 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planninq- community/tree index.html). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Public Works Engineering SITE SPECIFIC 67. 68. Since this project will create one acre or more of impervious surface, it will be subject to updated storm water regulations (C.3). The regulations require inclusion of storm water treatment controls sized in accordance with numeric standards, source control measures that prevent pollutants from contacting storm water runoff, and site design measures that reduce storm runoff and isolate contaminated runoff in order to minimize the need for storm water treatment. In addition, the regulations require a signed agreement with the City for the long-term maintenance of installed storm water treatment measures, subject to verification by the City. The applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering staff to discuss the implications of the regulations on the project along with other grading and drainage issues. It appears that the primary access to the site will be through an adjacent parcel. Therefore, at minimum, access and parking easements must be granted to the applicant from the adjacent property owner prior to the recordation of the Final Map required for this development. Any recorded easement granted for the benefit of this development "run with the land". 69. 70. The applicant will be required to construct public improvements as part of this development. The nature and scope of the required public improvements will be determined through a meeting with City departments prior to improvement plan submittal. Resurfacing the width of the projects’ frontage streets and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk are typical standard requirements. Due to the size, scope, and sensitivity of the development, the earthwork phase of construction is to take place outside of the City’s designated wet season: October Ist 21 through April 15th. The area of exposed earth and the contaminated soil combine to pose an environmental hazard if the grading of this project were to occur in the wet season. GENERAL 71.The. applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works -Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE- approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 72.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearestadequate municipal storm drainage system.Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff fromadjacent properties, shall be maintained. 73.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 74.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation volume exceeds I00 cubic yards. 22 75.The project is within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Because of the stringent regulations governing the design of any structure in the Special Flood Hazard Area, the applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering to discuss the various significant design constraints that will impact the structure. In addition, please note that there are many informational handouts available at the Development Center to assist in preparing improvement plans. 76.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto: A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. 77.The CJL project shall submit a FEMA "floodproofing certificate" for the "bathtub" design of the parking structure. This certificate shall be submitted prior to building permit submittal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 78.Proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Those areas that will be subject to contact with floodwaters, such as crawl spaces and garages, must be constructed with flood- resistant construction materials, as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93. The requirements specified in these regulations must be clearly and specifically noted on the structural drawings and in material schedules, and not merely noted by generic reference to the Technical Bulletin. 79.Proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Unless otherwise specified by Public Works, special floodwater openings shall be required in structure walls, as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93. The openings shall have a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade PAMC, Sec. 16.52. 23 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. This property is in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The plans must explicitly state the lowest floor is to be elevated to a minimum Base Flood Elevation of 8ft. This minimum floor elevation must appear on the architectural and structural plans. The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement/garage construction issues.This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered,and by using this and other available information,as well as professional experience, the engineer shallestimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement/garage is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement/garage waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 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 24 85. 86. issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to Adobe Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all 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. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas.City ordinance requires that these areas be covered. DURING CONSTRUCTION 87. 88. 89. 90. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). For purposes of determining compliance with the City’s Flood hazard Regulations, per condition I0, an inspection of the as-built elevation of the lowest floor shall be arranged prior to pouring the foundation of the garage (and/or building as the case may be). 25 91.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 92.The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure. This elevation certification should be done at the stage of construction when the "as built" elevation of that floor is first established and still correctable with minimum effort; a FEMA elevation certificate or copy thereof must be submitted for City files.In cases of improvement to existing structures where an existing floor will be the lowest floor, certification shal! be made prior to construction. Sec. 16.52. 93.All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 94.Any unused driveway shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 95.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off- site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign- off. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP 96. 97. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final Map is recorded with County Recorder. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a Final Map. 26 98.The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 99.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP i00.This property is in a special flood hazard area and notation of this shall appear on the recorded map. i01. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Fire Department 102.Site address to be prominently posted.at the main access to the property. (2001CFC901) 103.Applicant shall work with the Fire Department to provide fire access to the maximum extent practical, in conjunction with hose outlets and traffic signal preemption outlined below. 104.Fire Department access roads shall be marked by striping, signs or other approved notices. (2001CFC901.4) 105.An approved access walkway shall be provided to each egress/rescue window (2001CFC902.3.1) Elevated slab shall be configured as an exit court in accordance with the Building Code. 106.Approved evacuation signs and or emergency information pamphlets shall be provided throughout the building. (Section 3.09(a) (I), Title 19, California Code of Regulations) 27 107. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1999 Edition. (PAMCI5.04.160) 108.Approved 2~-inch hose valves shall also be provided within each courtyard and at approved locations within the parking structure. 109.An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s), and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1999 Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) ii0. Elevator car nearest the common driveway shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 x 82 plus a minimum of two emergency response personneT. (PAM~ 15.04.120) iii.An automatic and manual alarm system shall be provided for the building. (2001CFCI006.2.9) Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 112.The applicant shall schedule the WGW utilities field inspector at 650/566-4503 to visit the site and review the existing water/wastewater fixtures to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load.If the applicant does not schedule this inspection prior to demolition, they may not receive credit for theexisting water/wastewater fixtures. 113.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheets (each water and gas meter shall be denoted on a load sheet) for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). 114.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. Add details WD-02, WD-03, WD-05, WD-17, WD-18, WWD-01, WWD-10, 28 WWD-II and water/sewer demo standards to the drawing package. 115.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. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations~ and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant may be required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 116.The onsite sanitary sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. The City’s responsibility will start where the private system connects to the City’s existing sewer main in the street. 117.The 8" lateral shown on the plans to Fabian Way shall be connected to the 36" sewer main in Fabian not the 8" (slip lined down to 6.6"). Connect to the existing manhole if possible by core drilling. 118.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two 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 29 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. 119.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 120.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. These meters and backflow preventers shall be located at the street per Palo Alto Utilities Standards. Show the locations of the irrigation meters on the plans. These meters shall be designated as irrigation accounts and no other water service will be billed on these accounts. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 121.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed 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. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 122.An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 123.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected 3O by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 124.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 125.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities procedures. Utilities Marketing Services 126.Prior to issuance of the building permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by the utilities marketing services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at (650) 329-2549 for additional information. Utilities Electric PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 127.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 128.The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within I0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 129.A completed Electric Load ~Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 31 130.Industrial and large commercial/subdivision customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 131. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 132. This project requires a padmount transformer/switch/transition cabinet unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer/switch/transition cabinet shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. 133. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shallgrant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 134. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. 135.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 136.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 137.For set.vices larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The 32 cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 138.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 139.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 140. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 141.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 142.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. DURING CONSTRUCTION 143.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way.This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 144.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 33 145.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized, according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 146.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 147.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 148.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 149.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 150.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 151.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 34 152.The applicant shall grant Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 153.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 154. All fees must be paid. 155.All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 156.Developer shall provide electrical load details/calculations for sizing the padmounted transformer for the proposed project. Lead time on the transformer is 6-8 months. The City does not permit installing padmounted equipment (transformer/switch) in the basement or in any other inaccessible locations. Any extension or relocation of existing distribution lines or equipment if required shall be done at customer’s expense. Customer shall maintain clearances from the electrical lines per City and N.E.C. requirements. Utilities Engineering will . provide cost estimate/fees when drawings are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. Customer must visit the proposed project site and acquaint himself/herself with the field conditions prior to submitting the drawings. Customer must schedulea meeting with Utilities Engineering (650-566-4533/4516/4535) and obtain City’s standards and specifications. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance , entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 901 San Antonio Road: Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Project From GM to PC Planned Community, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Map from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, And Approving a Variance from a Height Requirement." INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: 35 ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 36 ATTACH M ENT E MR Progr Letter (will b [] h provided to Council pt. 21 packet) Attachment F APPROVAL NO. 2006- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: TAUBE- KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE PROJECT TENTATIVE MAP 06PLN-00114 (TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE, APPLICANT) At its meeting on September ii, 2006, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel (approximately eight and one half acres) and create one mixed-use lot containing 193 multiple-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, (TKCJL), this project involves the subdivision of one parcel (approximately eight and one-half acres) and the creation of one mixed-use lot containing 193 multiple-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The density of the lot would be approximately 23 dwelling units per acre. These densities would be allowed under the Planned Community zone district, which the applicant has requested for this site. Of the total units proposed, 24 units would be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units for senior citizens. Fourteen (14) separate floor plans are proposed within the two types of residential units. The congregate care units would contain five (5) floor plan types and the assisted living units would contain nine (9) floor plan types. All of the units would be in four story buildings located above the at-grade parking facility. The unit sizes in each housing type would range from 377 to 1,742 square feet within studios and one to three bedroom configurations. The parking garage would contain approximately 610 parking spaces for the residents and visitors to the community center. B. The Tentative map plan set includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plans conform to the Development Plan submitted for the Planned Community zone change request (05PLN-00295) . Because the request is to create more than four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010). C. The Tentative map indicates the location and extent of proposed dedications associated with the development of the project, including public utility, public storm drain, and ingress/egress easements. D. These dedications would be reviewed and recorded during the Final map process. The Final map would describe the terms and conditions of the dedications, including how the dedications may be used and maintained and the identification of the parties responsible for payment of costs, fees and maintenance issues. E. The Tentative map is associated with the application for a Planned Community zone change request, which also includes a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The Tentative map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances and received Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review on July 26, , 2006. The Commission recommended approval on a vote. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site encompassing both the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) projects. The FEIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was completed and distributed for a 45-day public review period from February 17, 2006 through April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on March 29, 2006, to accept comments from the public and from Commissioners. The FEIR was prepared following the public review period. FEIR includes the Responses to Comments and, where appropriate, revisions to the DEIR language to reflect the response. Responses to several substantive comments relative to transportation, hazards and hazardous materials, visual resources and aesthetics, public facilities, and related revisions in the FEIR are discussed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution No. that accompanies this Tentative Map resolution. Staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is consistent with the FEIR. The FEIR was certified by the City Council at the public hearing on , 2006. 2 SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): I. 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 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended concurrent with project approval. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans : The map is consistent with major Comprehensive Plan policies related to the change in land use, Policy L-l: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The existing parcels are located within the urban growth boundary and the lot merger is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area and Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods. The map is consistent with the Housing Element policies (Goal H-l, Policies H-2 and H-4, Goal H-2, Policy H-9, and Goal H-3, below market rate units). 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The subdivision and related project would result in a change of land use from commercial office to multiple-family residential and community center, and would do so in a way that would be consistent with the PC Development Plan and FEIRo The project site, at approximately eight and one-half acres with street frontage on Fabian Way, San Antonio Road and Charleston Road could support the Project and improvements. The Tentative Map, as conditioned, is suitable for the development of the project site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The purpose for the Tentative Map is to subdivide the existing parcel and create and create one mixed-use lot containing 193 multiple-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. In doing so, the site would be consistent with the PC Develo]ment Plan approved for the site. 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 habi tat : The subdivision of the parcel and creation of congregate care and assisted living condominium units will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other sensitive species is present on site. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The Tentative Map will not cause serious public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report that was certified for the project, and mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been approved to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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. The design the parcel merger will not conflict with easements on or off the site, as all easements will be maintained and any adjustments or new easements shall only be allowed or established by the conditions of approval. SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approval Granted. Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (~’PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, Planners titled "Tentative Map: Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life", consisting of eight pages, dated and received June 22, , 2006, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of ~roval.in Section 6. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the 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 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]) . SECTION6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020 [c]) . 2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal. 3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, dated, 2006. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the. City Attorney, executed by BUILD and the City, and recorded against the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Prior to Submittal of Final Map Planning Division 4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance with the ARB and the Tentative Map approved plans and conditions. 5 Department of Utilities 5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and Planning and Community Environment, Public Utility Easements for installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures shall be designated on the Final Map. Department of Public Works Engineering Division 6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the Public Works Department. 7. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the Tentative Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting shall determine the scope of all work required and related to offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the Fina! Map. Prior to Approval of Final Map 8. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB and Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted in relation to this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder. Designation on Improvement Plans 9. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works standards. Additional public street improvements shall be made, as determined by Public Works Engineering. I0. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Ii. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above grade, per City standards. 6 Prior to Recordation of Final Map 12. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the Final Map to guarantee the completion of the on and offsite condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:~ ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, Planners titled "Tentative Map: Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life", consisting of eight pages, dated June 22 , 2006 7 Attachment G June 20, 2006 PREMIER PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Curtis Williams Chief Planning Official VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Steven Turner Project Planner VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning & Transportation Commission Members Re;Taube-Koret Campus For Jewish Life ("TKCJL") Updated Project Letter - |une 28, 2006 p&TC Dear Curtis, Steven & Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to update the project letter dated May 27, 2006 so that Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission ("P&TC’) and the City Council are provided information in a brief summary format. The TKCJL application has been deemed complete during the EIR process and in conjunction with the Architectural Review Board ("ARB’) unanimous recommendation for project approval on May 18, 2006. SITE DESCRIPTION The TKCJL acquired the 12.16-acre site on June 21, 2002. This site had been improved with a six-story, 265,000 square foot building with a height of 95 feet. In 2004, the TKCJL sold a 4-acre portion of the site to Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, LLC ("BUILD"). BUILD has submitted a separate application for the development of a residential project that will include 103 "for-sale" housing units and 58 below-market rate rental housing units for seniors. The 8.16-acre remaining parcel has been increased by approximately 0.42 acres - a result of the pending purchase by the TKCJL of the KFC parcel located at San Antonio Road and Charleston Road. Accordingly, the TKCJL application includes a parcel of approximately 8.58 combined acres, or 373,782 square feet. 2.PRO|ECT DESCRIPTION The TKCJL project (the "Project") is one of the most complex and expensive projects undertaken in Palo Alto, other than on Stanford lands. The total Project budget is over $240,000,000. We are not aware of any larger project undertaken in California by a non- t72 University Av’enue, Pa!o Alto, California 94301 + 650 325-7787 Fax: 650 325-4364 Mr, Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 2 of 8 profit organization, other than a college/university, government/utility/transportation agency or hospital / medical facility. The total building area of the Project is 432,278 square feet - an FAR of 1:16:1.0. The FAR includes: (i) 298,130 square feet for 193 senior residences and care units (combining dementia care, assisted living and congregate care); and (ii) 134,148 square feet for community center uses. Document #1 provides a diagram of building areas and uses. Document #2 provides a statement of Sustainability Features. The Jewish Senior Residence of Palo Alto ("JSR") consists of 193 units.and associated common and support spaces for senior care housing for independent and assisted living. The Jewish Community Center and the JSR plan to coordinate and integrate their programming and facilities in order to achieve an excellent model of intergenerational community activities. All 193 units will be licensed by the State of California as a Continuing. Care Retirement Community ("CCRC’). The ratio of independent living, assisted living and memory care units will change over time as senior residents age "in place." The Jewish Community Center ("JCC") will be a full-service community center facility consisting of: (i) a state-of-the-art fitness center with indoor and outdoor pools; (ii) preschool for 240 children; (iii) after-school care for K-8th grade children; (iv) space for 400 children to attend summer camp; (v) adult cultural programming; (vi) older adult meeting and activity space; (vii) a community cultural hall able to seat up to 400 for performance activities; (viii) seating for up to 250 for celebrations or conference activities; (ix) a teen center; (x) retail services areas; and (xi) administrative and support spaces. Address Identification requested by the TKCJL are of three components: (1) 899 Charleston will be the address for the JSR; (2) 3933 Fabian Way will be the address for the JCC; and (3) authorization by the City Council under PAMC 21.20.140 for the TKCJL to name private streets, provided that the name so requested by the TKCJL shall return to the City Council as a consent calendar item for approval by the City Council. 3.PRO|ECT PHASING & DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE The construction schedule and phasing are important elements of the Project because of its complexity, size and $240,000,000 cost. The Project will be funded entirely through private sources of debt and equity, of which about $150,000,000 will be raised from charitable donations. Because of these fundraising requirements, the JCC portion of Project may need to phase construction in two or more phases. It is the expectation of the TKCJL that construction of the entire JSR of 298,130 square feet, and Phase I of between 98,000 and 118,5000 square feet of the total JCC 134,148 square feet, will commence in 2007 and be completed within 3 years. Thereafter, the JCC will proceed with Phase 2 and,. perhaps, a Phase 3, as soon as financing is available. About 400,000 square feet of the total Project area of 432,000 square feet, or about 93%, will be constructed in Phase 1. Nevertheless, the TKCJL must be provided with a conservative Mr. Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 3 of 8 phasing and construction schedule. These phases are set forth in the Staff Report and PC Zone. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA’), a two-volume Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR’) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Project was released in February 2006 and available for public review for 45 days. During that time a public hearing on the DEIR was held on March 29, 2006 by the P&TC. In addition to oral comments received at that meeting, written comments were received by the City from four public agencies, four members of the public and one member of the P&TC. Representatives of TKCJL also commented to the City in three letters to clarify various i~sues related to the Project. The DEIR concluded that the proposed Project has no potential significant environmental issues that cannot be mitigated. A Final EIR responding to all comments, and making corrections and additions to the text of the DEIR, was published in early June and is included in the Staff Report. 5. PUBLIC PROCESS The TKCJL h~as participated in extensive public hearings: ¯March 3, 2003 City Council Approval of TKCJL/BUILD Tentative Map °June 14, 2004 City Council Pre-Screening ¯December 2, 2004 Preliminary ARB #1 °April 19, 2005 Preliminary ARB #2 °September 14, 2005 P&TC Conceptual Review (Unanimous Approval to Proceed to ARB)o September 15, 2005 Preliminary ARB #3 ¯October 20, 2005 Preliminary ARB #4 ¯December 15, 2005 Preliminary ARB #5 ¯February 17, 2006 Draft EIR Publication °March 16, 2006 Preliminary ARB #6 °March 29, 2006 P&TC Draft DEIR Hearing °April 3, 2006 End of 45-Day Draft DEIR Comment Period °April 20, 2006 ARB Formal Hearing #1 ¯May 18, 2006 ARB Formal Hearing #2 (Unanimous Approval to Proceed to City Council) ° June 28, 2006 P&TC Formal Hearing In addition to these noticed public hearings, the TKCJL has initiated extensive neighborhood and community outreach that has included meetings with leaders of the Green Meadow Neighborhood Association, three meetings with the Green Meadows Association, meetings with leaders of the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association, meetings with the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association, the League of Women Voters and, in conjunction with PAN, two well-attended meetings in 2004. Mr. Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 4 of 8 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT In conjunction with BUILD, the TKCJL proposes an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would change the land use designation from Light Industrial to Mixed-Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed- Use designation allows a mix of uses, including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office Development, and would include the community center and housing uses of TKCJL. The mix of uses, FAR and Project density proposed by TKCJL are consistent with the Mixed-Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Some members of the public have requested that the land use designation revert to Light Industrial if TKCJL does not develop the Project. 7. PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE DISTRICT PAMC 18.68 governs Planned Community (PC) Zone Districts. The PC District is intended to accommodate developments requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other zone districts. PAMC 18.68.060 sets forth three determinations required for adopting a PC Zone District, all of which are presented in the Staff Report. One of the requirements is that the Project must be found to provide substantial Public Benefit. The Project provides the greatest level of public benefits of any previous Palo Alto project. The description of Pubic Benefit is set forth at Section 7 of this letter. 8. BMR PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The TKCJL recognizes its obligation to comply with Palo Alto’s BMR Program, as set forth in Program H-36 of the Comprehensive Plan. Continuing Care Retirement Communities ("CCRC’), such as that to be developed and operated by the JSR, are licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services with.many rigorous compliance requirements. Financing and operation of the JSR are complex functions that do not fit within the BMR guidelines because of the combination of guaranteed continuing care, daily food, social, wellness and cultural programs in addition to the housing component. In the case of the JSR, it is estimated that more than $25 Million will be necessary from donations. We are aware of no other California non- profit CCRC that has provided BMR subsidies for purchase and for ongoing expenses where the governing agency did not contribute to the subsidy. Generally, CCRC sponsors have refused to provide BMR units in reliance on provisions of the California Health and Safety Code prohibiting rent or- cost control of a CCRC by any local agency. Mr. Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 5 of 8 Nevertheless, TKCJL will proudly comply with and exceed the financial requirements and the spirit of Palo Alto’s BMR program through four principles of subsidy for Jewish residents of the JSR: 1.$5,000,000 Endowment for Financial Need. A $5,000,000 gift has been provided to the JSR as an endowment restricted exclusively for the support of residents who cannot afford either the initiation costs or the continuing monthly costs at the JSR. JSR Service Mission. The JSR is a non-profit organization being formed in conjunction with the San Francisco Jewish Home. The mission of the JSR shall be to provide a residential and assistance community for Jewish seniors, though membership shall be open to the public and not limited to members of the Jewish community. The JSR will not terminate the occupancy of any resident of the JSR because of his or her ability to afford the monthly costs of room, food, care and extensive services to be provided by the JSR. 24-Unit Subsidy of Entry Fee. The JSR will be subject to a recorded BMR deed restriction ensuring that 24 living units (with, perhaps more than one resident per unit) will be made available at entry fee levels that comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years on the following terms: at 12 Congregate Care Units will be identified with specific locations and will be available at a subsidized entry fee for 59 years, without use of any proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment. These 12 units will be available, initially, as Independent Living Units with food and comprehensive support services. 12 Assisted Living Units will be identified with specific locations, initially, but may be substituted with other satisfactory units throughout the JSR complex. These 12 units will be available at a subsidized entry fee at income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years without use of any proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment for 15 years. For years subsequent to year 15, the availability of units at a subsidized entry fee shall be through the use and extent of proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment. These 12 units will be available, initially, and reserved within operations of the JSR as Assisted Living Units. 24-Unit Subsidy of Monthly Costs. For the 24 units subject to the entry fee subsidy described above, the JSR will provide continuing support by subsidizing all monthly costs associated with room, care, food and extensive support services at income and ¯ affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years on the following terms: 12 Congregate Care Units will r~ceive continuing support by subsidizing all monthly costs associated with room, care, food and extensive support services at income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years without use of any proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment. b.12 Assisted Living Units will receive continuing support by subsidizing all monthly costs associated with room, care, food and extensive support services at Mr, Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 6 of 8 income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years without use of any proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment for 15 years. For years subsequent to year 15, the availability of funds necessary for the monthly subsidy shall be through the use and extent of proceeds of the $5,000,000 endowment The value of these three subsidies exceeds $15,000,000. A comprehensive BMR Agreement will be executed prepared before the City Council public hearing for the TKCJL Project. 9. PUBLIC BENEFIT At the June 2004 City Council study session, the September 2005 P&TC conceptual project review, and at the many ARB hearings, policymakers encouraged the TKCJL to consider providing transportation and support services to the BUILD low-income senior residents who may otherwise be without life-enhancing services. At the City Council study session, the Council directed the TKCJL and Staff to emphasize public access to and shared use of the JCC facilities through programs sponsored by the City’s Recreation Department. These benefits were to provide value greatly in excess of any community facilities impact fees that may otherwise have been applicable to the JSR, only, portion of the TKCJL. In response to these requests, the TKCJL is offering special public benefits that are valued at greater than $16,000,000 and are described at the end of this Section 9. Among the public benefits of the TKCJL project in addition to the special public benefits are the following: Eliminating 265,000 square feet of office building, with elimination of vehicle trips associated with the elimination of employees and their commutes. Improving of the jobs/housing imbalance. Providing 193 senior residence units, including memory care, assisted living and congregate care. The most rapidly growing segment of the population of Palo Alto is the elderly. Housing is provided without impacts on schools and with reduced impacts on community facilities. Providing a comprehensive community center. Providing a greatly needed preschool facility for 240 children. Providing K-8 grade after-school programs. Providing adult and senior cultural programs and services. Providing a gym large enough for two full-sized basketball courts. ¯Providing two swimming pools. Mr. Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 7 of 8 o Providing a playing field of about 41,000 square feet. °Providing a cultural center for performance a~ctivities seating up to 380, with dining and dancing capacity for 240. °Providing great landscape and site design features that will enhance the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular experience. ¯Providing the largest contribution to the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Public Safety Plan. Providing discounted memberships to the lowvincome residents of the BUILD senior housing project - 56 units with approximately 70 residents. The discount offered will be an 80% reduction of the then applicable JCC standard membership fee. Initially, this reduced membership is projected to be $20 or less per month. Tl~e membership discount offered to BUILD residents is valued at over $3,000,000, with discounts equal to over $50,000 per year for the 59-year term of the BUILD project. Providing transportation assistance to the low-income residents of the BUILD senior housing project. The JSR shuttle services will be made available to BUILD residents on a space available basis.. JSR anticipates that space available will accommodate the needs of the BUILD residents because of the number and frequency of shuttle trips most likely to be offered to JSR residents. The cost to provide a shuttle is about $200,000 per year. The transportation benefit being offered the BUILD seniors is valued at over $3,000,000, or at $50,000 per year for the 59-year term of the BUILD project. In the highly unlikely circumstance that JSR discontinues shuttle services for its residents, then this transportation benefit cannot be offered to BUILD residents. Both the membership in the JCC, and residency in the JSR, are open to members of the public through an open membership policy and are not restricted to Jewish participants. In addition to the public benefits inherent to the Project, the TKCJL will provide public benefit valued at greater than $10,000,000 through an arrangement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services (the "City") for shared use of the JCC facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance/aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms with sinks, a playing field, large meeting rooms, a large cultural hall and performance center and the teen center, among other components of the facility. In conjunction with the City, the JCC and the City will develop a schedule of jointly-sponsored programs, as well as programs and portions of the facility made available for programs sponsored only by the City. Prior to occupancy of any portion of the Project the TKCJL and the City will have entered into a comprehensive agreement governing the shared use of the JCC facilities by the City. Document #3 sets forth the types of City use of the JCC that will be embodied in the Comprehensive Agreement to be developed. Mr, Curtis Williams Mr. Steven Turner Planning & Transportation Commission Members June 20, 2006 Page 8 of 8 11. VARIANCE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT The building height for the TKCJL buildings will ~exceed the City’s height limit of 50 feet. The need for a variance to exceed the height limit of 50 feet was discussed in great detail during the June 14, 2004 City Council pre-screening, and at the September 15, 2005 P&TC conceptual review. The City Council and P&TC concurredthat the extraordinary circumstances of the Project make finding for a height variance appropriate. The Project site constraints requiring a variance for building height, and the variance findings, are presented in the Staff Report. 12. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS The ARB unanimously recommended approval of a Design Enhancement Exception ("DEE") for the Project. The DEE findings are included in the Staff Report. 13. PARKING & TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT The City and its consultants, through the Environmental Impact Report, have reviewed extensively the Project parking and determined that parking is adequate, except for special events when supplemental parking Or shuttle services must be provided. Traffic impacts of the Project are fully mitigated. The JCC and the JSR have developed a voluntary Transportation Demand Management Plan ("TDM Plan") for employees of the JCC and JSR. This TDM Plan is discussed in the Staff Report. We look forward to hard work, together, to complete a comprehensive and compelling presentation for P&TC and City Council. I~B y°urs’ aer Enclosures DOCUMENT #1 BUILDING DIAGRAMS, : AREAS & USES PERMITTED USES AND AREAS TKC]L Gross Floor Area By Uses A. JCC Uses Cultural Hall/Space Fitness Center School Age/After School Care Teen Center Administration Community Agendes Ancillary Commercial Preschool TOTAL: Approximate Area (S.F.)Building(s) 35,299 C,D,E,F,G,M 55,127 A,B 7,204 C 1,904 M 7,043 B 5,546 A 5,375 G,L 16,650 ~ 134,148 Bo JSR Uses 118 Congregate Care ) 64 Assisted Living ) 11 Dementia Units ) 193 Units Approximate Area (S.F.) 298,130 Building(s) D,E,G,H J,K,L,M oo~ o o DOCUMENT #2 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES (5/8/06) 60 Pierce Avenue San Jose, Cali{ornia 95H0 www.sleinbersarchilects.com Introduction Steinberg Architects is an active member of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) at the national and d~apter levels, and currently staffs over 20 LEED Accredited Professionals, ~ree of which are assigned to this project full-time. Steinberg Architects’ commitment to sustainability is initiated at the project’s inception with the selection of its internal project team, and through our assistance to the client in recommending and selecting qualified constdtants and engineers with extensive experience and familiarity in designing sustainable systems. Our sustainable design approach for this project will integrate smart, efficient, and practical design solutions that will improve the existing environmental conditions of the site, facilitate a safe, healthy working and living environment for the campus inhabitants, and minimize the project’s impact on the earth’s valuable resources. While this project will not pursue LEED TM Certification, we are using the LEEDTM2.1 Rating System as a baseline, and have outlined the criteria below as opportunities t’or integrating environmentally friendly solutions into this project. We believe the solutions we are proposing for the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life will have a minimal impact on initial cost of the project, but could have substantial long term benefits to the community, and yidd significant life cycle and maintenance savings for our client. g.xisting SRe Conditions The proposed 8.6-acre site is an existing impervious surface parking lot that is situated within one of the City of Palo Alto’s defined 100-year flood plains. The site is a portion Of the abandoned Sun Building and property and does not provide any urban character that is beneficial to the neighboring communities. Due to the nature of the existing soil conditions, this site has also been designated as a brownfield development that will need to be mitigated for inhabitation. SUSTAINABLE SITE ’ISSUES Site Development The project proposes to develop the existing lot by densifying the site conditions with the construction of several multi-story, multi-use buildings that will enhance the . character and services of the neighboring community. Program elements include: comm unity cultural hall, an athletic and sports facility, senior residential housing and services, and early childhood programs. All buildings will sit on podium level with parking at street level that will address flood plain concerns by grading the property’s street level entrances to be above projected 100 year flood plain levels. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Project design will implement a Storm Water Management Plan that will conform to the City ofPato Alto’s local requirements and will provide construction and post- 415.683.2000 San Francisco 408.295.5446 SanJose 213,629.0500 Los Angeles TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH. LIFE/02023 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES construction best management practices for sustaining these practices for the life of the buildings and campus. Bro~nfield Development Based upon the lh-adings and recommendations of the project’s Environmental Impact Report, development of the site will include mitigation and remediation of existing contanfinated soil conditions by integrating a gas exchange system that will intake fresh air from the atmosphere and extract contaminated vapors from the soil. Additionally, foundations and soil penetrations will be vapor and water proofed per environmental consultants recommendation, thereby eliminating potentially hazardous conditions and making the site inhabitable for its users. Alternative Transportation The proposed project will provide bicycle storage for approximately 150 bicycles at the street level. Bicycle Storage will be designated into Class I, II and III storage spaces per -requirements of City of Palo Alto. Additionally, the site is conveniently situated within a ~,4 mile of three VTA Bus lines that run along San Antonio and Charleston Roads and connect the campus to the San Antonio and California Avenue CalTrain Stations. These CalTrain Stations will serve commuters from outlying North and South Bay communities and may help mitigate the volume of automobile traffic to the site. Stormwater Management This project will provide construction and post construction Best Management Practices to treat storm water runofffrom the site. These practices will include: Hydrodynamic separators to treat runoff from the building and paved areas. Pervious pavements and infiltration basins in the main project entry on Fabian Way. Covered parking for residents. The project will conform to the City of Palo Alto storm water quality regulations for both construction related activities and post construction Best Management Practices and will conform to the requirements of City of Palo Alto NPDES discharge permit. As part of the storm water treatment plan, civil and plumbing engineers have been collaborating with our landscape architect to locate building drainage spigots along San Antonio Road that will l]owinto swales within the landscape design. These spigots will appear as integrated water features on days of heavy rain. Light Pollution Reduction Through the coordination of site lighting design with our program needs, we will determine sensible ambient lighting levels for the buildings and adiacent site features, and intend to minimize the impact o flight pollution from this project by specil~ing lighting fixtures that will not cause glare nor cast direct beam illumination into the sky and neighboring properties. TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE/02023 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES Heat Island Effect Reduction The design team is looking at a varieD" of Title 24 compliant low-maintenance cool roof systems for all flat roofs where highly reflective and highly emissive roofing are not a concern for the campus inhabitants. The integration of vegetation and arcades at the podium level public spaces and various roof terraces will enhance the beauty of the pro)ect and benefit users of the space by providing adequate shading from the sun in summer months. Solar Orientation Studies Through the use 0f site and faqade modds, the design team is working to refine the massing of the buildings on site and inform us of areas of the campus that may benefit from the integration of overhangs, light shrives and fins in their facade to minimize glare and heat gain in the summer, and allow for sufficient daylighting and heat gain in the winter. We intend these elements to also be practical architectural features such as roof screens, residential balconies and privacy screens that will also benefit the usability and architecture of the buildings. Water Efficiency It is our intent to maximize water efficiency and minimize water use through the use of water efficient landscaping technologies, equipment and plumbing fLxtures. This can be accomplished in several ways: Using climate controlled irrigation technology to eliminate over watering of landscape vegetation Specifying the use of native or drought tolerant plants where appropriate The installation of a pervious artificial turf play field that will greatly reduce water use for maintenance of the field Specification of water efficient appliances that exceed minimum standards Specifying low flow, water efficient plumbing fLxtures in all public spaces and residential units Use of waterless urinals at all public restrooms Energy and Atmosphere Our goals for improving energy reduction and atmosphere intend to exceed Tire 24 requirements through the use of high effficiency Mechanical and Lighting Systems. Sonae of the strategies we are looking to use are as follows: Eliminate the use of CFC-based refrigerants and minimize the use of HCFC refrigerants in our HVAC Systems. Specify provisions to calibrate Mechanical and Electrical Systems to perform at optimal levels and to adequately train maintenance staff on proper procedures for maintaining equipment to perform at optimum levels for the life of the buildings. TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE/02023 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES Specify high efficiency HVAC systems and integrating the use of natural ventilation in private residences and public spaces to minimize the use of artificial ventilation systems Specify high efficiency water heaters and plumbing equipment in all buildings Select food service equipment that does not use CFC-based refrigerants Select an overall fire suppression system that does not use halon based chemicals Through the use of energy modeling programs such as Energysoft, the Project Design team will analyze heat loss and gain through various building facades and recommend optimal wall and fenestration assemblies for compliance with Title 24 Energy Requirements Coordinate HVAC systems to encourage cross ventilation and efficient configurations for supply and retttrn air that will minimize the use of HVAC equipment_ Identify opportunities for integrating high efficiency site and anabient lighting Utilization of occupancy sensors and daylight sensing technology to minimize use of artificial lighting Materials and Resources Recycling and Waste Management, and Facility Maintenance As a good neighbor practice, this facility intends to participate in the City of Palo Alto’s recycling and composting programs during its operation to minimize the amount of waste going to landfills. The design of the building provides for several spaces throughout the campus that are dedicated to the storage and collection of recyded materials. Whenever possible, lawn and landscape clippings will be collected and deposited at the city’s local composting facility. During construction, this project will conform to City of Palo’s Construction and Demolition Program requirements and intends to divert at least 50% of all construction waste from landfills by sending recyclable materials to local quarries or recycling facilities. Based upon current market trends and previous project experience, a waste diversion rate of 75% should be achievable without significant cost impact. Use of environmentally friendly, biodegradable cleaning products to upkeep and dean the facility where feasible. Use of Environmentally Friendly and Locally Manufactured Building Materials There are several opportunities to specify mate,rials that are made from rapidly renewable sources, have high levels of recycled content, or can be recycled or biodegrade after their useful life. Some materials we are looking at specifying include: Bamboo flooring and finishes Wheat board or biocomposite casework cotton and formaldehyde free insulation products concrete w/high volumes of recycled fly ash in concrete walls and foundations steel structure poplar wood trim HDPE toilet partitions TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE/02023 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES marmoleum flooring in lieu of VCT cork underlayment for subflooring systems and wall panels Oriented strand board where practical for exterior sheathing and flooring systems Rubber flooring made from recycled rubber products In cases’where quality levels will not be compromised, locally manufactured and harvested materials and products shall be utilized to stimulate the local economy and minimize transportation costs of materials from abroad. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Indoor environment can be improved thorough the integration of daylighting, the optimization of ventilation systems, and the specification of Low and No VOC finishes. Some strategies to achieve this are as follows:. Providing at least two operable windows per individual living unit Using maximum outside air ventilation to meet ASHRAE 62-1999 Integrating exterior shading devices and light wells into the bttilding architecture to optimize daylighting of spaces. Optimize required air change levels of equipment to meet special program requirements and increase efficiency Installation of integrated floor mats at public spaces to minimize dust and pollutant contamination entering the building by foot traffic Installation of fly screens at commercial grade kitd~ens to minimize pest and pollutant infiltration of food service areas. Specifying Low VOC sealants, paints, and finishes to improve air quality of building during building construction and occupation Use of composite wood products that do not contain added urea- formaldehyde resins Use of low irritation pool chemicals such as bromine to address concerns for seniors and youths with sensitive skin conditions Seismic and Building Life Sustainability Beyond the requirements of the building code, the team’s structural engineer has designed the project to be seismically sustainable, such that the buildings will be designed to be repairable, and need not be replaced in the event of significant seismic activity. This is being accomplished in the strategic design of the project’s shear wall and cross bracing configurations to localize and control seismic damage where possible. DOCUMENT #3 PUBLIC BENEFIT SCHEDULE DOCUMENT #4 EXAMPLES OF CITY USE OF THE JCC FACILITY TO BE SET FORTH IN A COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT The TKCJL will provide great public benefit through an arrangement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services (the "City") for shared use of the JCC facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance/aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms with sinks, a playing field, large meeting rooms, a large cultural hall and performance center and the teen center, among other components of the facility. In conjunction with the City, the JCC and the City will develop a schedule of jointly-sponsored programs, as well as programs and portions of the facility made available for programs sponsored only by the City.. There will be specified major Jewish holidays when the JCC facility will be dosed and no portion of the facility will be available for City use. A Review Committee, consisting of JCC and City representatives, will determine the schedule, operations and programs for the City use with respect to both exclusive City-sponsored programs and joint City/JCC programs. The City’s use will be at no cost, except for reimbursement to the JCC for the actual direct costs incurred (e.g., security, janitorial, utilities) for programs sponsored only by the City. A summary of the minimum hours and faciltiy uses by the City are identified below and will be embodied in a comprehensive agreement between TKCJL, the JCC and the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project: A. Gymnasium & Locker Rooms (NBA Court/2 |unior Cross Courts): (i)Exclusive City-Sponsored Programs ¯Friday (6PM - 11PM)°Saturday (8AM - Noon) ¯Sunday (7PM - 10PM) ~°1 Weekday Evening for Jr. Court (Mon-Thurs/6PM - 11PM)¯1 Weekday Afternoon for Jr. Court (Mon-Thurs/1:30 PM - 4:30PM) (ii) Joint City/JCC Programs ¯ 1 Weekday Night for Jr. Court (Mon-Thurs/7PM - 11PM) B. Dance/Yoga (1,600 sf Room with Hardwood Floors): (i)Exclusive City-Sponsored Program ¯Friday (7PM - 11PM) °Saturday (10:30AM-2PM) °Sunday (1PM - 4PM)°Monday - Thursday (10AM - 11AM and 2PM - 3PM) C. Teen Center (2,000 sf Segregated Room): (i)Exclusive City-Sponsored Program [] Friday (6PM - 11PM) ¯Saturday (8AM - Noon) (ii) Joint City/JCC Programs o 1 Weekday (Mon-Thurs! 3PM - 10PM) D. Classroom Use: (i)Exclusive City-Sponsored Program ¯Friday (7PM - 11PM) ¯Saturday (8AM - 2PM) []Sunday (1PM - 9PM) []Monday - Thursday (10AM - 11AM and 2PM - 3PM) E. Play Field (41,102 sf): Fo (i)Exclusive City’Sponsored Program . Friday (6PM - Sundown) . Saturday (8AM - Noon) Cultural Hall (400-Person Capacity_): (i)Exclusive City-SponsoredProgram ¯ 10 Events Attachment I TAUBE=KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE Prepared by: THE HOYT COMPANY (916) 448-2440 Originally Submitted: May 4, 2006 Revised: July 19, 2006 Revised: August 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS ...................................1 Table 1 Targeted Alternative-Mode Users .................................................................2 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ......................................2 Table 2 Comparable Commute Mode Rates ..............................................................2 Table 3 Estimated Distribution of Employee Transportation Modes ......................3 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................3 Campus Location Map .................................................................................................4 Campus Site Plan ...........................................................................................................5 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................6 5.1 Car and Vanpool Parking Supply ......................................................................6 5.2 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking Locations ......................................6 5.3 Passenger Loading Zones ...................................................................................6 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE ....................................6 6.1 Carpool Lanes ......................................................................................................7 6.2 511 Rideshare RewardS .......................................................................................7 7.0 TRANSIT .......................................................................................................................7 7.1 Employee Transit Subsidies ................................................................................8 7.2 Valley Transportation Authority ......................" ..................................................8 7.3 Caltrain .................................................................................................................8 7.4 SamTrans ..............................................................................................................8 7.5 All Nighter Service - Late Night Bay Area Transit ............................. ..............8 VTA Route 88 Map .......................................................................................................9 7.6 Shuttle Services ..................................................................................................10 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ...........................................................10 8.1 Bicycle Parking - Long-Term and Short-Term ................................................10 Table 4 Bicycle Parking Recommendation .................................................: .............10 8.2 Shower and Clothes Lockers ................................................................., ..........11 8.3 Pedestrian Connections ........................." ...................: ........................................11 Bicycle Map .................................................................................................................12 9.0 EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR .............................................13 9.1 Employee Transportation Flyer ........................................................................13 9.2 Spare the Air Program - AirAlert .....................................................................14 9.3 PromotionalPrograms...14 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 CLIENT SERVICE GROUP TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ....................14 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM ..............................................................15 INFORMATION BOARD / KIOSK ............................................................................15 ON-SITE AND NEARBY PROJECT AMENITIES .........................i .........................16 KICK-OFF EVENT ......................................................................................................16 MONITORING ...........................................................................................................16 15.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey and Summary Report-. ........................16 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................17 ATTACHMENTS: 511.org Flyer 511 Rideshare RewardS & Application Employee Transportation Flyer Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic congestion and air pollution are critical factors affecting the maintenance of a healthy economy and lifestyle within the City of Palo Alto. Traffic congestion results in lost time for residents and commuters, and increased demand on City fiscal resources for roadway construction and maintenance. Mobile sources, such as automobiles, account for half of the air pollution in Palo Alto. The Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has voluntarily prepared a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for employees of this project. This comprehensive Plan is designed to achieve a 20% alternative mode-use for employees that will address local traffic and air quality concerns. There will be other alternative transportation modes for guests, customers, and residents that are not addressed in this TDM. The plan includes traditional TDM measures such as: A guaranteed ride home program Carpool parking Bicycle lockers Showers Transportation information kiosk On-site transportation coordinators Supporting on-site amenities The Plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures that encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as car and vanpool, transit and shuttles, bicycling, and walking. This plan is performance based with TKCJL intending to achieve a 20% alternative mode use by TKCJL employees. Mode use will be monitored annually with the first employee commute survey to be conducted one year after occupancy. Alternative mode use summary reports will be submitted annually to the City’s Economic Community Development Director after the annual employee commute survey has been conducted. Efforts to reduce drive-alone options and increase commute options can take several years to develop and mature. The current commute environments to Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto offer project commuters lower levels of roadway congestion and higher highway travel speeds according to recent regional surveys conducted by RIDES. Correspondingly, the transportation alternatives available to commuters may be less attractive than the ease and convenience of driving alone. For example, the nearest transit service does not provide direct service to the site and requires users to walk one block to the project. Reduced congestion and less than ideal transit services contribute toward increased single occupant vehicle (SOV) usage. In addition, all TKCJL employees will be provided with free parking. The reality of free parking, low roadway congestion and no direct transit may encourage drive-alone usage. [] The Hoyt Company Page i Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The TKCJL project supports the City of Palo Alto’s policy of focusing clustered development along major transportation corridors. This project is located near to,. and is served by, Highway 101. The trip reduction measures identified in this report are essential to realizing the employee trip reduction potential of the project. The combination of these critical factors will provide the impetus to maintain the targeted 20% employee alternative mode-use level for this project. Through monitoring efforts, such as the annual survey of employees to determine transportation mode split, the project will be able to better focus transportation coordination efforts and encourage employees t° use alternative transportation. The first mode-use survey report will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto after one year of occupancy. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS The basic premise of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the maximum utilization of existing transportation resources. The City of Palo Alto, as is typical of other urban areas in the United States, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in roadway infrastructure and public transit infrastructure. The goal of TDM is to more efficiently and economically take advantage of these major capital investments. The following are three basic goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of TDM measures: 1)Convert trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling) 2)Provide technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles) 3) Eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks, telecommute) Until recently in the United States, the answer to relieving congestion on roads, and in parking structures, was to build more roads and parking structures (similar in concept to building another manufacturing plant to expand productivity on levels). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates better utilization of the existing transportation infrastructure (similar to adding a second shift at an existing plant). To this end, TDM measures support the transition to a greater use of existing alternative transportation options. Employees (full-time and part-time) who will work at TKCJL are estimated, at the conservatively high end, to be 290 with many employees working at different shifts. A 20% employee alternative transportation mode-use goal would reflect approximately 58 employees. The Hoyt Company Page I Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Elan August 21, 2006 Table 1 shows the number and distribution of employee alternative-mode users targeted for the TKCJL. Table 1 Targeted Employee Alternative-Mode Users Jewish Senior Residences Jewish Community Center Total Estimated Number of Employees Target Alternative Mode Use Rate 90 200 290 20% 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY According to the Commute Profile 2005 Regional Report, prepared by RIDES For Bay Area Commuters (RIDES), the Santa Clara County alternative mode-use rate is approximately 26%, with the Bay Area regional rate comprising approximately 34% alternative modes. The larger Bay Area alternative mode-use rate reflects the increased prevalence of paid parking in urban core areas, whereas parking is free or much less expensive in much of Santa Clara County and in the City of Palo Alto. There are no specific mode-use details for commuters within the City of Palo Alto. Table 2 shows the comparison of alternative mode-use rates for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area Region. Table 2 Comparable Commute Mode Rates Santa Clara County Bay Area Region 26.0% 34.0% The estimated distribution of alternative modes used at TKCJL show that carpooling will likely be the predominate use. Table 3 shows an estimated distribution of employee transportation mode-use for TKCJL. [] The Hoyt Company Page 2 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 Table 3 Estimated Distribution of Employee Transportation Modes Estimated Taube-KoretProject Mode.Split Drive alone to work site 78.00% Carpool 12.75% Transit 2.50% Bicycle 2.19% Other (motorcycle, telecommute)1.50% Walk 0.85% Vanpool 0.21% Non-commuting (sick, vacation, business travel)2.00% Total 100.00% Alternative Mode Use Rate ~ 20.0% 2,90. 226 37 7 6 4 2 1 6 290 58 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The TKCJL project consists of two primary uses - a Jewish Community Center (JCC), totaling 135,000 square-feet, with athletic facilities, childcare, after school programs, senior and cultural classes and programs, and a large multipurpose auditorium; and a Jewish Senior Residence (JSR) containing 193 senior units in a 298,000 square-foot facility. TKCJL prepared this voluntary TDM Plan to include the appropriate measures and elements to achieve a 20% alternative mode-use goal. The project is designed to maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle and shuttle connectivity. Carpool parking spaces are planned with spaces also designated for vanpools. Class I bicycle lockers and bicycle racks will be provided throughout TKCJL for employee bicycle commuters at no charge. Showers and lockers will also be provided for bicycle, pedestrian and other alternative commuters. Food service, access to banking, an exercise facility and a sundry shop will help to create a more self sufficient development and encourage a reduction in the number of employee trips made daily to and from TKCJL. A project location map is provided on page 4. A TKCJL site plan is provide on page 5. This site plan shows the various amenities of TKCJL. The senior housing is located above the community center and facilities. [] The Hoyt Company Page 3 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management,plan 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT August 21, 2006 5.1 Car and Vanpool Parking Supply Employees who car or vanpool (or commute by clean-fuel vehicle) to TKCJL will have designated parking in the garage. Twenty (20) car/vanpool parking spaces will be reserved for these employees. 5.2 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking Locations One effective means of encouraging employees to rideshare and/or use a clean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the most preferred parking spaces for the exclusive use of car and vanpools. The project will provide 20 HOV parking spaces in premium, convenient locations. Ten (10) spaces will be located at the JCC near the childcare and administrative offices and 10 spaces will be located near the JSR. Preferential parking spaces will be specially signed and/or striped and may require employee registration and permitting. 5.3 Passenger Loading Zones In order to facilitate more convenient disembarking and embarking of rideshare passengers, passenger loading/unloading areas will be provided. Passenger loading zones for car and vanpool drop-offs will be located at the JCC off the shared drive on Fabian Way and at the JSR off Charleston Road. 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE Regional Rideshare Program’s Ridematch Service via 511.org provides free car and vanpool matching services. On-site employer contacts will promote the on-line 511 service directly to employees on a regular basis. Employees seeking to organize a carpool can sign up at on-site employer events such as an annual Transportation Fair or benefits events, etc. Human resource personnel can also research employee ZIP code data and offer to match up employees who live near each other. Car and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the TKCJL project. An Employee Transportation Flyer will promote the free personalized matching assistance through the 511 Rideshare program. This car and vanpool ridematching service provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to car or vanpool. They will also be given a list of existing car and vanpools in their residential area that they may join if vacancies exist. The 511 system gives commuters the information they need to make better choices when planning trips. By calling in or logging on, commuters can get up-to-the-minute information about traffic conditions, public transportation options, ridesharing, and [] The Hoyt Company Page 6 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 bicycling anytime, anywhere throughout the greater Bay Area Region and northern California. The 511 system offers one-stop shopping for traffic, transit, rideshare and bicycle information in the region. The nine-county system is the first 511 service to go online in California. It provides links to 511 systems in Sacramento, Oregon and Nevada and is available from any phone, provided the carrier supports 511. Most counties in the region have wireless and landline access to the service through major carriers. A 511.org flyer is provided as an attachment. 6.1 Carpool Lanes Employees of TKCJL have excellent access to carpool lanes on the Bayshore Freeway (Hwy 101). T-his carpool lane requires a minimum of two persons per vehicle. Northbound and southbound carpool lane hours are 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 6.2 511 Rideshare RewardS Employees who carpool can register for rewards through the 511 rideshare program Eligible carpoolers can earn $10 in gas or Safeway gift cards for every five days carpooled, up to $100 over three months. As an added bonus, a lucky commuter who carpools 40 or more days during the program can enter a year-end drawing for $1,000 in gift cards. Rideshare RewardS runs from May 1 through October 31, 2006 on a first-come, first- served basis until funds are depleted. The new vanpool incentive will provide $300 to $900 in gas cards to new vans that meet all eligibility requirements and successfully complete three to nine consecutive months of operation. The gas cards will also be offered on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. Employers and/or individuals who start a new vanpool may be eligible to receive the gas cards, which will be awarded to the party designated to handle the vanpool’s finances.~ A 511 Rideshare RewardS application is provided as an attachment. 7.O TRANSIT Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain, and SamTrans provide service to the City of Palo Alto. The nearest transit service to TKCJL is VTA Route 88. VTA, Caltrain and SamTrans provide bicycle racks for commuters who wish to augment their transit trip with a cycling trip. TKCJL will promote transit uses for employees commuting to the site via outreach, marketing and subsidies. 1 http://www.511.org/ The Hoyt Company Page 7 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 7.1 Employee Transit Subsidies The JCC and the JSR will both offer employees a $30 monthly transit subsidy, Subsidies will be limited to the first 10 employees of each project to request transit support. Subsidies will be made available to employees who utilize transi~ as their predominate mode of transportation and purchase a monthly transit pass. 7.2 Valley Transportation Authority VTA provides transit service near the project site. Each weekday, from 6:33 a.m. to 6:46 p.m., Route 88 makes 26 trips past TKCJL. Route 88 has a stop at Charleston Road and Louis Road, one and one-half blocks from the project site. This route provides connecting service to the Palo Alto Transit Center (SamTrans, Marguerite Shuttle, Dumbarton Express, Crosstown Shuttle and Palo Alto Caltrain), Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital and California Caltrain Station. VTA has expressed interest in relocating Route 88 to serve TKCJL directly from Fabian Street. VTA Route 88 route map is provided on page 9. 7.3 Caltrain Caltrain operates a frequent fixed-route commuter rail service seven days a week between San Francisco and San Jose, and a limited service to and from Gilroy on weekdays. Caltrain operates on 15 to 30 minute frequencies during the peak periods in the morning and evening. Midday service operates approximately every hour. Service is less frequent on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 7.4 SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service from San Mateo County and connections to the City of Palo Alto, Caltrain, BART, San Francisco International Airport, and downtown San Francisco. The system connects with San Francisco Muni, AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit at San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal with the Dumbarton Express and with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. 7.5 All Nighter Service - Late Night Bay Area Transit The All Nighter provides regional bus transit service from approximately 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., connecting BART stations, Caltrain stations, and beyond. It is operated by a consortium of regional transit agencies that have coordinated their late-night bus schedules to create convenient timed transfers between routes. All Nighter service is funded by the 2004 $1 bridge toll increase for public transit. All Nighter service is provided by five transit agencies. In San Mateo and San Francisco counties, service is operated by SamTrans and Muni. AC Transit operates service between San Francisco and the East Bay, and in the East Bay along the Richmond and Fremont BART lines. County Connection operates service between downtown Oakland and Concord. Wheels operates service between Bay Fair BART and Livermore. The Hoyt Company Page 8 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 7.6 Shuttle Services Shuttle services will be provided for JSR senior residents. As needed, the JCC provides shuttle services to pick up children for after school programs and for seniors without transportation for cultural events. Shuttle service from Caltrain or bus stations may be expanded for employees of the Campus if sufficient demand is determined. Employee shuttle demand will be determined by an evaluation of train and bus use. The JSR and JCC Employee Transportation Coordinators will review annual employee commute survey data to identify bus or train use. All new employees will also be asked about their transit usage to augment the survey data. Should a viable number of employees become known as regular transit riders and who request shuttle support, the JSR and JCC will coordinate connecting shuttle services. 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES The City of Palo Alto has outstanding bicycle routes and trail connections to regional bicycle facilities, specifically the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is a network of multi-use pathways circling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Approximately 150 miles of the trail is complete. The ultimate route is planned as a 400-mile route through nine Bay Area counties and 42 shoreline cities. The trail provides commuters an exceptional pathway to bicycle or walk to work. A Class II bicycle route is provided at the project site along Fabian Way. 8.1 Bicycle Parking - Long-Term and Short-Term Eight (8) free Class I (individually enclosed and covered) and six free Class II (racks) bicycle parking facilities will be provided. This bicycle parking and storage measure supports the significant bicycle mode usage experienced by the City of Palo Alto and provides secure storage for regular bicycle commuters and occasional users. A map of surrounding bikeways is shown on page 12. Table 4 shows the recommended number of bicycle facilities for the proposed project. Table 4 Bicycle Parking Recommendation Class I (secure, enclosed) Class II (racks) 8 6 All bicycle parking and facilities will be located in convenient, safe and well-lit areas with maximum space for ingress and egress of bicycles. The Hoyt Company Page 10 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 Free Bike Buddy matching, bicycle maps and resources are provided via the 511 system. Bicycle commuters looking to find a riding partner can log on to bicycling.511.org for more information. 8.2 Shower and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothing lockers will be available for the use of employees walking and biking to work and others who wish to change after commuting via alternative transportation. The community center facilities provide an abundance of showers and lockers for employee use. Shower and locker facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. 8.3 Pedestrian Connections Pedestrian paths surround TKCJL, which provide direct, safe, well-lit routes between buildings and to the bicycle and garage areas. [] The Hoyt Company Page 11 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 9.0 EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR Both the JCC and the JSR will provide Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) to assist their employees. These ETCs will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The ETCs may be a part-time or outsourced coordinator, who manages the TDM Program. The ETCs will be responsible for providing employee commute program assistance to employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with rideshare organizations to maximize employer resources, conducting the annual survey and producing the annual report. TDM industry data supports that having an ETC has a very positive impact on increasing alternative mode-use. Each ETC will provide the following services: ¯Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site. ¯Provide the main point of contact for employer contacts and employees wanting to commute using an alternative. Conduct annual employee surveys and provide annual reports to the City of Palo Alto, which will include commute patterns, mode splits~ and TDM program success (process includes: annual surveying of employees, tabulation of data, and provision of results in report format). Evaluate survey results for alternative transportation potential and/or changes to current program. ¯Catalog all existing incentives that encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation programs. Work with local agencies such as Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, 511.org and the’ Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and post informational materials on the transportation kiosks in employee common areas, as well as disperse alternative program information to employees via designated employer contacts, posters, flyers, banners, TKCJL newsletter, new employee orientation, etc. Coordinate and manage various aspects of the Plan that require periodic updating or monitoring, such as the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, carpool and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, bicycle locker assignment and enforcement, and potential employee shuttle services. 9.1 Employee Transportation Flyer Upon move-in, the JCC and JSR ETCs will distribute Employee Transportation Flyers to all employees commuting to the project site. This flyer will include (but not be limited to) information about carpool parking, transit opportunities, shuttle services, bicycle routes and GRH information. A sample flyer is provided as an attachment. ~-~ The Hoyt Company Page 13 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 9.2 Spare the Air Program - AirAlert The Spare the Air Season runs from June 1 through October 13. During the summer months when ground-level ozone, or "smog," becomes a pollution problem, the BAAQMD issues Spare the Air advisories for days on which air quality is expected to be unhealthy. On Spare the Air Days, the JCC and JSR ETCs will ask employees to fight pollution by driving less, taking public transportation, trip-linking, walking, biking, choosing not to use gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment, and avoiding polluting household products. People who are especially sensitive to pollution will be advised to limit their time outdoors, particularly in the afternoon hours. The Spare the Air Program was established by the BAAQMD to educate people about air pollution, and to encourage them to change their behavior to prevent it. They provide answers to frequently asked questions about air pollution, descriptions of its health effects, information about how various communities and employers are working to prevent pollution, clean air tips, and a variety of other educational resources. The JCC and JSR ETCs will subscribe to receive AirAlert email notices to know when the Bay Area is experiencing a Spare the Air Day. Advance forecasted Spare the Air days will be posted and announced for employees to encourage them to use alternative modes of transportation on the following critical days. Many Spare the Air non- holiday, weekdays provide free commutes all day long on Bay Area transit. 9.3 Promotional Programs Periodic transportation events, with a heavy emphasis on carpooling, bicycling and transit resources, will be considered as a service to employees. These events will highlight transit and trip-planning services and rideshare matching, and other commute opportunities at the new site. The Transportation Fairs will bring together transit and transportation providers (Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans), bicycle advocates, ridematching organizations (511.org), and the JCC and JSR Employee Commute Programs for a comprehensive presentation. Other events and on-site promotions may include Bike to Work Week, Caltrain Day, Rideshare Thursdays and a comprehensive transportation/commute fair. Various transit and rideshare organizations will be invited to set up marketing booths during lunch-time at a central location at the complex during the year to promote the alternative commute options available to employees. Individual tenant/employee on- site tabling or presentations would also be recommended throughout the year. 10. 0 CLIENT SERVICE GROUP TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR The JCC will provide a Transportation Coordinator for the three largest client services groups. These groups include early childhood education, recreation and cultural events. The client services transportation coordinator will assist customers, visitors and guests with information about various community and regional transit, bicycle and carpooling The Hoyt Company Page 14 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 resources. The Transportation Coordinators will be responsible for providing alternative transportation information for non-employee clients and visitors. Transportation information will be available at several locations throughout the JCC and will be included as part of any membership packet. Twice per year, the client services transportation coordinator will staff a booth at a major JCC event with information about transportation for JCC clients and guests. Meetings may also be held in coordination with other on-site transportation fairs and promotional events produced by the JCC and JSR employee transportation coordinators. Independent meetings may include guest speakers from: The Regional Rideshare 511 program Caltrain, BART, SamTrans and / or VTA The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition City of Palo Alto - Transportation Division BAAQMD The client service group Transportation Coordinators will subscribe to receive AirAlert email notices to know when the Bay Area is experiencing a Spare the Air Day. Advance forecasted Spare the Air days will be posted and announced to customers, visitors and guests to encourage them to use alternative modes of transportation on critical days. Many Spare the Air non-holiday, weekdays provide free commutes all day long on Bay Area transit. 11.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, walking or by rideshare in a car or vanpool will be guaranteed a ride home in the case of a personal emergency or when they unexpectedly have to work late, thereby missing their last bus or carpool home. This program has proven very successful elsewhere in California. It removes one of the major objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. The GRH program provides the employee with a security blanket, a feeling of reassurance that if a child becomes ill or is injured during the day the employee can get to them quickly. The employers of TKCJL will be offering a GRH program to employees using alternative forms of transportation. Arrangements will be made with a cab company to provide these free services under private contract with TKCJL. 12.0 INFORMATION BOARD/KIOSK Two information kiosks will be located in each of the project components in a common gathering area. The kiosks will contain transportation information, including GRH information, shuttle schedules, VTA, Caltrain, 511 ridematching and other related information. Information will be updated periodically by the ETCs. Kiosks can be wall- mounted or freestanding, 4-sided rotating units. The Hoyt Company Page 15 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Managemen~ Plan August 21, 2006 13.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY PROJECT AMENITIES On-site amenities provide employees with a full-service work environment. Eliminating the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive-alone rates. Many times, employees perceive that they are dependent upon the drive-alone mode because of the number of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized: Among others, on-site amenities at TKCJL include: ¯Cafeteria °Childcare/preschool ¯Recreational and athletic facilities (60,000 sq. ft. gym and 4 pools) ¯Automatic Teller Machines (ATM) banking °Postage and mailing outlet ¯On-site sundry shop 14.0 KICK-OFF EVENT Just prior to the center opening, TKCJL will host an employee commute alternative kick-off event/celebration. Transportation service providers, such as SamTrans, Caltrain, the Regional Rideshare organization, bicycle advocates and the City of Palo Alto, will be invited to set-up exhibit booths/tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, TKCJL will provide food, such as popcorn, hot dogs and refreshments, and give-a-ways, such as commuter mugs, water bottles, t-shirts, etc. TKCJL will set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. 15.0 MONITORING An employee commute survey will be an important part of the monitoring process to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. This report, via results from an employee survey distributed and collected by the ETCs and designated employer representatives, will provide quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). 15.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey and Summary Report An annual survey of employees will be conducted (via on-line and manually), Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the ETC. The TDM/employee commute program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project’s 20% alterative commute use rate and commitment at the site. For example, employees may express a desire for transit subsidies that individual employers may wish to provide as an added employee commute benefit. The Hoyt Company Page 16 Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transportation Demand Management Plan August 21, 2006 A summary report based on results from the annual employee commute survey will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto. 16.0 CONCLUSION TKCJL is committed to achieve and maintain a 20% employee alternative mode-use at the proposed project. This TDM plan provides ~he detail’s of their commitment and describes the mechanism for implementation. By balancing air quality with economic growth, the TKCJL project will help Palo Alto thrive as a community and contribute to its livelihood. The TKCJL project supports the policies of focusing clustered development along transportation corridors (Highway 101), and transit corridors (VTA). In order to be part of the transportation solution, the TKCJL project contains the employee density necessary to encourage the use of all alternative modes of transportation including bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. The Hoyt Company Page 17 Your Bay Area Travel Guide SF Bay Area ..................................................... BREAKING NEWS: ~ures, 1-80 Westb,~,d Hybrid Vehicles: Single-ocoupant hybridvehicles can. use carpoOl lanes, but must pay for Bay Area bridge tolls using FasTrak. Click here for more information Gas prices too high? Walnut Creek No congestion ~II He’av?~ No data Moderate I Stop and go Now transit stays up as late as you do! Click here to learn more! BroLigh[ to yol.[ by and © 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Commission About MTC I Accessibility I Privacy FIND OUT WIIEN YOUR TFIJ~IN WILL ARRIVE Tasso Hanover El Camino Miranda Foothill Expwy RIDESHARE Guidelines Eligibility Rules Participants in 511 Rideshare Rewards must: 1 Register with the 511 Regional Rideshare Program ("511 Rideshare") Ridematch service. New applicants can register online at 511.org-click Rideshare, or call 511 and say "Rideshare" for live assistance. 2 Work within the nine county. Bay Area region (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, or Sonoma counties). 3 Currently be driving alone to work. Driving alone is defined as operating a motor vehicle to travel to work with no other adult passengers. Participants must not have carpooled to work for more than three days the past three months prior to submission of a Rideshare Rewards application. 4 Submit completed Rideshare Rewards application by fax to the 511 Rideshare office before starting to carpool and to log trips.The fax number is 510-893-2029. ~ Commute to work on at least five or more days (Monday through Sunday) during the program. 6 Participate during a consecutive 90-day period between start of Rideshare Rewards (May 1, 2006) and program conclusion (December 29, 2006, or until funds are depleted, whichever is sooner). 7 Not have received any rideshare incentives from any other local, regional or state transportation program in the past 90 days. 8 Not join or form a vanpool, only a carpool. Commuters in vanpools are ineligible for Rideshare Rewards. However, new vanpools can receive up to $900 in gas cards. Go to 511.org--click Rideshare for more information. Or call 511 and say "Rideshare;’ 9 Not work for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, or 511 Rideshare. Participation Guidelines 1 The 511 Regional Rideshare Program has the right to terminate this program with or without notice at any time for any reason. 511 Regional Rideshare Program 511 Rideshare Rewards ("Rideshare Rewards") is an incentive program that rewards commuters who switch from driving alone to carpooling to work. New carpoolers may earn a gift valued at $10 for every five days carpooled, up to $100 over a 90-day period. A bonus prize will be awarded to one participant, picked in a drawing at the end of 2006, who carpools 40 days or more during the 90-day orogram period. 2 If accepted into the 511 Rideshare Rewards program, participants may carpool within the assigned 90-day period and receive a gift card valued at $10 for every five days carpooled, up to $100. 3 Transporting children to school or day care does not qualify for the incentive. 4 All information supplied by the participant shall be correct, current and complete.The 511 Regional Rideshare Program has the right to refuse applica- tions and/or discontinue participation in the program, including the right to withhold the gift card, if we believe that the participant has failed to meet the eligibility or participation guidelines. We reserve the right to contact you, your carpool partner(s) and your office supervisor to verify the information provided. ¯ ~ If a dispute arises regarding any aspect of the program, regarding interpretation of the rules, accuracy of the information, or eligibility to participate, the 511 Regional Rideshare Program will be the final decision maker regarding such a dispute and all decisions will be final. Implementation Steps I Register with the 511 Regional Rideshare Program to find names of other potential carpool.ers. If you are not registered, go to the Rideshare page of 511.org, or call 511 and say "Rideshare" to sign up. 2 Download the 511 Rideshare Rewards application online at 511.org--click Rideshare Rewards, or call 511 and say "Rideshare" to request a form. 3 Fax the completed and signed application to 510-893-2029. 4 On the application, indicate a preferred 90-day participation period. 511 Rideshare will assign a start and end date, based on the time applications were received, and will try to accommodate participants’ preferred start dates. ~ Participants will receive an e-mail or fax notifying acceptance of the applica- tion.The notification will specify the participant’s start and end dates within an assigned 90-day period. 6 If the acceptance notification is not received within one week, please call 511 and say "Rideshare" to inquire about the status of your application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that 511 Rideshare receives your application. 7 Upon acceptance into the program by e-mail or fax, download the monthly Commute Log online at 511.org--click Rideshare Rewards, or call 511 and say "Rideshare" to request a log. 8 Complete the Commute Log indicating your mode of travel on a daily basis for commuting to work. Sign the Commute Log and have your carpool partner(s) sign the log and fax it to 510-893-2029. Participants who switch carpool partners aftersubmitting an application must update their carpooler(s) information by completing and faxing a revised applica- tion before submitting the Commute Log. 9 Commute Logs need to be completed and submitted three times during the 90-day program period, at the end of each 30- day period.The Commute Log must be faxed within five days after the end of each 30-day period. 1 0 The reward will be mailed to participant within four weeks after the end of the ninety-day period and after verification of information. Participants may select either a gas or Safeway gift card to be mailed to the participant’s work or home address. Participants will need to designate which gift card they prefer on their application form.The gift value will be in $10 increments. 11 Contest. 511 Rideshare will award a total of one (1) bonus prize of $1,000 in gas or Safeway gift cards at the end of the Rideshare Rewards program. 511 Rideshare will hold a drawing among the participants that carpooled 40 or more days during their 90-day program period. The contest winner will be an individual carpool member in a verifiable carpool. Contest winner is not defined as the entire carpool or any group of, or all carpool members, in a verifiable carpool. By accepting the prize, contest winner grants 511 Rideshare the right to use his/her name, photograph and likeness for public relations purposes.The bonus prize will be awarded after October 31, 2006 and before January 31, 2007. 511 RIDESHARE is funded by grants from the FederalHighway Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, the MetropolitanTrensportationCommission, the Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict and county congestion management agencies, 511 RIDESHARE Application I UNDERSTAND AND AGREETO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: I have provided a verifiable and accurate work and home mailing address and understand that all materials, including the rewards ("incentives") will be sent to my preferred mailing address. I acknowl- edge that I have read and understand the 511 Rideshare Rewards Guidelines and certify that I am eligible to partici- pate and receive the incentives provided by the 511 Regional Rideshare Program and that I am not an employee of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the MetropolitanTransportation Commission, or 511 Rideshare. I understand that it is a condition of my participation that all information I supply will be correct, current, and complete. I understand that the 511 Regional Rideshare Program has the right to refuse my participation in this program and the right to withhold incentives if the 511 Rideshare Rewards program believes 1 have failed to meet this obligation. I understand that the incentives offered through this program are provided to applicants first come, first served, and that the 511 Rideshare Rewards program has the right to terminate this program at any time without notice. I understand that if a dispute arises regarding any aspect of the 511 Rideshare Rewards program, including, but not limited to, the interpretation of the Guidelines, or eligibility to partici- pate, 511 Rideshare shall be the final decision maker regarding such disputes. Any decision by 511 Rideshare shall be final and binding on my status as a participant in the program. I understand that any incentives I receive from the 511 Rideshare Rewards program are subject to federal and state taxes and that any tax liability that may result is solely my responsibility. Solo drivers who start can earn up to $1OO! Applicant Information (please press firmly and use black: ink) carpooling FIRST NAME LAST NAME MIDDLE INITIAL HOME ADDRESS (PQ boxes not accepted) CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY DRIVERS LICENSE HOME PHONE WORK PHONE EMAIL*FAX NUMBER**at least one of these two fields is required My preferred 90-day participation period is from Optional: Gender (circle one):Male Optional: Age (circle one); Under 18 i8-24 55+ (dates) Event 511 Phone to Female 25-34 35-44 45-54 How did you hear about the 511 Rideshare Rewards Program (circle one): Radio TV Print Web/Email Co-worker Mail Employer Your Work Mailing Address (please provide a complete and accurate mailing address and contact information EMPLOYER ADDRESS SUITE/DEPT Cl’i~STATE ZIP COUNTY WORK PHONE WORK FAX OFFICE SUPERVISOR NAME* (for verification purposes)WORK PHONE Your Preferred Gift (note first and second choices) Gas Card Safeway Card APPLICANT SIGNATURE (required)DATE APPLICANT NAME (printed) (CONTINUED)Fax completed 511 Rideshare Rewards Application to 510-893-2029 Taube- Koret Campus for Jewish Life Transit services to Palo Alto are provided by VTA, Caltrain and SamsTrans. Visit www.caltrain.com, www.vta.org, and www.samtrans.com for updated schedule and service information. The VTA Route 88 offers 26 daily trips from Palo Alto Transit Center and the California State Caltrain. This route connects with the Marguete Shuttle, Dumbarton Express, Crosstown Shuttle and SamsTran. See your employer representative about the $30 monthly transit subsidy. 511 is the regional ridesharing service that will help you to find a vanpool or carpool partner. Please call 51 1 or log on to www.511.org for ridematching services and other alternative transportation Options. Find carpool lanes, park and ride lot locations and a commute calculator to help you manage your transportation choices. There are six carpool parking spaces near the senior residences and 14 carpool parking spaces near the community center. Regional bicycle route maps are available to bicycle commuters and recreational bicycle users. To view a map, log on to www.51 l.org. Bicycles are allowed on VTA and SamTrans buses, and Caltrain. Lockers are available at stations and at the Taube - Koret Campus. Employees who work at the Taube - Koret Campus and primarily use alternative transportation (transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycle, or walk) for their monthly commute can obtain a FREE Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). In the event of an emergency or illness, the GRH program provides a free taxi for your return trip home. See your employer representative for more information. 7/19/06 Webster Middlelietd ~ Tasso High Alma Louis Middlefield Hanover Miranda Foothill SAN ANTONIO ROAD BICYCLE PATH OFF-STREET WALKING PATH TAU B E-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFEPALO ALTO. CA BICYCLE PARKING ~ ........... FABIAN ~.......... ~’~ BICYCLE PATH OFF-STREET WALKING PATH TAUBE-KORET CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE PALO ALTO, CA ~TEINBERGA~HtTELT~ Attachment I Project Background and Description Staff Reports Verbatim Minutes Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) Project 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 901 San Antonio Road Planned Community Zone Change TKCJL Project Background and Description Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- September 14, 2005 Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- September 14, 2005 Architectural Review Board Staff Report- May 18, 2006 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Minutes- May 18, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- June 28, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- June 28, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report- July 26, 2006 Planning & Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes- July 26, 2006 September 5, 2006 Project Background and Description Planned Community District Request: TKCJL 901 San Antonio Road / File Nos. 05PLN-00295 Proiect Location- BUILD and TKCJL The project area is located at 901 San Antonio Road. The project area is bounded by San Antonio Road to the east, Charleston Road to the south, Fabian Way to the west, and the Space Systems/Loral facility to the north, as shown on the project location map in Attachment A. The existing site contains a five-story, 257,980 square foot, vacant office building, previously occupied by Sun Microsystems. An at-grade parking surrounds the building and contains parking lot trees and ground level landscaping. The northern four-acre parcel or BUILD site is owned by BRIDGE Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD), and the southern 8.2-acre parcel is owned by Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL). The original 12.2-acre parcel was approved for subdivision by the City Council, with recommendation from the Planning & Transportation Commission, on March 3, 2003. City records, such as the Record of Land Use Action and previous staff reports pertaining to the decision, are available for review upon request. Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life The owner of the project is the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL). The purpose of the TKCJL is, "to strengthen and enhance Jewish community life on the south peninsula by supporting development of a multi-purpose, intergenerational Jewish campus in Palo Alto. "When completed, the project would become the new permanent home for a new Jewish Community Center, assisted living residences for older adults developed by the Jewish Home, the regional headquarters for the Jewish Community Federation, and offices for non-profits that would serve the Jewish community." Development Plan The project contains two separate program components: The Jewish Senior Residences (JSR), would be a 193 unit residential building comprised of 118 units of congregate care and 75 assisted living units. The units would be located on a four level building on top of a parking podium that is approximately 12 feet above grade. The building would be designed to resemble smaller buildings, connected by bridges, walkways and corridors. Together, the JSR would contain approximately 298,000 square feet of living and circulation areas. The units will range in size from 751 square feet to 1742 square feet (11 assisted living units would be smaller, 311 square foot rooms for dementia care). Most units will have at least 82 square feet of private open space in the form of a balcony or patio. The building would be designed around two large landscaped courtyards, which will provide a private open space area for all residents. The building would contain common areas including a dining room, kitchen and lounge areas, Attachment H Page 1 and a balcony facing Charleston Road, as well as administrative offices/services and nursing stations throughout the building. The height of the various building masses range from 55’ to 58’ above grade. Rooftop mechanical equipment would extend to approximately 70’. The main entry to the JSR is adjacent to the porte cochere, accessible from Charleston Road. The main entry would include a lobby, elevators, reception and administrative areas. This area would also serve as the vehicular pick-up and drop off area for residents. There would be multiple pedestrian entries to the JSR at the podium level. The Jewish Community Center (JCC), would be a multiple-use facility contained in buildings throughout the TKCJL site at the podium and second levels. The uses and approximate area for each use include the following: Use Cultural Hall/Space Fitness Center Activity Rooms Teen Center Administration Community Agencies Ancillary Commercial Preschool Total Significant uses and spaces are summarized below: Area (square feet) 35,299 55,127 7,204 1,904 7,043 5,546 5,375 16,650 134,148 The cultural hall/space(Building F), located at the comer of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road, would be the primary facility for performances, lectures, and conferences with seating for up to 400 guests. The building would also have a library/learning center at the top level. Access to the cultural hall would be from the podium level and from the street level via a large stairway. The design of the hall at the street-level stairway would provide a design opportunity to connect the podium level activities and building with the street. An elevation view of this area (as seen from Charleston Road) can be found on Sheet A3.68, Detail 2. The height of this building would be 59’8" to the roof deck and 75’ to the penthouse roof deck. The view of the building from San Antonio Road can be seen on Sheet A3.69. Secondary, smaller cultural space would be located in other buildings throughout the JCC Thefitness center would be located in two buildings (A and B) near the shared TKCJL and BUILD driveway from Fabian Way. These building would contain exercise equipment, an indoor pool, and outdoor pool, indoor sports courts, locker rooms, and common areas at the podium and second levels. Access to the fitness center is available from the parking garage and from the podium level. Exterior views of the fitness centers can be seen on Sheet A3.60 (view from shared driveway and from podium) and Sheet A3.61 (view from Fabian Way). The heights of these buildings would extend to approximately 55’ for Building A and approximately 50’ for Building B. Attachment H Page 2 The preschool uses would be located in three buildings (C, D, and E). The preschool would located at the east side near San Antonio Road and is intended to serve approximately 240 children in 12 classroom spaces. The preschool area would contain indoor and outdoor flexible use play areas, kitchen and restroom facilities, a multi- purpose room, and meeting/administration spaces. The preschool space will be located primarily at the podium level with after school and arts programs located on the second level of Building C. Units of the JSR would be located at the second, third and fourth levels of Building D and E. Access to the preschool would be from the podium level and from the garage via a stairway or elevator. Exterior views of the preschool can be seen on Sheets A3.63 and A3.64. The heights of Building C extend to approximately 45’ above grade. Central Sculptural Tower A key element of the applicant’s submittal includes a sculptural tower element that would serve as the symbolic center of the JSR and JCC programs. The tower would extend to approximately 96 feet above grade, which would be approximately 26 feet taller than the tallest mechanical room at the cultural hall. The final design of the tower has not been completed, but it is intended to have a solid lower portion that would extend to approximately 65’above grade and a light-framed clear portion that would extend an additional 30 feet. The maximum height within the PC district is 50’. Mechanical equipment rooms may extend an additional 15’ above the maximum height to 65’. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) has been requested for this tower to exceed the height limits. Staff is evaluating the findings that would be required for a height exception Parking Garage Automobile parking for the JSR and JCC is in the garage, as is the trash and recycling facilities, mail delivery, bicycle storage, and electrical/mechanical equipment. The garage would contain approximately 610 parking spaces, including 13 accessible spaces. Approximately 151 bicycle parking spaces would be provided for residents and guests. Pedestrian access from the podium level to the garage will be available at locations at the podium level via stairs and elevators. Vehicular traffic will enter and exit the garage from the BUILD/TKCJL shared driveway that provides access to Fabian Way. A right-turn only exit from the garage on to San Antonio Road would be a secondary exit from the project site. The following is a table that summarizes the project components: Summary Project Table- June 2006 Jewish Senior 193 298,130Residences Jewish Community NA 134,148 Center Total 193 units 432,278 *For the entire 8.5 acre site 0.81 0.36 1.17 610 spaces Attachment H Page 3 Landscaping The landscape plan for the podium has been designed to be an integral part of the TKCJL project. Special design considerations were implemented in such a way to achieve the look of a vibrant, natural landscape on top of the concrete podium. This intent was achieved by using raised planter beds, meandering walkways, and the placement of large common areas that would take advantage of all the available natural light. The landscape plan is defined by four significant landscaped areas: The Cultural Court, adjacent to the cultural hall entry; the Midrachov, a long pedestrian walkway between Buildings D,M and L containing landscaped planters and street furniture; the Town Square, containing large palm trees and landscaped amphitheater, and the Senior Outdoor Living courts, which provide common landscaped areas for the residents of the JSR. Each of these areas would be designed as unique outdoor spaces with plantings, trees, fixtures, lighting and furniture. Landscape design at the perimeter was designed with specific purposes. The landscape plan along the shared drive would help define a residential street quality and would reinforce the formal TKCJL entry experience. The planting along the east side of the site would unify the entire San Antonio Road frontage with landscaping that would suggest a gateway feature to from the Highway 101 freeway into Palo Alto. The Fabian Way landscaping would be supplemented with private landscaping including ground cover, shrubs and trees. The Charleston Road landscape plan would be unique, in that it would utilize traditional landscaping beds for groundcover, shrubs and trees, but also include hardscape elements such as the stairway to the Cultural Court and street trees in sidewalk wells at the corner of the cultural hall. All proposed landscaping would be of a drought- tolerant variety that would minimize on-site water use. Although most of the project is currently covered with buildings and pavement, redevelopment of the site with buildings on podium structures would increase the area covered with impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff could increase. Program controls would be required to detaining the additional runoff on the project site through the use of oversized pipes and similar measures that provide adequate storage to detain the additional runoff. Integration with BUILD The design development of BUILD and the TKCJL projects have followed similar paths and timelines. BUILD and TKCJL were involved in the initial Tentative Map process (completed in 2003) to divide the site into two parcels. Steinberg Architects, the architects for both projects, has been on-board since the City Council prescreening in 2004. In addition, the DEIR was developed to analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of both projects. As a result if this early integration, the projects have been developed cooperatively with special attention given to the shared space between the two projects. The two elements that would define this shared space are the vehicular entry driveway from Fabian Way and the Building A for-sale townhomes that are located at the .edge of the shared space. Attachment H Page 4 The intent of the Fabian Way driveway is to provide a shared vehicular entry way, which would also function as the symbolic formal entry for both projects. The driveway consists of a two-way, two-lane "road", including a pick-up and drop-off turnaround area. A third lane is located at the inbound side of the driveway for security purposes. Visitors needing security services would use this land before proceeding further into the site. A landscaped median would reinforce the formal entry. Immediately adjacent to the east of the pick-up and drop-off spaces is a pedestrian waiting area, shown on the site plans as a semi- circular area. This area is required for Fire Department access to the interior areas of both projects. During a typical operating day, this area would be used as a gathering area for visitors who are being pick-up or dropped off to the project. A wide stairway would extend down from the podium level of the BUILD project to the waiting area. The TKCJL project would also have a wide staircase from the parking podium on their site to the waiting area. This area will be a highly trafficked and lively area once both projects are developed and operating normally. The BUILD townhomes in Building A would be oriented along the shared driveway. The intent of the Building A design is to bring a residential neighborhood and pedestrian scaled experience to the vehicular driveway. These units would be one and two-!evel townhomes. Townhomes oriented at the shared driveway will be single-level homes with main entrances located at the shared driveway. The two-level townhomes would have main entrances accessible from the podium level. Stoops would be located at the driveway level that would lead to the private patios. The sidewalks would be lined with trees along the Building A frontage. The TKCJL side of the driveway would be slightly more utilitarian, in that the location of community agency office space would be at the ground level driveway area. This elevation would have storefront window and glazing systems for the office space with low ground cover landscaping. Secondary and Service Entrances There will be two service entrances to the site. The primary service entry drive would be accessed from Charleston Road. This service drive would be the main delivery and pickup area for trash/recycling, site-wide deliveries, and access to the mechanical and transformer rooms. A secondary delivery area is proposed for San Antonio Road, and would serve the cultural hall (Building F). This area would allow a truck to pull into the site, parallel to the street, for deliveries and pick-ups. Green Building Goals The applicant has utilized the LEED checklist for commercial development projects to plan and develop their green building and energy efficiency program. Copies of the completed checklists are contained in the Supplemental Design Details binder, Section 4. At a minimum, the project would be required to meet the State of California Title 24 energy requirements, as well as the City of Palo Alto Construction and Demolition program requirements for the removal and recycling of construction and demolition debris for the existing buildings on the site. The applicant has also committed to investigate specific design features, construction methods, energy saving equipment, recycled products that could be incorporated into the project. Attachment H Page 5 Planned Community and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request In accordance with the requirement of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18.68 (Planned Community districts), the applicant has submitted a development program statement and development schedule. These materials are contained in Attachments F. The findings include a description of the proposed public benefits. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Project Timeline The BUILD and TKCJL projects have received discretionary approvals and preliminary reviews from boards, commissions and the City Council for specific project components. The following is a timeline of significant review milestones for the TKCJL project: March 3, 2003 City Council Approval of Tentative Map, creating the BUILD and TKCJL parcels June 14, 2004 City Council Prescreening Meeting for BUILD and TKCJL Decembe~ 2, 2004 Architectural Review Board Meeting Preliminary Review of the TKCJL initial design April19,2005 Architectural Review Board Meeting Preliminary Review of the TKCJL revised design September 14, 2005 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Initial Review September 15, 2005 October 20, 2005 February 17, 2006 March 29,2006 TKCJL, Preliminary ARB Meeting TKCJL, Preliminary ARB Meeting Release of the DEIR for TKCJL and BUILD projects for a 45-day public review period Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report Attachment H Page 6 April 20, 2006 May 18, 2006 June 28, 2006 Architectural Review Board Formal Review Meeting #1 Architectural Review Board Formal Review Meeting #2 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Second Formal Review of the PC Application Planning and Transportation Commission, Initial Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) completed their initial review of the PC application on September 14, 2005. The PTC reviewed the applicant’s development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule in accordance with PAMC 18.86.065. The development plans included preliminary drawings of the plot plans, landscape development plan, and design plan for the residential structures and the parking garage. Verbatim minutes of the meeting are contained in this attachment. Project Table- September 14, 2005 Housin9 , Jewish Community Center Total Design 1. *For the NA 180 units 130,000 Highlights: 417,000 1.12 615 spaces Mix of uses and building types located in arrangements that foster multiple opportunities for interactions between users; Contemporary design of buildings and outdoor spaces; Residences that serve senior populations at various stages of life; Site located in flood zone. All uses except parking garage located on top of parking podium, approximately 12-16 feet above grade. Building heights at cultural hall and senior residences exceed 50’ maximums. Height variance requested to accommodate floor zone requirements. entire 8.5 acre site The PTC recommended that a detailed development plan be submitted to the ARB for their review and directed the ARB to make a recommendation on the design of the plan to the PTC based upon the adopted architectural review findings contained in PAMC 18.76.020. In their testimony, the PTC provided the following comments to the applicant and staff: Building heights that exceed the 50’ maximum could be supported as long as the buildings are sensitively designed and any roof-top equipment is well integrated into the buildings to minimize the additional height; Buildings should be designed to reduce the feeling of the apparent mass of the structures; Attachment H Page 7 Parking layout, drive isles, and paths of travel should be clear and easy understandable for users of the parking facilities; A traffic demand management program, including a form of a shuttle service that would be available to all users of both the TKCJL and BUILD projects, should be a part of this project; Public benefits to allow City use of on-site facilities should be extended to the senior residents of the adjacent BUILD project; The cultural hall at the corner of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road is appropriate in the proposed location; Public benefits associated with the project should sufficiently benefit the surrounding community neighborhoods. Below Market Rate units located on the project site are preferred; The tower structure is an innovative way to handle ventilation and other mechanical proposes; The parking podium is a design challenge, in that the uses of the project should be connected to the street, yet are on top of the 12-16’ podium. The architect should continue to strengthen the design connections between the street and the users. The proposed height and massing of the building would create a design precedent in the neighborhood. The project would shape how this area of Palo Alto might be developed in the future. Planning and Transportation Commission, Environmental Review The Commission held a public hearing on March 29, 2006 to accept public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was made available for a public review period from February 17 to April 3, 2006. The Commission and members of the public provided oral and written comments and questions to staff regarding the information contained in the report. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)~ which was made available on June 15, 2006, addresses each comment and question received during the public review period. The report contains the verbatim minutes from the March 29, 2006 meeting. This report was distributed to each agency that provided comments, each board member and commissioner from the ARB and the Commission, the City Council and interested members of the public. Architectural Review Board, Formal Reviews The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Development Plan at two meetings on April 20 and May 18, 2006. The reviews focused on the design of the individual buildings, the contextual relationships between the projects and the adjacent BUILD projects, and other adjacent properties, the landscape plan, colors and materials, and on- site automobile and pedestrian circulation. The ARB voted to recommend approval of the project to the Commission and the City Council, subject to additional design review of specific project details. The ARB recommended a condition of approval that would limit the height of the tower to 96 feet and that the final tower design would be required to return to the ARB for review and a decision. The ARB responded to the Commission’s comments regarding design and compatibility Attachment H Page 8 with the adjacent neighborhoods. A summary of the ARB’s responses is contained in the Summary of Key Issues section of the June 28, 2006 staff report. The verbatim minutes from the May 18, 2006 ARB meeting, at which date the formal recommendation on the project was made to the Commission and City Council, is provided in this attachment. Attachment H Page 9 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 14, 2005 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Campus of Jewish Life for initial Planned Community review of the proposed Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) project involving the development of an approximately 130,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas, and 175 senior residential living units totaling approximately 285,000 square feet. Review processes to implement this project would involve the rezoning of the existing 8.5-acre parcel to a Planned Community (PC) District; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Mixed Use; a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit:, certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required prior to final, Council action. This project concept was previously reviewed by the City Council. Existing Zone District: GM. Proposed Zone District: PC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) comment on the proposed development in this initial review and recommend the site’s environmental analysis continue and the application be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for formal review, following the completion of a draft EIR. The Commission should provide direction and identify key issues for the ARB and staff to consider prior to further review by the Commission. This request is made in conformance with the Planning Community District regulations (PAMC Section 18.68.065[b]. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: In addition to the overall request for the establishment of a Planned Community (PC) District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as detailed in Attachment C, staff has identified the following City of Palo Alto Page 1 issues for the Commission’s specific consideration and comment: Proposed building height and request for a variance Special setback encroachment Previous City Council review Public benefits Parking and traffic Below Market Rate housing Tower sculpture In order to assist in commenting on the issues indicated above, the applicant’s Development Program Statement has been provided as Attachment C, which describes the project’s compliance with the required findings for the PC District and Variance findings. The Development Program Statement also details the proposed uses, unit information, and development schedule. In addition to the preliminary set of drawings, this staff report contains attachments including Background (Project Location, Proj ect Overview, Discretionary Review Components, and Key Issues Discussion), a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Compliance table, Project Timeline, and the City Manager Report and City Council minutes from the June 14, 2005 pre-screening meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has determined that an EIR is required for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Considering that this is an initial review, no environmental document is required at this time. A Draft EIR would be required at the time the project returns to the Commission for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. A Draft EIR would also be required prior to the formal ARB review, but not for the proposed preliminary ARB reviews. The Draft EIR is being prepared at this time and is expected to be available for public review in late October. ATTACHMENTS: No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Aerial Photo CJL Site Location Map Applicant’s Development Program Statement Background,’ Discretionary Review Components, Key Issues Comprehensive Plan Policies Zoning Compliance Table Project Timeline City Manager Report & Council Minutes, June 14, 2004 Project Plans (Commissioners only) Supplemental Information Binder (Commissioners only) COURTESY COPIES" Rob Steinberg, The Steinberg Group Randy Popp, The Steinberg Group City of Palo Alto Page 2 James Baer, Premier Properties Patrick McGaraghan, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stem, Campus for Jewish Life Terezia Nemeth, BU~D Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph McCarthy, BUILD Jacob H.V. Foraker, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Peggy Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Jeremie Maehr, Geomatrix Consultants Lester Feldman, Geomatrix Consultants Bob Whitehair, Allana-Lippert Betsy Allyn, Resident Jean Wilcox, Charleston Gardens Association Cathy Swan, Resident Lanie Wheeler, Greenmeadow Community Association Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Community Association Deborah Ju, Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Tom Vician, Fairmeadow Neighborhood Association Tom Crystal, Walnut Grove Homeowners Association Adam Samuels, Rosewalk Homeowners Association Chris Graham, Greenmeadow Community Association Nola Mae McBain, Monta Loma Neighborhood Gloria Jackson, Monta Loma Neighborhood Preservation Group Herman Ranes, Resident Edie Ideating, Resident Larry Mitchell, Resident Robert Moss, Resident Herb Borock, Resident Dorothy Bender, Resident Stephanie Munoz, Resident Toni Stein, Resident PREPARED BY:Steven Turner, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY:Curtis Williams, Interim Manager of Current Planning APPROVAL ~/~~~DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD ~PLAI~NING MANAGER City of Palo Alto Page 3 ATTACHMENT H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes September 14, 2005 EXCERPT Chair Burt: We will be reconvening now. Welcome back. Zariah would you let the record show that Commissioner Burt has joined the meeting as Chair from this point onward. We are now commencing with item number two, 901 San Antonio Road which is a request by Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) for an Initial Review of a Planned Community application, including the development of approximately 176 residential units, 130,000 square feet of commercial, educational, and private meeting space, a parking garage, and landscaping improvements at the existing Sun Microsystems site. this item has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the Architectural Review Board on September 15, 2005. Would Staff like to make their presentation? 901 San Antonio Road*:. Request by Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) for an Initial Review of a Planned Community application, including the development of approximately 176 residential units, 130,000 square feet of commercial, educational, and private meeting space, a parking garage, and landscaping improvements at the existing Sun Microsystems site. This item has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the Architectural Review Board on September 15, 2005. Vice-Chair Holman: Chair Burt? Chair Burt: Excuse me, Commissioner Holman. Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, I did not participate in this item when it last came to us. I do not have a financial conflict on this item however, due to the intensity of involvement on this particular project of Jim Bear who is also helping with a project that I am involved in as well I believe I cannot exercise a degree of objectivity required for proper review and therefore I am recusing myself. It is sadly but I feel obliged to do so. Chair Burt: Thank you. Staff. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Thank you very much Commissioner Burt and members of the Commission. Staff is requesting tonight that the Planning and Transportation Commission comment on the proposed residential and community center development in this initial review meeting and recommend that the site’s environmental analysis continue and the application be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for formal review following the completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 The project that is proposed in front of us involves the development of actually approximately 175 senior housing units and a 130,000 square foot community center within the eight and a half acre parcel owned by Campus for Jewish Life, which is also known as CJL. The review processes to implement this project would involve the rezoning of the existing parcel to a Planned Community District, a Comprehensive Plan amendment for mixed-use, a variance to exceed the 50 foot height limit with the proposed PC zone district, a potential variance for the special setback along San Antonio Road and approval for the demolition of the existing office building and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. No environmental assessment is required for this initial meeting however a Draft EIR will be required for the continued Commission review. The existing zone district is currently designated as GM or General Manufacturing. Tonight’s meeting represents the first step in the PC district review process for the CJL site. The applicant has submitted the project’s preliminary drawings and the development program statement, which is contained in Attachment C of the Staff Report. The development program statement includes the proposed PC determinations and findings, a listing of the proposed uses and how those uses would function within a development and a list of a proposed mix of residential units. The applicant has also included a proposed timeline for the public process and a development schedule for construction. This initial review of CJL’s PC district is required in order to comment on the proposed development and recommend whether or not the project development should continue along with the environmental analysis and preparation for a future formal review by the Architectural Review Board. in June of 2004 CJL in conjunction with Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, also known as BUILD, presented their development concepts for the redevelopment of the Sun Microsystems site to the City Council. This meeting was conducted as a preliminary review of the project concepts in order to introduce the project to the City Council and to members of the public and to obtain feedback in preparation for future applications. The City Manager’s Report and the Sense Minutes for this are contained in Attachment H of your Staff Report. After the City Council’s prescreening BUILD then proceeded with an application for rezoning of their parcel to PC and a Comprehensive Plan amendment in July of 2004. The Commission completed their initial PC review of the BUILD parcel in December of last year. CJL submitted their PC development application just last month in August. Staff has summarized the key issues to provide a framework for comments as indicated in the StaffReport. These issues include building height and special setback encroachment and a request for a variance. The appropriateness of the applicant’s proposed public benefits, parking and traffic generally and also as it relates to special events, loading zones on San Antonio Road, tandem parking and site access from Charleston Road. Below market rate housing and the applicant’s request for an in lieu fee payment rather than providing units and the height of the tower sculpture and its appropriateness for height and context with the project site and adjacent neighborhoods. Tonight we are fortunate to have Heba E1-Guendy with us to answer general questions regarding parking and traffic issues. She can also comment on the progress of the traffic impact analysis Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3z~ 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 report and the ongoing work between City Staff and the applicant’s’ team. This concludes the Staff Report and the applicant is here to make a presentation and walk you through the project. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak at this time? The applicant has 15 minutes to speak and that can be a combination of representatives. Mr. Jim Baer, Applicant: I will give a brief introduction and then the project architect, Rob ~ Steinberg will present what it is we are asking of you tonight with a little bit of discussion about the processing going forward. Our requested action is a simple one as Staffhas indicated as well. Under the PC zoning ordinance the Planning Commission is the first ordinance stop and from this we request that you refer the PC application to the Architectural Review Board with whatever specific details of guidance to the applicant and Staff that are appropriate from the presentation tonight. We recognize that as you see from the model, as you will see from what will become dozens of pages of architectural presentation and several hundred pages ofbac.kground documents related to the project that tonight’s purpose is not to digest those or to win points of analysis but to set the framework which is this is an enormously complex a project with extremely positive reception in the community. That means that the issues we are engaged with are at primarily a Staff and environmental review level. You will see that from the attendance from the neighbors tonight. There are some issues about impacts and how those are managed that wil! be presented by neighbors which we understand and will respond to approPriately. Tonight is really to give you a first introduction. In doing that let me discuss what was accomplished in the June 14 2004 heating before the City Council. It really had, in addition to introducing the uses and the relative size and scale of the project, one policy direction that we could not ask of Staff without City Council guidance and that was this building will exceed 50 feet in height. That was discussed at length because of the combination of water at a shallow table that is governed by Regional Water Quality Control Board that will not allow lowering the site and FEMA, which requires that the buildings be at a plus-eight grade. The combination of. those are that a four story building over a parking garage will not tiptoe above 50 feet it will exceed 50 feet substantially. Without formal direction or motion by Council, Council spoke specifically to that issue giving Staff direction that this was an appropriate site to consider for a variance and not to play around with the definition of grade or design enhancement exceptions but to recognize that this building in this location will be above 50 feet. Where does the greatest input from Planning Commission come and at one time? There are two junctures. One is that on October 1 we anticipate approximately will be the release to the public of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. That will have a 45-day period of comment and return to the Planning Commission. There is where all of the details about how the turning movements of vehicles and how is the hazardous materials in the water mitigated and what do we think about noise and the mass and scale and the protection of canopy. We are not asking you in an act of faith to think that this very fine project should not have your scrutiny. That will come through the EIR in a specific Planning Commission heating. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So for tonight it isto give you an introduction not unlike what we gave to the City Council and to ask for your support and guidance and to know that not only tonight do we expect questions and answers that will provide guidance and perhaps caution to Staff and the applicant where specific attention should be paid but also to recognize that when we come back with the full draft environmental impact review that will be an opportunity to answer in greater detail many of the questions. We anticipate between three and five hearings before the Architectural Review Board, preliminary and then final before we return to the Planning Commission. We would hope that those could be accomplished so that we return to the Planning Commission between January and March next year and then that hearing will be an equally large volume of materials but with conditions of approval, a development agreement to provide contractual protection to the Campus for Jewish Life so that it can raise the in excess of $100 million without risk of future entitlement reversal. Where the Planned Community Zone will be specifically detailed with all of its conditions. We are seeking a Comprehensive Plan amendment as was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission when it reviewed BUILD’s project on exactly the same Comprehensive Plan amendment to mixed use from emp!oyment based. So that the architect can get on with what is an exciting project I am going to turn that over to him with only this comment. This is, for those of us involved as direct staff, as professional consulting team and I would say this for City Staff as well, and hopefully for those of you who are policy makers this is a rare occasion in terms of there are only a few in a career where we are given the opportunity to address a land use that is welcome, that is privately financed, a $200 million project, and what we are really dealing with are the mechanics of excellent execution of design, architecture and technical management of policy issues as precedent and as uniquely applicable to this project. But this is not a project that is jeopardy of meeting its mission. We look forward to your guidance and the continued great work of Staff in executing what should be a spectacular project. Now to Rob Steinberg. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Proiect Architect: Good evening. I am President of Steinberg Architects. I reside here in Palo Alto. What I would like to do is take a few minutes and kind of walk you through our proposal. Just to get everybody oriented our site is bordered by San Antonio Road, East Charleston and Fabian. I want to begin by just kind of getting you oriented in terms of our land use. There are three components that you can see on this drawing. The first is the Jewish Community Center, which is in blue and is generally located in this part of the site. Again, this is rotated slightly, San Antonio Road is here, East Charleston and Fabian. The Jewish senior residence, which are inboard in the middle of the block between San Antonio and Fabian away from the busiest intersection. There is something that we call ’flyover’ which is where we have the community center on the ground level but we have the senior residence on top of it. So when we talk about urban mixed use this is really a classic example of mixed-use architecture. It is important for you to understand as Jim mentioned that there are some environmental issues that prohibit us from submerging the parking below grade. So really parking is at grade and our activities and our buildings are on top of a podium. So this is a grade level view of the site. As you can see there are over 600 cars on the site, onsite parking. There is an entry and a lobby at grade for the cultural hall. There is an entry and a lobby for the senior housing and a porte- cochere and a drop off. There is service for the campus that is inboard on the site and screened Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 from all the perimeter. There are offices along the front that again screen the parking. Again there is a lobby that brings you up the main lobby for the Jewish Community Center. On top of that there is a landscaped podium with a number of buildings, really a campus. As you can see from our chart on the left it is a very rich mixture of users and uses on the site. There are adult activities, there is auditorium and multipurpose activities, recreation, fitness, there is young children, there is after school, there is caf~, there is restaurants, there is activities for teen, for seniors and senior residents all organized around a series of outdoor rooms each one having a focus for different users on the site. We have had a wonderful opportunity to bring in a world- renown landscape architect, Larry Halperin who has been a friend of our family and has worked with our firm over many, many years, developing these incredible outdoor rooms. Our hope is that we will have rooms that accommodate seniors and children in the community and major activity spaces and ball fields that will make this a tremendous asset for this part of Palo Alto. We think, as Jim said, this is a tremendous opportunity. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I want to show you about a dozen sketches of some of these different areas. This is a view from Charleston and you see up here, this is Charleston, and we are looking at the Jewish senior residence that orients to Charleston with the porte-cochere we have actually lifted the building up so it is welcoming and inviting the community. There are outdoor activity areas with terraces and patios that allow views out to the community and really a welcoming sense and an integration with our neighborhood. There is an entry along Fabian, which is sort of our major access into the community center portion. You enter along this wall, you can look up and see activity in an outdoor pool, an indoor pool, there is a gynmasium and as you come down this long drive that has stacking to accommodate cars and the in and out of the community center, there is a plaza at the end. This is a view 0f the plaza. What we are doing is you come to the end of this drive and we are working with our landscape architect to develop a plaza that has a very natural feeling with these boulders and rocks. Where the buildings actually emerge out of the landscaping. This would be a place where the kids can wait to be picked up Under cover in the inclement weather. Then you turn and you begin to see the entrance to the campus. We are using historic forms but in more contemporary ways to give a sense of entry and a procession into the campus. As you come up the stairs and you turn and you look you see a large town square. The town square really is the heart of this campus. It is a large open plaza that would accommodate festivals and activities and a variety of music and theater and indoor/outdoor kinds of activity. There is a restaurant and a cafd that could spill out and animate that area with fountains and a stage for theater and an amphitheater so there could be music. This would really be the heart of the campus. There are activities where you could go to the multipurpose here or to children’s area or to fitness. So if we were to walk down the town square we would go past the tower, we would go into what we call the early childhood education or the preschool area which is sort of a cloistered area, a very protected area, for preschool activities in an environment that would accommodate those children and parents that want to participate in that activity. Adjacent to them are their recreation and ball fields for older kids and soccer and activities as part of the site. There are also slightly smaller areas that are really focused for adults and meeting rooms and activities adjacent to the caf~ where you might bump into your neighbor or somebody that was coming to a different program that you just happen to connect with. There are places where you actually go Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 underneath from one space underneath and into another space much like the old city of Jerusalem but in a contemporary architectural vocabulary, one that is appropriate to Palo Alto, to our environment, into the building materials that we have today. If you were to turn underneath that bridge you would go into a series of courtyards that are really focused for the seniors. They have a little bit more landscaping and areas with outdoor dining and activity for garden and activities that would be very comfortable for the seniors. If you were to wander from this courtyard to the last courtyard I am going to show you this is again our multicultural building that has seating for 400 people. It would be appropriate for theater, for film festivals, for music and concerts. One of the things that I like about this sketch is you can see our transparent lobby that is visible to Charleston, you can see a connection to the mountains and the views beyond. So what we are trying to do is create a campus that has boundaries and edges for security so it can be controlled and monitored but it can also really reach out and become a tremendous asset and a magnet for this part of Palo Alto. So that is our formal presentation and I see the yellow light on and I will turn it over to Jim. Mr. Baer: One thing I forgot to state that is very important is the Campus for Jewish Life has made a commitment, which it wants to reiterate. We gladly will participate in any Charleston- Arastradero impact fee whether that is a traffic impact fee or a pedestrian, bicycle and safety impact fee we will participate in that with taking no credit for !and use background trips. We do that not in order to win the support of neighbors, which we think we already have, but to recognize that the redistribution of traffic as this becomes a used popular facility that as a good participant of the community we want to meet our responsibility to assist in solving problems along Charleston. Chair Burt: Thank you. Would the Commission like to ask questions of Staff or applicants prior to hearing from the publiC? Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I would like to hear from the applicant and ask some questions of the applicant. They brought in this lovely model I think it would be worthwhile to sort of us walk us through the model three-dimensionally rather than - they did a good job with the plan but the model is different. Chair Burt: Mr. Steinberg would you like to do that? We have a portable mike somewhere. Mr. Steinberg: I would be happy to. I would invite you to come down and take a good look. It would be easier to see. Chair Burt: Well, given our late hour I guess if Commissioners would like to go right ahead. I am getting urging from other Commissioners to get the public their opportunity to speak as soon as possible. So if we could balance those interests. Mr. Steinberg: Just for orientation this is San Antonio Road, Charleston and Fabian over here. So our organization is that the community, center buildings really have a presence on Fabian, have a presence on San Antonio and the comer. The residential buildings although they peek out Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 a little bit on San Antonio really are inboard in the middle of the block. One of our thoughts was we don’t want to have this walled city that closes off from the community. So if you look as you come down San Antonio there are ball fields and there is no building, there is a one and two story building. Then it sets back for the children’s play area, you get the edge of a building, the break and then this is really one of the signature buildings which is what we call the cultural hall. We purposely have sort of pushed that out to the corner with a plaza where that really can become sort of the identity to the site. We would like to propose and anticipate some kind of signage so that if there is a film festival or a program that would be of interest to people as they drove by they could see that. On the upper floor is a terrace for receptions and activity. As you move around on Charleston you can see a very transparent lobby and our stairs coming up. Then you begin to transition to the residential. Again, we are not putting buildings that block it but the narrow profile of the building. Then we have living rooms and libraries and activities for the seniors that could spill out with a private dining room up above. So there is a wonderful relationship between the community and the activities. Our service is tucked around the comer in the middle of the block so that anywhere you drive around the site you never see all of the sort what we call the back of the house kinds of activity. As you come around on Fabian again we didn’t want to put a building right along the street. We pulled the buildings back and we put the outdoor and the pool and the activity so that it is really reaching out and welcoming our community as part of this. This is our shared entry drive. As you come down this entry drive this is where we are working very closely with Larry Halperin, our landscape architect, to develop sort of an organic feeling of, even though my model doesn’t reflect these stones and the boulders, of the building kind of emerging out of this. There is a secondary entry that allows use of the camp for camp kids or activities for the ball fields so everybody doesn’t have to come through the center of the campus. There is a backdoor for kids to come and go. There is administrative activity here with aerobics and cardiac fitness activity on top of that that relates to the fields. As you come up the stair, this is our town square. As you come up and look there is a cafd and restaurant that can spill out. You can see in two-dimension sort of this fountain stage with and amphitheater so there could be performances here, maybe adults are listening to music and kids are out at the ball field. There is a transition under a secure area that leads you to the early childhood or the preschool area so that that’s contained and controlled because we are concerned about security for the young children. Then you kind of move from this larger town square that feeds to the fitness or the fields or the children down a narrower kind of-watk=street~-We-ea÷l-this~a-mktrohove-which-is-Hebrevc-for~ walk street. That has senior lounges and it has some of the preschool art rooms and meeting rooms for kids and children and the senior residence that look down on that. So that is a very integrated kind of mixed use, a very energetic kind of space as compared to our town square where there is a little bit more openness. Then each time you move from one space to another you move underneath an archway or a building into a zone, you move through again underneath something, you could turn and go underneath and go into the senior courtyards. We have two senior courtyards. We have one that is a little bit more shady on the north side and one on the south side where we have dropped the building down to capture that sunlight so they have some variety, some options, and you can Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 have different kind of experiences in that. We also have undemeath the building a covered walkway from the senior building to our cultural hall. So I hope maybe that gives you a general idea of what our thoughts are. Chair Burt: Thank you. We now have cards so far from five members of the public and each member will have three minutes to speak. The first speaker is Louise Lyman to be followed by Jean Wilcox to be followed by Todd Sachs. If you would, for the record, please state your name and city of residence. Ms. Louise Lvrnan, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have lived at the comer of Louis and Charleston for over 20 years. I am a member of the Executive Board of the Meadow Park Resident’s Association and we want to present our concerns regarding traffic associated with proposed Center for Jewish Living. Meadow Park Resident’s Association includes residents living in the area bounded by Charleston, Grove, Garland and Bibbits and Adobe Creek. So you see we are right there. I just live about a block from this projected building. There are 110 homes in this area. Our biggest traffic concern involves the CJL development as a traffic impact on the neighborhood when considering the total additional pending housing in South Palo Alto. These additional pending projects affecting our neighborhood include Hyatt Hotel site which is 200 homes or townhouses, Elk’s Lodge a probably 200 housing units, East Meadow condo project with 76 housing units of three and four bedrooms and then the new 3270 West Bayshore Boulevard which is 96 units. now there is also a large retail district on East Charleston, which is right across from Costco it is just being graded and so forth now. The flagship big box store is the REI in addition to numerous other smaller stores and this is actually located in Mountain View but it is going to impact our traffic considerably. The Mayfield project which is the old HP complex on San Antonio Road is also in Mountain View but there is a little bit of it that is still in Palo Alto and that is in the process of being planned for development now. The neighbors in that area have been protesting very vehemently about a 400 unit housing building. They don’t want that. So keeping in mind the above plan developments it is obvious to see the negative impact on our neighborhood streets. The Charleston corridor will be greatly affected as well as the San Antonio Road. With this in mind what is the status of our traffic study that was supposed to happen for Charleston Road? We in the neighborhood have noticed that the volume of traffic on Charleston has already increased from the level when Sun was in full gear. So some specific concerns are the entrance to the CJL will be on San Antonio how is that going to affect traffic that is getting off the freeway? We are not in favor of a left turn onto Charleston from the complex especially for large delivery tracks as this would cause a very dangerous traffic hazard. We would prefer that the exits and entrances be on Fabian as this commercial street already has an arterial signal to help with the traffic flow on San Antonio and Charleston. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Chair Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jean Wilcox to be followed by Todd Sachs. Ms. Jean Wilcox, Palo Alto: I live in the Charleston Gardens neighborhood. Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission as a neighbor of the new and very exciting Campus for Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Jewish Life I would like to welcome them to our neighborhood. We are looking forward to their completed facility but have some reservations about the plans. When we first heard of the proposed construction we were gently informed that it may be two or three feet higher than Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit due to ground water problems. Then that was increased tofive or six feet. It is now up to eight feet above the 50-foot height limit and may very possibly go higher. Even at 58 feet this does not include rooftop infrastructure like ventilation ducts or elevator shafts. The question has been asked why don’t they simply take the top story off and stay within Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit? The argument has been made that the present building on the site is 96 feet high but I understand that structure was very unpopular when it was built and was one of the reasons Council voted to have a 50-foot height limit. To accept plans, which exceed Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit, will set a precedent and lead to more such requests. Parking is going to be another big problem for the residential neighbors. Yes, they will have the use of the parking lot at the new high school on Fabian Way but that only has space for 100 vehicles. Parking underneath the proposed development will not be available after 5:00 PM. We are told the cultural center will hold 400 people where will all the cars park? On our neighborhood streets? Traffic and access to the site is another problem. We had hoped that an access and egress onto San Antonio Road would be made available for more than just emergency vehicles. This would help to keep traffic off our neighborhood streets. Unfortunately both the residential streets of Southerland Drive and Montrose will provide convenient shortcuts for those coming down San Antonio Road. Commuter traffic uses these streets daily to avoid traffic signals at Leghorn and Charleston and San Antonio Road. Noise particularly in the evening may be a problem to neighbors with an outside basketball court for teens and music coming from the cultural center and the amphitheater. The facilities proposed are very exciting but it is a very dense project with a little open space and even less space for parking. I hope the Planning and Transportation Commission will take a long hard look at these problems not only for this project but also the proposed BUILD development. Thank you very much. Chair Burr: Thank you. Todd Sachs to be followed by Robert Moss. Mr. Todd Sachs, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Charleston Road. I am probably your second closest neighbor, I am the second house once the houses start on Charleston. I am actually very excited about the CJL campus. It can’t be built fast enough as far as I am concerned in terms of I have a four and a half year old and a one and a half year old. When it was first announced we thought maybe the four and a half year old would go to preschool there. Now it is not going to happen but maybe the one and a half year old or maybe a subsequent child. That said, I just wanted to bring up one issue that has already been brought up which is the entrances and exits on Charleston. I have more than anecdotal evidence since I walk there and drive there pretty much every day and the existing KFC when cars come in and out it really is a mess. I think that just having observed this over the last five or six years that I have been there it really needs to be thought about whethercars should ever be making a left into or out of Charleston into the center. There are a lot near accidents and I know that I grab my kids when we are walking in that neighborhood because I am just afraid of cars coming in and out of KFC. It is a real trouble spot. ¯ I am sure thought is being given to it but maybe more thought should be given to whether cars should ever make a left into or out of the Charleston Road exit. Page 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Then the other sort of thing that goes hand in hand with that is there will obviously be a lot more 2 people making lefts onto Fabian with the new campus so there needs to be a left turn lane with a 3 light there or lefts need to be barred. Currently with people making lefts onto Fabian it can be 4 backed up in the morning all the way to Middlefield. So if there is going to be more traffic 5 making lefts onto Fabian there just needs to be a left turn light there or left turns need to be barred. The extra traffic making a left there is probably not going to work otherwise. That is really all I wanted to say. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Can I ask him a question? When you say a left hand turn onto Fabian you mean if you are going on Charleston towards San Antonio? Mr. Sachs: Yes, if you are coming from Middlefield going towards San Antonio you are making a left on Fabian there. In the mornings there can be - I sometimes can’t back out of my driveway because of that. So it is only going to get worse with more traffic making a left there. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Penny Ellson. Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Burt and Commissioners. I would like to remind you this is a PC, which means there are supposed to be public benefits. What we have before you tonight is a typical Jim Baer public benefit trade, a sick rabbit for a racehorse. Who gets the rabbit and who gets the racehorse? If you look at attachment D, page four, it gives you the "public benefits." The first one is tearing down a 265,000 square foot office building. That building has nothing to do with the Campus for Jewish Life. It is on the property which is owned by BUILD Housing. The only building that is going to be torn down to accommodate CJS is Kentucky Fried Chicken. The rest is parking lot and has been parking lot for 40 years. So every additional car trip caused by this development is a new car trip. Second. Developing 175 senior housing units. That is not a public benefit that is a public detriment. It does not improve the jobs/housing imbalance and based on the senior housing on E1 Camino Way you can expect two to three trips for paramedics to this site every month. As you know about 80 percent of all of the trips from all the calls from the Fire Department are for paramedics. This property will generate more so it is going to be a cost to the community not a benefit. Preschool and after school programs, well that is part of the actual operation of the site. Tat is not a public benefit. That is part of their charter for what they are going to be doing. Facilities for cultural events and so on, again this is part of hat they are doing on the site. They are. building it for the community center. The only way that is a public benefit is if they offer those for no cost to the public if that is built into the conditions of approval. Enhanced architecture and design, why do we have an ARB if we don’t have enhanced architectural design? We should Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14" 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 get that regardless. You don’t have to have a PC in order to have quality construction in building. Finally, opportunities for the development of joint City-CJL programs. Give me a break. I don’t want an opportunity I want something concrete written in stone and made a part of the agreement otherwise you don’t have a public benefit. Let’s talk about parking. Over 70 of the parking spaces are going to be tandem parking. That doesn’t work. The examples they give are various hotels. If you look at the layout those tandem parking spaces are scattered throughout the garage. It is not necessary to have that. you could redesign it so you have a multi-layer garage and then have the other buildings separate. It is not necessary to have the garage covering the entire site for toxics. Believe me, I am very familiar with the toxic problems that is not a requirement. You could build directly on the ground. Finally, they talk about having additional parking by going off site and perhaps talking to Loral and getting Loral to lease them parking spaces. The question I have is have they talked to Loral and what did Loral say after they stopped laughing? Chair Burt: Thank you. Penny Ellson as our final speaker. Ms. Penn,/Ellson, Palo Alto: Good evening again. I am speaking tonight as the Co-Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee for Green Meadow Community Association. I should preface my comments by saying there wasn’t time between the release of the Staff Report and tonight’s meeting for us to have a community meeting so I am basing my comments on previous meetings that we have had where I sort of got a general sense of the direction the community wanted to go. Regarding site access from Charleston I have to say that we concur with the gentleman that spoke earlier about the KFC problem. I have actually spent a little time observing the traffic there as well and the left turns coming out of there are really a disaster, an accident waiting to happen. They also block traffic sometimes. So we really need to I think in the traffic reports analyze what the impact of allowing those turning movements might be. I would like to point out that without the traffic reports it was kind of difficult to look at ingress and egress issues. We don’t really know the number of cars. We don’t know where they are coming from and where they are going to or any of that information that usually helps with this sort of thing. So we would request that any decision regarding the Charleston site access be preceded by very careful analysis of implications of turning movements. San Antonio Road commercial loading zone. As you know CJL will be adding housing for families and senior and along with several other projects will create the need for a more residential neighborhood character. Appropriately any plan to bring new truck traffic onto surrounding streets should be very carefully considered. Generally, consistent with our concerns about safety of the Charleston-Arastradero corridor we do not want truck traffic redirected to this residential arterial and school corridor. There currently is really, again I have to say, not sufficient information available to make a judgment about what the effect of doing this might be. Finally, just sort of generally on traffic issues as you are considering all of this please be careful to consider the difference between what CEQA is going to allow to be measured and what actually will occur and what the neighborhoods are going to experience. It is quite different because of how long the Sun site has been vacant. As long as I have lived in Palo Alto I can’t Page 11 1 2 3 4 remember Sun being open and that is kind of a long time. Probably not by some of your standards I have been here less time than some of you. Finally, one last concern and this is mine not Green Meadows, Mountain View recently allowed Costco to build up to the sidewalk and the result is a gigantic blank wall that casts a huge shadow on Charleston. It is horrible. This is going to be the southern gateway to our city. So I was glad to see tonight that we are not going to have quite the same thing on San Antonio but I hope we will look really carefully at the .landscaping and what that southern gateway is going to look like. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Would the applicant like to take up to three minutes to have wrap up comments? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Baer: Yes. I want to thank the speakers from the community. We heard what you heard. 15 What are some of the concerns that will be addressed by Staff and Boards through the release of 16 the environmental impact study. How is the traffic managed? We understand that the San 17 Antonio frontage and the Charleston Road left turn and these have been identified by Staff as 18 issues of concern that are being studied. How does traffic filter through the neighborhood? We 19 know that at all project levels the question is how do you measure trips relative to existing land 20 uses. It so happens that the Sun building was occupied. We bought the building in June 2002. 21 They paid rent through September 2002 and it continued to be their worldwide server center with 22 1,000 desks and chairs at the facility until September 2002. That doesn’t alter the fact that where 23 we will seek your guidance now and in the future and where Staffwill work diligently is how do 24 we best address the traffic generated by this kind of project including the three paramedic trips a 25 month. Noise will be evaluated by the environment report and as any public use will have 26 conditions imposed on hours of noise generation and at what decibel levels~ Our open space 27 happens to be 42 percent, which is far greater than required under zoning for any kind of project 28 use. But noise, traffic, the legitimacy and usefulness of the parking and should add that for 29 special events the 400 seat auditorium we fully expect the condition of approval for any special 30 even to require that there be demonstrated sufficient parking for the event within walking 31 distance or shuttles provided for any event if parking isn’t within walking distance. Kehillah has 32 180 parking spaces directly across the street and Loral has many spaces not used in the evening 33 but we would need to negotiate with them. As for the public benefit fortunately when we were 34 looking at the Mayfield School site and a development agreement possible there what is now the 35 soccer fields then the Parks & Recreation Department had developed a very comprehensive list 36 of what were needs that could be fulfilled through shared use of a Jewish.Community Center 37 facility as well as an extensive public needs document generated by the Parks & Recreation 38 Department. Our public benefit, as any applicant, we list a dozen that are inherent to the site. 39 what will happen and what will return to you in a compelling way is in this $200 million facility 40 what will be the Parks & Recreation Department and public access to shared use programs that 41 can’t be provided at any value elsewhere in the city both by limitation of land and by resources. 42 So we will engage fully on the kinds of issues raised tonight which are not new to us with Staff, 43 and they are not new to Staff, and we look forward to returning to you for environmental impact 44 review and for a Comprehensive Plan Community Zone. 45 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burr: Thank you. Would Commissioners like to ask questions of Staff and!or the applicant? Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I would like to ask a couple of questions. One of the things that Mr. Moss brought up was the notion of tandem parking.. On page five I think of Attachment D there is an item that calls for tandem parking and it says tandem spaces are not permitted in any district other than R-1 and R-3 districts. Staff will determine the correct procedure if the procedure exists that would be required in order to allow tandem parking. What if the procedure doesn’t exist is my question. What is plan B? Ms. Furth: Parking is something that is established on a zone-by-zone basis even though we have a separate chapter, Which has our parking standards in it. So you always have the option of recommending a PC zone that permits that kind of parking. PCs are a hybrid. They are a special zone, which you adopt because no other zone in the city would permit this use. If it would fit in another zone you don’t do it. And they have design review. So the design review of course can’t change the rules it can only implement them but the zone itself within the confines of the PC ordinance itself and the Comprehensive Plan can change other rules. Commissioner Sandas: Another question I have has to do with the 15-foot setback. I was just wondering, I know you are going to be asking for a variance for this and I was just thinking with all the land that is there it is a pretty big site, I am wondering if that 15 feet can be brought closer up to the code. I think 24 feet is what the setback is Supposed to be. Is that a possibility? Chair Burt: I’m sorry Mr. Steinberg, can you identify yourself for the record? Mr. Steinberg: I’m sorry, Rob Steinberg from the architect’s office. The 15 feet that you are referring to is that at the coruer of San Antonio and Charleston? Commissioner Sandas: I am not exactly sure to be honest with you. Yes, I have just been told yes. Mr. Steinberg: One of our thoughts is that as this area redevelops if you go and look at that intersection currently many of the uses have been pulled back so that there is no definition to that intersection. It is a major intersection. We look at this as an opportunity to sort of reevaluate the suburban model that was built in the 1960s and what the nature of that is. Our thought is that what we refer to as that building on the coruer as the cultural building is a building that we hope will have public benefit that will be used by the community and could in fact help give some definition to that intersection. If you look at our model you will see that we purposely are pushing that out to the comer to emphasize that. we are envisioning a landscape treatment that is low for those trees so that that building has at the pedestrian level a very soft look but then the building emerges out of that. by contrast as you move down Charleston we pulled the building back and the landscaping is becoming richer, it is getting taller and it is making this transition from the more commercial use back towards a residential use. My personal opinion is to treat the residential, the commercial on that front edge all as a monotone is not going to be as interesting as to have some variety in the landscaping, the in and out of it and I would suggest Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that honestly that intersection which has a lot of car movement would benefit by having some of the buildings move in a little bit tighter that is why we are proposing that. Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. Speakingofinteresting things I just wanted to ask one more question about the tower sculpture. That to me is very intriguing and it is very interesting. I noticed on the drawings that there was a notation for theatrical lighting and digital display. Can you talk a little bit about that? Especially in light of our sign ordinance, I know it is not a sign but I’m just wondering what a digital display might be. Mr. Steinberg: It would be fair to say that this is a glimmer in our eye at the moment. We don’t have the details of that. There are several aspects to the tower. Number one, it has an elevator that moves people from the garage up to the upper levels of the building. So it has circulation and stairs in part of it. It also has a very important functional aspect that we are ventilating the garage in the subsurface soil through that vertically so that we are exhausting above the activity levels and the residential uses in the building. So it has a very functional use. Our thought was that if we need to do these different things perhaps we could use that as a landmark and as a way- finding element in the campus and perhaps we could even combine that into an artistic and maybe the notion of adding public art to it. So as you cansee from the model we are suggesting that perhaps it be artistic in nature even though it has very utilitarian functional aspects to it. These were suggestions that we thought we would put forth and gather input from yourselves and the Architectural Review Board as we go through this process and we will continue to define and get clarity with that as we move forward. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions an easy one and a very difficult one. I will ask the easy one first. Can you talk a little bit about the sustainable building features to this? Mr. Steinberg: There are a number of features. We are not proposing at this time that it be a lead-certified building but we are taking all of the characteristics of the lead analysis and trying to incorporate almost every aspect of that. so starting with the reuse of the site, a brown field site that has environmental issues including mix of uses, including increasing the intensity of density on the site, the orientation is set to capture the natural light, the [midrohove], the pedestrian streets all organized to capture the natural light. We will exceed insulation. We will use low- flow plumbing. We are exploring runoff systems under our shared driveway and energy efficient lighting. So, Lee, we are in the early stages of what I would call preliminary design but we are using the lead categories in all aspects of that to try and bring a very holistic approach to the development of the site. That was the easy one or the hard one? Commissioner Lippert: That was the easy one. This one is very difficult and I think it is really the elephant in the room. This is the Campus for Jewish Life and one issue is definitely going to have to be security on this building. I think everybody is pretty mindful today that this country is under siege with regard to terrorist attacks. This puts a very large concentration of an ethnic group in one location. What sort of security measures are going to be incorporated that will not be visible to assure that the buildings are secure? Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Steinberg: Can I introduce Shelley Hebert who is the Executive Director of the Campus for Jewish Life to answer that one? I was someone would take the hard one. Ms. Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life: Thank you. Thank you for that important question. First of all I would assure you that we take the security issues very seriously. We have retained a top quality security consultant to work with us at this early stage of planning the project so that we can build security considerations into the project from the ground up. We are very fortunate to have that opportunity because so many public facilities have had to retrofit and try to go back after the fact and sort of put a hodgepodge of security features in place. So we have a security consultant who is part of our planning team. There are a number of security considerations that we take into account in any case for a facility where you have very young children that is a normal part of operations for a facility that will serve senior citizens and elderly people but which will essentially be open to the public. So at this point we are not prepared to discuss details of our security planning but we are certainly striking the balance between creating a facility that will be absolutely safe and secure for all users and the public but at the same time will be very open and inviting and welcoming to everyone. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have several questions. Why don’t I just ask two of them and then go on and see someone else asks those other questions. I don’t know that I heard, at the beginning maybe you explained this and I just missed it, what counts as the FAR and what does not? How does it get calculated? What counts as the open space and how do you figure the site coverage? The ground floor is parking and the first floor is the introductory floor. Are there actually different floors sort of like in a more European model? I am not sure how you calculated what is the FAR and the other numbers. Mr. Turner: Well, floor area will be calculated per the standard definitions of floor area. On this project the parking garage does not count as floor area but would count as lot coverage. The buildings above it, above the podium of course, all the structures would be counted as floor area. The public open space includes the areas of the playing fields, the cultural court, the walkways and the pathways, the town hall area. This would be considered the common open space areas. Private open space areas would be attached to each of the dwelling units. I guess the ball fields would part of common open space as well. So we would be taking a look at that pretty standardly as we would look at all other projects. Commissioner Cassel: So the fact that there is a podium, the podium itself is not considered area covered? Mr. Turner: Yes it is. The garage would count as lot coverage. Commissioner Cassel: Right, I get that. Mr. Turner: But it would not count as floor area. It is specifically stated in the definition of floor area that parking attached to the project is not counted as floor area. Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: But level one is only counted as floor area if it has a building on it. If it is common open space it is not counted as floor area ratio. Mr. Turner: That is correct. Commissioner Cassel: That is what I needed clarified. Okay. That helps. The other question I had relating to this is building height limit. How much of this site is actually at the 50-foot level? What percentage of the site is actually at the 50 foot plus level? What percent is at 50 feet and what percent is above 50 feet? This extra utility equipment, is there some limit on that? We have run into people wanting to cover the whole top of the building with utility stuff. Mr~ Turner: I think I will let the architect describe the percentage of height. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Mr. Steinberg: To be honest with you I cannot give you an exact percentage. We haven’t quite calculated that way. There are a number of buildings that are below that average. The pool building off of Fabian is really no building. The fields have not buildings on them. Commissioner Cassel: That is obvious. What I am kind of looking at is the other way around. What is it that is above 50 feet? Mr. Steinberg: The gymnasium building, the top floor of the gynmasium building would exceed the 50 feet. The multi-cultural building would also exceed 50 feet and several of the senior residential buildings, which are typical four story buildings that in a conventional site where there weren’t these kinds of issues would be well below the 50 feet. As you can see from our model we are not proposing to add additional gables or roof forms which one might typically do on a residential building where you are able to submerge the parking and have four stories and still have gable roofs and be under the 50 feet. One of the things that we are trying to do is to be as sensitive as possible to the fact that we have a unique site that doesn’t permit us to do what you would be able to do on a traditional site. We are not trying to exacerbate that. We certainly haven’t taken all of- even the residential buildings have elements that are two story, that are three story and four story in order to have variety of up and downs in the building. Chair Burt: Annette, do you have questions? Commissioner Bialson: Not right now. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Should I be limiting my questions in terms of number or time? Chair Burt: The preferable method would be each Commissioner asks two and then we will rotate around until we ask all the questions Commissioners have. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. For the Staff, are there retail requirements that the applicant needs to adhere to as part of the Comprehensive Plan or any other criteria? Mr. Turner: There are no retail requirements. The Commission may recommend that perhaps retail use would be a permitted or conditional use as part of the project but there is nothing that would require the applicant to place retail as part of the project. Commissioner Garber: Another question for the Staff. In my next rotation I will go to the applicant. It is clear that the driving constraints for this project and the way that the design has been developed around the program has a lot to do with FEMA and flood. Are there restrictions to putting occupyable space on the ground? Mr. Turner: I believe that there are. The project applicant may be able to speak to those more specifically. I think because of the FEMA and the ground water contamination problems there is a limit of the types ofus.es that can happen. Commissioner Garber: Can we have the applicant speak to that? Mr. Baer: There are two separate constraints. One is that FEMA this is a plus-eight floodplain. Vehicles and certain types of storage areas can be below plus-eight. The first step into a residence or a place for public use has to be at plus-eight so we can’t lower the buildings. The second constraint is that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring, one of the members of the public spoke saying you can put a building at slab on grade~ we are through our risk management plan absolutely prohibited from having any slab on grade for occupied space. So there are driveways and some limited landscaping that can be at grade but we couldn’t put a childcare building, a gymnasium, a Shower or a residence with a slab on grade it has to be over a ventilated space. The ventilated space winds up being, whether it is a five foot ventilated space or a parking space of 12 feet tall we cannot puta slab on grade both for Regional Water Quality Control Board. What this is is PCE and TC and water vaporize into dichloride, vinyl chloride, poly chloride and those are ventilated through a parking garage system at much lower quantities per million than carbon monoxide. So a simple garage ventilation works but you have to have the ventilated space. Commissioner Garber: Am I recalling in the report which I tried to at least touch each one of the pages, was there subsurface venting as well to create a negative stack effect to be able to get that out? Mr. Baer: One our project managers could probably answer that but I know there is a very elaborate membrane. Todd, do you want to answer that? Commissioner Garber: I apologize for getting into some of the details here but I am going somewhere with this. Mr. Todd Heiress, Sirus Regis Group: Good evening. I didn’t think I would be up here speaking tonight. As part of the environmental systems there will be sub-slab vapor barrier and then below that there will be a pass of vapor recovery system that can be activated if need be but that Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 is just.a series of piping. If you will, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Then you also have the ventilated podium parking. Commissioner Garber: That subsurface ventilation system comes up through the proposed tower? Mr. Heiress: Yes. Commissioner Garber: And that allows for the occupancy of the garage but would not allow for an occupied space to be sitting on the ground? Mr. Heiress: That is correct. Commissioner Garber: Are there any exceptions that are ever made in circumstances like this? I recognize I know what the answer is going to be but has the question been asked directly of the various agencies that have been involved? Mr. Heiress: Yes and let me clarify that. There are certain uses that are allowed on grade for instance as Rob explained. Commissioner Garber: There are some on your plan, yes, I see those. Mr. Heiress: Right and so those would be allowed with the regional board depending on the outcome of the risk management plan, which has a health risk assessment, based on the sensitivity of use. Commissioner Garber: Give me an example. Mr. Heiress: Childcare or residential has a much higher sensitive use as opposed to commercial space. Commissioner Garber: Would ~etail be allowed on the ground floor, to touch the ground? Mr. Heiress: I am not sure of that. Commissioner Garber: Is all of the site as sensitive or just some portions of the site sensitive? Mr. Heiress: I believe just some portions. Commissioner Garber: What is the sensitivity of the site that is adjacent to Charleston and San Antonio? Mr. Heiress: Along the Charleston and San Antonio border? Commissioner Garber: Yes. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Heiress: I would have to look specifically at the area. It varies along each property line. Commissioner Garber: Do any of the other project team members know? Mr. Baer: We have all been involved with this and the question of have we pled the agencies, there is a single agency the Regional Water Quality Control Board that has jurisdiction and to the tune of probably $1.0 million of consulting we have pled to the water board. Here is the problem we have the Ford Aerospace contamination to the site is identified and mitigatible by Ford with a defined - there is no more generation and no more increase in the hazardous quantities that were deposited by Ford. Ford Motor Company is the responsible party along with Loral Space 11 Systems to mitigate and clean up those and that has been underway. The problem is that we are 12 down gradient from the world. So Mountain View directly across the street on Charleston and 13 San Antonio have plumes that there are not responsible parties identified and the torture of this 14 site being down gradient is the levels of soil gas and water concentrations are greater than when 15 environmental work was done by Sun Microsystems when they bought the building from Ford. 16 So what happens is the onsite Ford’s work has been improving and the build site is substantially 17 cleaner currently than the CJL site because the migration is they are further downstream than we 18 are and there is more cleanup activity going on on our eight acres. Not only is there the problem 19 of state policy and water board mission which is that we can’t put people in harm’s way and so 20 their mission is to say if we see increasing quantities we are going to impose on you for the 21 entire site. so that your question is, is San Antonio and Charleston less severe or more severe 22 than another location, the problem is there are seven or nine plumes with varying concentrations 23 from various generators. So we have a water board mission to implement a full vapor protection 24 on the site. The second is you have Ford as a responsible party who hammer and tong are in 25 there saying that the belt and suspenders are absolutely necessary to allow this site to be 26 developed other than for its existing industrial use. So Ford has been an active participant, they 27 appealed the approved risk management plan that BUILD had in place directly to the state and 28 got a two-year stay. Our negotiations are two party, water board and Ford, so we are in a 29 circumstance where there is no creative opportunity with the all the power of BUILD and its 30 relationship with [CalPers] and all the power of the Jewish community including members of the 31 board on Ford Motor Company. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: You mean they couldn’t move heaven and earth? Mr. Baer: In this circumstance we can’t move the Regional Water Quality Control Board as currently administered. So the creative line of questioning, can you vary where you come to ground in any way and the answer really is we can’t. Commissioner Garber: You have exhausted that? Mr. Baer: We really have exhausted that.. That is both the scientific and engineering and in political approaches. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Annette. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Bialson: Jim, don’t go away. Mr. Moss: I’m sorry I have to respond. I happen to have some expertise in this area. I beg your pardon. Chair Burt: Bob Moss. Mr. Moss: As you may know I am the Community Co-Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board of Moffett Field and I am also on the Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association Foundation, which has oversight of two superfund sites in Palo Alto. I have been working in this area for almost 20 years and I have quite a bit of information and experience. Jim is just not accurate in some of his statements. The actual contamination did not come from Ford it came from [Advaloy] across the street. If you look at the building that was all parking lot. It is a plume that came from across Charleston and the area, which is contaminated, is the area, which is basically the driveway that goes along the property line, which is now a commercial building, and there is a vacant lot on Charleston. The other area which is somewhat contaminated is basically under the - there is a map and you can look at it - under the community center. The interesting thing is that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has a very high tolerance for TCE in both ground water and in the air compared to EPA. They are 160 times more tolerant than EPA is and in areas where for example Orion Park at Moffett where the Navy and NASA are planning to build housing they are building housing on grade. They are putting a barrier membrane and the most effective way to eliminate indoor air contamination is by putting a fan in and venting it. You don’t have to vent it up 50 or 60 feet. You can vent it at the level of the ceiling. In the case of Whisman Park, which you may be familiar with is a housing development in Mountain View at Whisman and Central Expressway, those houses were built with a barrier under the buildings. Some of them have basements. One of the barriers failed and they found high concentrations of TCE in the house. This was in an area that was originally occupied by GTE. GTE went in and put in an attic vent fan and in 24 hours the TCE concentration went from 2.4 part per billion to non-detect. The recommended practice is to put a fan in the building. That eliminates the potential for contamination. Interestingly enough the Regional Water Quality Control Board, I don’t know about this particular site and why they have an issue, has allowed people to build housing directly over contaminated sites. I have been having a fight with them for two years now about an area near the courthouse where there is some contaminated groundwater which may in fact be getting into a building and they refuse to do anything about it even though it is much more dangerous, much more toxic, than this area is here. Then finally as a former Ford employee, Ford is not responsible for the contamination but as the former property owner they inherited it from [Advaloy] who went out of business so they are trying to clean it up. Bridge Housing has no contamination at all, that area has nothing. It would be possible if Ford and Regional Water Quality Control Board agreed to put a barrier in along Charleston which would prevent any additional movement of the contaminated water from the Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39. 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 [Advaloy] site onto that site and in then the area which is contaminated could be cleaned up and remediated. That is technically possible. Chair Burt: Thank you. Mr. Baer, to the extent it matters to be able to make recommendations by the Commission if you want to respond to it. Mr. Baer: One moment. Obviously in the environmental review we will be glad to have officers from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Michelle Rimbaum-Fox and Steven Hill as well as Tom Graf and GeoSyntech, who have been our consultants. Asan applicant we always deal in a public forum where there are matters of perception that are part science and part perception and part politics. How we interpret our experience of traffic is part traffic data and part perceptive. Here we are negotiating with a nonprofessional way out of his depth and league, factually so incorrect that it is an embarrassment for me, speaking as if his perception of Advaloy and Ford and ownership of property and responsible party orders in place by the water board this is nonsense that I am really embarrassed that we all have to tolerate this. Unfortunately in the environmental review the experts will deal with this as they will. I am terribly embarrassed and think that part of why when debate is closed we don’t have high school debates by asking members of the public to answer questions for an applicant or a Staff member is that this an embarrassing high school debate proposition put forward by Mr. Moss. We will gladly have our experts respond to him hopefully in a way that doesn’t humiliate him but it may be necessary for it to be humiliating for him in subsequent hearings about the environmental document. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Jim, could you stay at the podium, please? My questions go to the public benefits that have been listed specifically with regard to the access to the cultural events, recreational activities and programs that the general public will have. Could you please discuss those a little more and liken them if you could to what is available when the JC was at the Terman site? Mr. Baer: At the Terman site there were both public uses, there was a library, there were tennis courts, and there were arrangements where there were part school and parklands by the City and part Jewish Community Center. So this departs significantly from that in what will be reviewed.. One of the reasons we don’t have a firm program to present to you tonight is that the physical parameters of the buildings have been evolving rapidly in the last 60 to 90 days and another is that there has been a turnover in that department within the City with the retirement of the previous Director of Parks & Recreation. So that part of the translation of what were the parameters that we were looking at when the Mayfield School site was explored as a Jewish Community Center, what were the public access opportunities there. Let me give you the kind of examples of things we will evaluate which is there are and I am going to use the auditorium as an example. If we have a 400 seat capacity auditorium there are certainly capacity excesses available that are beyond what the Jewish community would use for its mission and for its primary use objectives. Where there are those Surplus opportunities predictable, definable, can be scheduled we will work with the City of Palo Alto to have those events available through City of Palo Alto sponsored or jointly sponsored events. That translates also to how the gynmasium and classrooms and aerobic studios are used and hours of surplus. Obviously Friday night and Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Saturday mornings are hours of surplus for a predominant part of the facility and when the City has a high interest. If we have a teen center there are jointly sponsored JCC and City of Palo Alto teen programs that would occur on an evening. There can be a joint basketball and volleyball league. There can be mothers with children rhythm classes in rooms that are sponsored by the City of Palo Alto at hours aren’t by the JCC. The conclusion 0fall of this abstract discussion is to say that there will be a very well defined negotiated with intensity by the City to fill what they identify as needs balanced against what the Jewish Community Center sees as genuine surplus capacity. That will be very rich in quantifiable public benefit, hours, number of participants, cost equivalent where the City to have to participate in the purchase of access to a facility like that. Commissioner Bialson: So what you are saying, the gist of it seems to be that if there is a surplus capacity that that would be shared with the City pursuant to some written agreement. Is there going to be access to these facilities for the general public? Maybe somebody else on your team could speak to that. There is going to be a very rich environment created here and I wanted to know if that was going to be available to neighbors and to others. Ms. Hebert: The basic concept is that membership in a Jewish Community Center is open and available to the entire community and is not based on religion in any way whatsoever. Typically Jewish Community Centers have somewhere on the order of 50 percent of their members and participants are not from within the Jewish community. That certainly was the case for the JCC when it was located at Terman, It is the case for other JCCs that have recently opened in the Bay Area and it is the expectation for this JCC as well. So all events, all programs, all services are open and available to everyone in the community. I sometimes am asked about the senior living that.is going to be located on the Campus for Jewish Life. Like many other senior living projects that are sponsored by a religiously affiliated group this senior living facility is a Jewish sponsored facility and we do expect that many of the residents there will be Jewish but certainly not all of them will be and there is not a restriction or a requirement that people who will be living in that facility be Jewish. In fact, within the Jewish community there is a lot of argument about how you define who is Jewish so you don’t even want to go into that but while the majority of people who live there are likely to be Jewish many of them will not be Jewish and certainly the JCC will have many, many participants in all of its programs and services who are from the community at large. That is part of the JCCs mission is to contribute to understanding and tolerance and communication among people of all faiths. Have I responded to your question? Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Yes you have. There was an additional question that fellow Commissioner Dan asked which is will the public have access to the caf~? Was that correct, Dan? Ms. Hebert: Yes, absolutely. ~n fact in the context of the open and inviting and welcoming campus the caf~ will be open, there will be a gift shop that will be open, there will be other types of retail services that we are planning that. will be open. We very much hope that everyone will use them. Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: Well, we were interested in the retail that was going to be provided so thank you for that. Chair Burt: I have one question regarding the parking. One of the speakers alluded ifI understood it correctly to a restriction on availability of certain parking segments after five o’clock. Can Staff clarify any of that? Mr. Turner: I am not aware of any restrictions after five o’clock. Perhaps the applicant can speak to that. Chair Burt: Mr. Baer? Mr. Baer: I think one of the speakers I think has a number of misunderstandings one of them was about the impact of BUILD’s use of its own parking. The Campus for Jewish Life has 615 parking spaces which does include some tandem and some attendant parking. For the tandem to be successful there needto be conditions to ensure that it is viable. Those 615 spaces are available to the Campus for Jewish Life un-impacted by BUILD’s segregated parking intensively used after five. An element of the 615 parking spaces is that a portion of those are available to BUILD on a non-exclusive shared basis predominantly for their guest parking. The management of our peak hour of use and the peak hour of use for the guest parking which occur in the evenings, 7:30 to 9:30 are peak JCC recreation and adult facility use and are also the peak hour for guest parking for BUILD. So there may have been a misunderstanding saying the BUILD parking won’t be available to you after five that is not what takes place. What takes place is of our 615 spaces some need to be available for guests of BUILD. The City Transportation Division and the EIR consultant have concluded that we have adequate capacity to meet that need subject to special events, which will need conditional parking requirements. Chair Burt: Thank you. Before we continue with additional questions I just wanted to get a sense of the Commission. We are at 10:30 1 think we still have at least a few more questions and then we have our discussion and recommendations. Does the Commission think we will be able to wrap these up before 11:00? How extensive do you anticipate your questions and recommendations? Okay. Lee and then Phyllis. Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple more questions for the architect, Rob if you wouldn’t mind. With regard to the setback along San Antonio Road and the sort of we will just cal! it ’wall’ right now and landscape buffer there did you .look at all at sort of fortifying that with landscaping? What I mean by that is building maybe some sort of plants or wall that was thicker that you could then have a terraced row of trees sort of step up along there rather than having a screen along that. Mr. Steinberg: Ascreen of landscaping? Commissioner Lippert: Correct, a screen of landscaping and terraced walls. Mr. Steinberg: WE are in the process of studying and looking at different options for the landscape there. One of the things that I think is very exciting about this project is that we are Page 23 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 fortunate to have one of the literally world-renown greatest living landscape architects on our 2 team. They are in the process of looking at those kinds of details. That is something that we will 3 as we go forward present different ideas and options to I am assuming the Architectural Review 4 Board in particular with a recommendation for that. I think the one thought that we felt is that you might treat the comer and the intersection in a different manner than the residential as it begins to transition back but I don’t think we have locked into anything so specific that it is not flexible at this time. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, and my follow up on that is looking at Mr. Halperin’s landscape details on I guess it is sheet L-1.02 he shows a series of raised planters above the parking garage. Have you looked at all at having some of those actually penetrate the parking garage and have deeper planters in areas where cars are not present that would allow for more mature trees to actually grow in those areas? Mr. Steinberg: We have and that is something that we are exploring and certainly is an option that we are looking carefully at. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: IfI can have a one word answer from Wynne. Do the open housing laws affect the purchase of the senior housing units in this project? Ms. Furth: The Owner Act and the Fair Housing laws generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion except in certain very limited circumstances such as monasteries. We can probably get a more detailed answer from the applicant. I am not aware of any exception that would apply here. I believe that technically they are open. Commissioner Cassel: It can be checked on for later. I don’t need it for tonight. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: One quick question for Staff. I just wanted to have you publicly clarify what if anything are we as a City giving up by rezoning and changing the Comp Plan rezoning to PC. You and I personally talked about this yesterday and I just thought it would be nice for you to explain it for the record. Mr. Emslie: Hopefully I will give you the same answer. The whole concept of the Planned Community is based on site specific zoning designing the best project to fit the conditions of that particular site. It has been used in many instances on big and small sites. This is a large enough site where individual conditions and dealing with the particular design parameters of this can be served by developing a very specific site plan. The PC ordinance as was recognized does have a pubiic benefit component and that is the larger community tradeoff. So in exchange for variation from our typical development standards the City has decided that there needs to be a quid pro quo of a community benefit that needs to come along with it. It is part of the ordinance and it is required. So that is the equalizer if you will in exchange for the City deviating from its typical zoning standards. Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Furth: Lawyers would actually say that backwards. The PC ordinance says that you do a PC because there is something about this project that is desirable inthe city. So the project itself has to be something that is desirable in the city and we call that a public benefit. And because we can’t accommodate this desirable thing that benefits the public in any of our existing zones we need to go to a PC zone. So ideally you are not giving up anything. You are being asked to make a policy change because you are being asked to reclassify something under the Comprehensive Plan and that is the first decision essentially, should it be moved fxom this commercial category to a mixed-use category. If you are comfortable with that then you go to the specific. Chair Burr: Dan. Commissioner Garber: How tall are the buildings at University Circle? Mr. Turner: The buildings appear to be about six stories so with equipment and they are on a podium as well so we would just measure probably from the top of the podium plus six stories you are looking at 70 feet most likely. Commissioner Garber: So they exceed the 50-foot limit? Mr. Turner: Yes, they would. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: If we don’t have any other questions I would like to redirect us to our assignment for this evening which is to comment on the proposed development in this initial review and recommend the site’s environmental analysis continue and the application be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for formal review following the completion of the Draft EIR. The Commission should provide direction and identify key issues for the ARB and Staff to consider prior to further review by the Commission. Those are our tasks for this evening. I guess one question we have for ourselves is do we want to try to achieve any consensus on comments or just have Commissioners provide comments, if additional Commissioners would like to say I concur with the comments of a fellow Commissioner then that will give Staff some sense of where we stand and maybe that would be the most efficient way to proceed. I see a lot of heads nodding. Dan, would you like to go first? I thought I would go from right to left. Who would like to go first? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I will go first. It is hard to go first when you are new. I think we should move this item forward and let it go to the ARB and see what they have to say and how they might adjust some of the concerns we have. I have a number of comments I would like to make. I have been sitting quietly in the Chair seat for a long time so I am chomping at the bit. I am concerned about the height. I am not really concerned that some portions of this are going to 58 feet. I understand some of the limits but I am concerned about the amount, the numbers that are going to 58 feet. I am really concerned Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that if we go to 58 feet with some of it that somehow or other the utilities get woven into this better so that we don’t have another I don’t know how many feet over and above that to deal with the utilities that go there on top. I am concerned about the mass and that is going to have to continue to be worked on because it is a very big site and a lot of coverage. Anything you can do to minimize that feeling of mass and I am sure our architect friends here have some ideas and the ARB is going to have a lot of ideas but mass is an issue for me. Obviously varying heights helps that. Be careful of the parking configuration. It needs to be very carefully done the Commission itself does not deal with that but I am painfully aware every time I go into the Palo Alto Medical building how difficult it is to get around there and it is a big site. Clear lines are very important. I also think that you should look for other kinds of ways to put in those extra spaces than just tandem parking. I know there are some other more modem looks at cars that go over cars and that kind of thing because just stuffing them in everyplace in order to get them there creates bad traffic patterns underneath and you essentially have a whole series of roads and blocks underneath there. I think a TDM program is going to be required for this and a shuttle service of some sort is going to have to be conditional in order to connect the elementary school for one thing but the shuttle service should be integrated enough so that both the seniors and other members of the community are using it so it is not isolated just for seniors. Typically a program like this has a shuttle for its seniors but you are presenting a total concept and so the shuttle service should deal with the total concept. I would prefer that the below market rate units are onsite. The units at Sunset are rental units and not purchase units. They do have as a public benefit in that site, if your memory is correct, a subsidy for the services that are provided in the BMR units. I believe so. Sunrise Assisted Living units on E1 Camino and we will have a chance to see how that works before you get too far because that is going to be coming online fairly soon in relationship to how fast you are coming. Public benefits, agreement with the City for public use of some facilities. You have to have an agreement with the City for public use that can be one of them. BMR services for assisted living units or the BMR services portion might be another in addition. And some reasonable way to provide lower priced services for the seniors who would be living in the project next door, the BUILD project because you have them coming across, you are talking about integrating them in and yet that is a group of people who are going to need some kind of lunchroom, some kind of service facilities, some kind of recreation facilities and they are going to be fairly isolated over there. So bringing them in in some way in which they are tied in. As far as I am concerned that might be a way to look at that. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that I too am generally in support of the direction you have started out in here but I do have some minor concerns. I think I alluded to it in my line of Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 questioning which is security is a paramount concern for me. One of them is that because of the parking garage located under such a high density of building here, I hate to say it but, I could see somebody driving a truck full of ammonium nitrate under the theater and having it full capacity and having an unbelievable event occur here. I think that that is the elephant that I see in the room. I think that there are ways of mitigating it. I think there are ways of working with this and trying to get this building to be secure without having to compromise what you are looking for in terms of the plan. I believe that the height that you are looking for here is appropriate for a number of reasons. Number one, you have a number of major arterials that are wide. If you think of planning practices that we look at the width of a street can often times dictate the height of a building because then it looks at that road or arterial as being a corridor and it begins to set that up as a room. So I think that that’s one way to justify the additional eight-foot height that you are looking for here. Where I am having difficulty again is that in contrast to the density that you are looking for and the security issue. I think that’s where all of them sort of come together. I think that’s really going to be a very important part of this plan, how you maintain security in this facility and get the density that you are looking for. So I think that’s a real sort of tough equation there that needs to be addressed for me. Beyond that I think that it is really quite a stunning design. I think you have done a great job here, Rob. I am very impressed that you have engaged Lawrence Halperin. He is a landscape architect that I have admired for, I hate to say it, almost 35 years. It is just a joy to be able to look at his work and be able to see it expressed in Palo Alto. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think this is an extremely exciting project and I am very impressed by the work done to date. Going through the issues that we have to address I wanted to. share my feelings about those. With regard to the height of the buildings and the mass I understand why you have created the structures as you have. I am in agreement with you doing so. I obviously share concern that the utilities that you need to put on top of the buildings not cause a great deal of unsightliness or additional height but I am fine with the height and the mass. Bringing out the building at the corner of Charleston and San Antonio is a great idea and I have no problem agreeing with that special setback encroachment. That is one of the fundamental thoughts that I remember taking out of the new urbanist approach to urban planning and I think it is very well placed in that location as the southern entry to Palo Alto. With regard to public benefit I am concerned that we have sufficient public benefit flowing from this PC. That is why my questions went to it. I think the access of the public to the facilities is great but I would like to see some other public benefit whether that be additional retail as I think Dan was alluding to or some means of benefiting the neighborhood above and beyond the sort of programs you have here that would be very appealing to me. Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 With regard to parking and traffic I leave that to the Staff and you to discuss. I sort of share Phyllis’s perspective on it. I think the idea of a total shuttle service is one that I especially appreciate here bringing it up because I think that is what this site will need. I think it may be a model for some of the other types of large developments we are looking at. Given the fact that we have additional housing going in close by there may be some opportunity for coordination with them to allow Charleston not to become too terribly impacted. With regard to Below Market Rate housing I can understand why you prefer to have it offsite and after you explore the possibility of having it onsite I will go with some further explanation of why it should go offsite and I can certainly tolerate that. With regard to the tower sculpture I think that is a very innovative way to handle the ventilation issues. I understand the need to bring up the air from the garage and ventilate it at a higher level than we would have otherwise. So I agree with it in total and I am looking forward to having this plan and this concept evolve even further. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I look forward to seeing the next step in January or February when it comes back to us. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: That was way too short. I have a lot of comments I am not sure I am going to be able to get them all in because I am not going to be able to remember them. It is a shame that we didn’t talk about the other zoning issue because I think I know where the sign needs to go for the auto mall. We can strike that from the record. I would like to acknowledge Lee’s comment about security, the comments about parking, and the comments about retail. For me the big issues are as follows. As a resident here I will need to get groceries. I will need to get my hair cut. I will need to go to the drug store. I will need to go to my shuak I will need to go out into the community on a daily basis. Getting in and out of this complex and doing that without a car will be important for both the perception of the community that is going to be created here that is not an isolated ark that has been raised 14 feet above the ground but also for the perception of the surrounding community to understand that it is actually integrated and a part of that community. The challenge of trying to get over these 14 feet is not small. I think the things that you have begun to do are terrific but it is very difficult to get around an issue even with the skill of a Mr. Lawrence Halperin, who I like Lee, have a great admiration for. It is still a tall wall even if it is green. That interaction of trying to find the right uses that invites the community in as well as provides the retail opportunities or the opportunities for the community within this community to get out, finding those reasons and creating those links is critical. Otherwise we will all be taking Mr. Moss’s special ambulance a couple of times a month trying to get it right each time. The other thing I think for Staff in terms of a comment is that this project is significantly taller than the existing buildings which are across Charleston, that are across San Antonio, that are Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 catty-comer from this. Those are all primarily single story and some two stories. It creates a precedent that is not legal but is a physical precedent for how that particular area should be, could be, needs to be developed which I don’t know if has been imagined really before. It has an impact and we should be using this as an advantage to think about how that area of Palo Alto should be developed. There is a lot of opportunity there for us to set the right tone, set the right height scale, streetscape to borrow Mr. Northway’s refrain. So for me that is my elephant. Finding those connections, finding the ways to bow down to the street level and create that interaction. I do not, like the others have gone before me a moment ago, I don’t have a problem with the height. In fact I would be very willing to trade more height in some of the parts of the project if that gets me closer to the ground level where it is more important. I would be happy to advise or encourage the Council to think about the project in that way. There are lots more but I will leave it at that. Thank you. Chair Burt: I would like to let the Commissioners know that I think it would be permissible for them to add supplemental comments in writing. Is that correct, Steve? Mr. Emslie: Yes that would be fine if you would like to do that by email that is probably the most efficient. Chair Burt: So if there were things that you didn’t have an opportunity to get into the details of tonight or have supplemental comments the Staff would be receptive to that. Ms. Furth: Just for the record, they will be attached to your agenda at a future meeting so they are part of the public record as well. Chair Burt:. Great. I would like to touch on a couple of subj ects..The subject that Dan just went over on the deficit of neighborhood serving retail in this area serving this new neighborhood as we might think of it as well as the surrounding neighborhood. It is a real problem.. We have a lot of housing in this area and we are going to have a good deal more residents in this area and we have a real deficit of retail. We are certainly not going to have major retail that is going to be possible here so then we need to ask ourselves what is the minimal sort of retail that would have a significant reduction in car trips every time someone wants to get a loaf bread or get some toothpaste or who knows what? What are the services that would be provided by having local retail so we don’t have the impacts on the rest of the community of unnecessary car trips? We have talked about the contributions to the corridor, traffic impacts, but I think there is probably one of the most significant impacts we could have on trip reduction would be to have some form of a mom and pop integrated in this project. I would very much like to see the applicants explore that possibility whether it is integrated with the caf4 so you that you have an efficiency of some sort and at the same time to look at what are the elements that would be most needed in a mom and pop today. They aren’t necessarily the morn and pops of the 1950s. University south did a little study on that ten years ago and it was very surprising. What are the needs of residents today? They may want floppy discs and fax paper who knows what the next decade is going to Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ¯36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 be looking for and not merely milk and eggs and bread. So that is probably my strongest comment. Second, we heard several comments about problems on left turns on Charleston so I think that had already gotten through. Commissioner Cassel spoke about the need for a shuttle. I would certainly hope that we would integrate the shuttle systemthat we already have throughout the city and find a way that whatever funding is going toward a shuttle service for this entity would be somehow integrated with an expansion of our shuttle service that would serve not only this site but this underserved sector of our community. Then as far as on the landscaping it is my assumption that what we saw in the illustrations is really just reference it is not even a beginning point in the landscaping. I was encouraged by the concept of the boulders and a notion of making an organic feel to it. I would hope as part of that we would to the extent possible integrate native landscaping that is compatible with our natural environment in this vicinity. That may not be possible in an absolute sense but ! would certainly hope that it is a strong element and is pursued. Finally, I would like to compliment the aspect that I heard of community gardening of some sort that was referenced for the seniors. I think that that is a cornmu .nity-building element that would be very beneficial and that we have talked about from time to time in medium density housing that is something that we should be looking at. I am glad to hear, ifI understood that correctly, as part of the design. I think that covers mine. Does anyone else have any additional comments? Dan, you wanted to discuss the housing part?. Commissioner Garbed: Not to discuss it only in that we have not really spoken about that and I think we will just simply need to reserve that as a topic for next time around. Chair Burt: Anyone else? Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Just one quick comment and a compliment to Mr. Baer on preparing what is called Attachment C here. As you know I am very new to the Commission and not terribly familiar with projects such as this. Reading your memo was exquisite. It just outlined everything very clearly for me and every time I had a question about two sentences or three sentences later it was answered and I really appreciated that. So thanks for walking us through that very clearly. Chair Burt: Is there a need for a motion to move this forward? Okay. Phyllis. MOTION Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Commissioner Cassel: I will move the Staff recommendation that you receive our comments and that this item be forwarded to the ARB for formal review, that the EIR continue its development and that this item then will be returned back to us at an appropriate time. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I second that. Chair Burt: That is a motion by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Any comments by the maker or the seconder? Commissioner Cassel: I think we should thank the applicant and the comments from the community that have been helpful. I think we have outlined the major problems and concerns. I think this is going to be an interesting project for that part of town. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I will second that as well. I think that this has been a long time in the waiting and I am really glad to see it come forward and I am looking forward to seeing the process through to the end. MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Holman not participating) Chair Burt: Any other commentsfrom Commissioners? Okay. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you to all the members of the public and the applicants and the Staff for a very informative presentation. We look forward to seeing it come back to us in the near future. Commissioner Lippert: Just a correction Chairman Burt, we had one Commissioner absent on that vote. Chair Burt: Yes, that was six to zero with Commissioner Holman absent as previously stated. Page 31 TO: FROM: PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Steven Turner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Senior Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: May 18, 2006 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Architectural Review of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes construction of 193 senior congregate care and assisted living units, approximately 134,000 square feet of community center and pre- school space, a parking garage containing 610 parking spaces, playfields and landscaping improvements. A Design Enhancement Exception would be needed for a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 98 feet above grade, where 50’ would normally be the maximum height allowed and for 60 tandem parking spaces in the garage. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) was circulated for a 45-day review period ending April 3, 2006. Zone District: GM RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) make the following determinations and forward them to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council: 1. The project design is consistent with the ARB findings as described in Attachment C and subject to the draft recommended conditions of approval in Attachment E. 2.A DEE for 60 tandem parking spaces is supportable based upon the recommended findings in Attachment D. Page 1 City of Palo Alto 3.A DEE for height of a sculptural tower element that would extend to 98’ above grade, based upon the findings in Attachment D. 4. The DEIR adequately analyzes the impacts of the project with regards to Visual Resources and Aesthetics section. PROJECT SUMMARY: The ARB reviewed the project on April 20, 2006. The applicant provided the ARB with project plans, including site, landscaping, elevation and photometric plans, color and materials samples, plant material descriptions, and a project and background narrative. Staff recommended that the ARB provide comments to the applicant and staff, but not make a formal recommendation to the PTC and City Council. The ARB staff report for the April 20 meeting is contained in Attachment G. The ARB was supportive of the design and details of the project. The ARB requested additional information, details and revisions so that they may better review specific elements of the project for consistency with the ARB findings. The following items were to be presented to the ARB at a future meeting: "Peeling" roof element at the Cultural Hall needed further study Design details of the cultural hall’s relationship with the corner of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road, including details, colors, materials and/or landscaping that would address massing issues in this area. Durability of materials at the lower areas of the walls. Reconsider alternative designs for tops of building columns at the Midrachov arcade; A description of the tower feature’s general design characteristics; Details of perimeter lighting design; Reconsider the use of chain link type fence at playfields; use of other materials, colors; Curved roof materials transitions; Preliminary way-finding plan for the parking garage; The applicant has responded to the ARB comments. A summary of the design details and revisions that will be presented to the ARB at the meeting are contained in the applicant’s project revision letter in Attachment I. DISCUSSION: Draft Environmental Impact Report The DEIR prepared for this project and the adjacent BUILD project was released for a 45-day public review period that ended on April 3, 2006. However, the ARB may listen to City of Palo Alto Page 2 public testimony and add their comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The PTC held a meeting on March 29, 2005 to accept public testimony on the DEIR. The PTC commented on many aspects of the report, including those aspects that relate to the Visual Resources and Aesthetics section of the DEIR. Staff recommends that the ARB consider the following design comments from the PTC, summarized from the March 29 meeting, that relate to the design of the project and relationship to the surrounding community. Draft verbatim minutes from the meeting are contained in Attachment H. o Proiect Objectives Section (page 29 of DEIR), should include: Ways to integrate uses with the surrounding neighborhood Recognition that the project would create a precedent for design in the Charleston/Arastradero neighborhood and how the design should be compatible with the neighborhood Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston Street to the other end of the street which is more residential. Visual Resources and Aesthetics (page 194)-Purpose of the EIR, bullet points: should incorporate Policies L-5 and L-6 in such a way so that they fit the purposes of the paragraph. Project could be seen as causing an abrupt change in scalel which may be considered as a significant aesthetic impact. Project could cause a significant impact if the project would not maintain the scale and character of the property. EIR should discuss why there are no significant impacts. Discussion of why the podium needs to be 12’-16’above grade. Flood zone is only 6" to 12" above grade. Buildings could be closer to the street, which would result in the uses better integrating with the street and a shorter overall project that would better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods. ~No discussion as to why the hazardous materials require such a tall podium. Follow-up on the EIR should contain a discussion as to why a better street interaction is not possible. Are there ways to further mitigate size from adjacent districts? City of Palo Alto Page 3 This project would create precedent; project would set up how the surrounding properties will be used and how they will be designed. Security issues- proximity of assembly building to public rights of way. How are security features being incorporated into the design? Design Enhancement Exception for Tandem Parkin~ The project would include 60 spaces arranged in a tandem configuration. These spaces would be assigned to units in the townhome project component. The addition of tandem spaces to the project can be approved via a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). Recommended findings for approval of the tandem spaces are contained in Attachment D. Design Enhancement Exception for Sculptural Tower A key element of the applicant’s submittal includes a sculptural tower element that would serve as the symbolic center of the JSR and JCC programs. The tower would extend to approximately 98 feet above grade and would be approximately 28 feet taller than the tallest mechanical room at the cultural hall. The final design of the tower has not been completed, but it is intended to have a solid lower portion that would extend to approximately 65’above grade and a light-framed clear portion that would extend an additional 30 feet. The applicant’ s submittal for this meeting includes addition design details requested by the ARB. The maximum height within the PC district is 50’. Mechanical equipment rooms may extend an additional 15’ above the maximum height to 65’. A DEE has been requested for this tower to exceed the height limits. Recommended findings for approval of the additional height are contained in Attachment D. Variance for Building Height~ Because portions of the site are located in the flood plane and in an areas known to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) the applicant has chosen to construct the parking garage at grade and the JCC and JSR projects on top of a podium above the garage. This design, coupled with the requirements for vehicle clearance, venting equipment and separation of the community center and housing from grade would result in TKCJL project buildings that are higher above grade. The maximum height within a PC zone district is 50-feet (uninhabited mechanical equipment rooms may extend up to 65’) The heights of the tallest portions of the project, which include the cultural hall and the senior unit buildings, measured to the top of the roof coping are approximately 55’ to 60’. The top of the mechanical equipment space above the cultural hall and the senior unit building is approximately 75’. These features would exceed the maximum height allowed in the proposed PC district. The applicant has request variances to exceed the height limit City of Palo Alto Page 4 established for this district. The ARB is not required to take action on the variance request, Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Staff analysis of the project’s compliance with the polices of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 is located in Attachment F. Overall, staff finds that the project would comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that promote compatibility between land uses in terms of building design and use, the avoidance of abrupt changes in scale and character between adjacent land uses, and the promotion of high quality and creative design of structures. The project plans include designs and site planning that generally meet the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. The project would be not be consistent with the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment has been requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land Use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR.with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. The ARB is not required to take action on the land use change. Compliance with ARB Findings and Zoning Ordinance Staff’ s recommended findings for ARB approval are located in Attachment C. The current level of design detail provides information for staff to generally determine compliance with the findings. This information includes the site plan, landscape plan, internal circulation components, streetscape elevations, floor plans and section drawings. Staff analysis of the project’ s compliance with the regulations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is located in Attachment F. Staff recommends that the project, except for the tandem parking spaces and sculptural tower City of Palo Alto Page 5 height included in the request for a Design Enhancement Exception, and the heights of specific buildings above the 50’ height limit included in the request for a variance, would comply with the appropriate sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). As the project includes a request for Planned Community zoning, the regulations ofPAMC 18.68 would apply to the project. TIMELINE: P&TC Initial Review Meeting ARB Preliminary Review Meeting: ARB Preliminary Review Meeting #2 DEIR, Start of 45-day PublicReview ARB Formal Hearing: DEIR, PT&C Meeting DEIR, End of 45-day Public Review ARB Formal Hearing: P&TC Formal Meeting: City Council Meeting: December 1, 2004 December 2, 2004 December 15, 2005 February 17, 2006 March 16, 2006 March 29, 2006 April 3, 2006 April 20, 2006 June 28, 2006 To be Determined ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A DEIR, which analyzed the impacts of the project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared and was available for a 45-day public review beginning on February 17, 2006 and ending on April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission accepted public testimony on the DEIR at a meeting on Wednesday, March 29, 2006. The Commission did not take action on the DEIR, but accepted oral and written testimony on the merits of the document. A Final EIR/Response to Comments will be prepared by the EIR consultant and Staff and will be presented to the PTC, which will make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the environmental documents, the PC zone chance and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The DEIR differs from the project presented to the ARB. The DEIR describes a BUILD project that contains 160 for-sale townhome units, 66 senior apartment units (for a total units count of 226 units), and a 315 parking space at-grade garage. The revised project that has been presented to the ARB is similar to Alternative D (BUILD Design Alternative) in the DEIR This plan would reduce the total number of residential units from 226 to 159 and the number of parking spaces in the garage from 315 to 303 spaces. Staff and the EIR consultant believe that these changes should be addressed in the Final EIR by revising the project description and the analysis sections accordingly to reflect the revised proj ect, and to delete Alternative D. The net changes appear to reduce impacts, but further City of Palo Alto Page 6 analysis will be required to confirm that conclusion. ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. F. G. Ho I. J. K. L. Aerial Photo TKCJL Site Location Map Recommended ARB Approval Findings Recommended DEE Approval Findings Recommended Draft Conditions of Approval Zoning Compliance Table, Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table ARB Staff Report, April 20, 2006 (with Project description and background attachments only) Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes, March 29, 2006 Applicant’s Project Revisions Letter Revisions to Project Plans (ARB members only) Design Details Binder (ARB members only, previously distributed) Draft Environmental Impact Report (ARB members only, previously distributed) COURTESY COPIES: Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP James Baer, Premier Properties Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Jacob H.V. Foraker, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Peggy Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Bob Whitehair, Allana-Lippert Betsy Allyn, Resident Jean Wilcox, Charleston Gardens Association Cathy Swan, Resident Lanie Wheeler, Greenmeadow Community Association Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Community Association Deborah Ju, Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Tom Vician, Fairmeadow Neighborhood Association Tom Crystal, Walnut Grove Homeowners Association Adam Samuels, Rosewalk Homeowners Association Chris Graham, Greenmeadow Community Association Nola Mac McBain, Monta Loma Neighborhood City of Palo Alto Page 7 Gloria Jackson, Monta Loma Neighborhood Preservation Group Herman Ranes, Resident Edie Keating, Resident Larry Mitchell, Resident Robert Moss, Resident Herb Borock, Resident Dorothy Bender, Resident Stephanie Munoz, Resident Toni Stein, Resident Prepared by: Steven Turner, Senior Planne~ Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD, HEARING Draft Verbatim Minutes May 18, 2006 Board Members: Kenneth Kornberg (Chair) David Solnick (Vice chair) Judith Wassermann Clare Malone-Prichard Grace Lee Staff Liaison: Chris Riordan, Planner Staff: Amy French, Current Planning Mgr. Steven Turner. Senior Planner Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Clare Campbell, Assoc. Planner Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner Alicia Spotwood Project Reps.: Rob Steinberg (Steinberg Architects) Willet Moss, Landscape Architect Shelly Eber, Exec. Dir, JCL Patrick Quigley, Lighting Designer 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life for Architectural Review of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes construction of 193 senior congregate care and assisted living units, approximately 134,000 square feet of community center and preschool space, a parking garage containing 610 parking spaces, playfields and landscaping improvements. A Design Enhancement Exception would be needed for a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 98 feet above grade, where 50 feet would normal be the maximum height allowed, and for 60 tandem parking spaces in the garage. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) was circulated for a 45-day review period ending on April 3, 2006. The zone district: GM. Board Member Kenneth Kornberq: Steve, would you like to make an introductory. Senior Planner Steven Turner: Thank you Board members. Staff is recommending that the ARB make the following determinations and forward them to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council: The project design is consistent with the ARB findings as described in Attachment C, and it would be subject to the draft recommended conditions of approval in Attachment E 2.A Design Enhancement Exception for 60 tandem parking spaces is supportable based upon the findings in Attachment D That a Design Enhancement Exception for a sculptural tower element that would extend to approximately 98 feet above grade would be acceptable, also based upon the findings in Attachment D City od~Palo ,qlto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4.The draft Environmental Impact Report adequately analyzes the impacts of the project with regard to visual resources and aesthetic section within the report. The Board last reviewed this project on April 20. The Board was generally supportive of the project but did recommend that a number of items return to this meeting for further review. Those items are listed on page 2 of the staff report and include the peeling roof element at the cultural hall; the design details of the hall’s relationship with the corner of San Antonio Road and Charleston Road; that we consider alternative designs for the tops of the building columns at the midrahov arcade; a description of the tower’s ~ features, general design characteristics; details of the perimeter lighting design; reconsider use of chain link type fence at the playfields; looking at the curved roof materials and the transitions; and preliminary way-finding plan for the parking garage. The applicant has responded to the Board. Their letter of response is located in the staff report as Attachment I, and they have responded primarily to the first five items but are recommending that the chain link fence detail, the curved roof material transitions, and the way-finding plan in the garage perhaps return to the Board as a subcommittee item or on the consent calendar. As previously mentioned at the April 20 meeting, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission at the end of March. Part of their review included a discussion about visual aesthetics regarding the building. On page 3 of the staff report it outlines those comments from the Commission that were in regard to the visual and aesthetic designs of the building. The Board made a similar comment on the BUILD project right next door, and in your review and recommendation to the Commission, Board Member Wassermann went down the list of comments from the Commission and had essentially a response for the record, and staff would appreciate that a similar discussion happen for this meeting as well. Other than that, I believe that the applicant is here to make a presentation, he’s just setting up his projector. 28 Board Member David Solnick: So you’re asking for a response to each of these bullet 29 points on page 3 and 4? 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Mr. Turner: That’s correct. The project will be returning to the Commission, and the Commission will be looking for the ARB’s response. It would help the cm’s review to know what the ARB thought of these aspects. Board Member Kornberq: I’m curious; has anybody from the public - I see some cards over there, but I’m not sure it was for this project. Mr. Turner: I believe that there are members of the public. Let me go grab the cards. Board Member Kornberq: Actually I got a notice yesterday that the applicant might want more than the normal ten minutes, and I was just going to ask if the applicant could address mainly the comments that we’ve asked to come back rather than doing a full review of the whole project because I think it’s been presented so many times and I City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 think it’s pretty firmly in our minds right now. I’d be happy just to hear the applicant address the comments that we talked to specifically. Architect Rob Steinberq: Good morning, I’m Rob Steinberg with Steinberg Architects, and that’s exactly what we had intended to do as soon as we have some visual aids. I apologize for the delay. Board Member Kornberq: Rob, do you know about how long you’ll think you’ll want to go? Have you timed your presentation? Mr. Steinberq: We’d like to do this in two parts. I’d like to address three of the issues that we were specifically asked to talk about. I don’t think that that’ll take more than about 5-6 minutes, and then we have our lighting designer, Patrick Quigley, that would probably like about eight minutes to talk about the lighting if that would be okay. Board Member Kornberq: That’s fine. Why don’t I just set it on 15 minutes so we can keep track of where we are. That sounds like you’ll be about 12 minutes. Mr. Steinberq: Thank you very much, and I apologize for the delay. Here’s what I’d like to do. I’ll just briefly talk about those first three items - the corner, the columns and the tower- and then I’ll ask Patrick to talk about the lighting. The staff mentioned there are a few things that will still need to come back, and perhaps we could do that on a subcommittee basis. Let me just talk about the corner for a minute. In dealing with the corner I think that there are two ways to about addressing that. One is the horizontal plane and the other is the vertical plane, and we have used both of these devices to try and respond to your comments. I would say that we put a lot of effort on the horizontal plane. By that I mean we have looked at what we could do for the treatment of that corner in a couple of different options. We looked at the double row of trees and adding some landscape pockets along the edge of the building. In this case we were primarily treating this as a solid plaza. We looked at a second option that actually put a band of planting and kept people away from the edge of the building - again, a double row of columns and a little bit smaller enlarged paving. The third alternative and the one that’s actually blown up here takes a little bit different kind of posture. It says instead of having this idea of the whole thing being a plaza, let’s let it be landscaped and let’s take a walkway through the landscape so that there’s both planting along the street edges and along the building and you’re actually walking beneath an allay of trees buffeted both from the street traffic and softened from the edge of the building. That’s the approach that we’ve taken [option 3] so that as you move down the street, you’re actually away from the traffic where there’s planting along the edge and you’re moving underneath an allay of trees and again, there’s planting up against the building. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 What we’re thinking about for the planting is actually lavender. So at this time of year there would be a very bright, vivid color on the ground plane, and then you would walk under these lacy trees. We’ve also tried to integrate on the building some of the horizontals that connect the more transparent lobby with the building itself. I’ll tell you, I think we’re really quite comfortable with the character that we’ve been able to achieve there on the corner. The second thing, a smaller detail, is there was a question about how are we capping off the stone columns. What we’re proposing is that we would actually take a piece of metal, have a reveal, and have a continuous cap that capped off that whole arcade balcony, so that’s our proposal to address that. 11 Thirdly, this is not the design of the tower. The tower, as we mentioned to you, will be 12 contingent upon getting a donor to support this effort. But what we wanted to show you 13 is that conceptually, what we’re asking for, is about a 12’x12’ footprint that would give us 14 the flexibility to come up to the 65 feet with something solid, and then something that 15 would go up approximately another 30 feet that would be open, that would be more 16 lacy, that would be more transparent. This is really not a design, this is a statistical 17 diagram only. What’s interesting is this is a view from right across San Antonio. This 18 would be the most visible it would be. The 65 feet, you could just barely see beyond the 19 height of the other building, and you can see a little bit of that open railing. This is from 20 the parking lot, this is the worst possible vantage point I could find anywhere around the 2i site. If you look from the corner of San Antonio and Charleston for example, the solid 22 part, there’s just a tiny bit of it, and the open part you can see is pretty minimal visibly. If 23 you look from the corner of Fabian and Charleston, the closest residential, it’s not visible 24 at all; it’s completely not visible. And if you look directly across Fabian on the west side, 25 again, you can see ever so slightly that little piece. So the impact I think will be very, 26 very modest from offsite. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 What I’d like to do is I’d like to introduce Patrick Quigley who’s our lighting designer that can talk a little bit about our lighting, particularly around the edges and how it would interface with the community. Mr. Patrick Qui,qley: Good morning. I come this morning willing and able to address any issues or questions you guys have with lighting in any aspect of the job. But I noted that the specific question that the Board had previously was to address the edge condition. So I’d like to do that today. Starting with the entry drive, our objective as lighting designers here was to be a good neighbor to the project’s abutting the campus. On this side in particular, of course we have the residential units to the north. What we have done here is purposely suppressed illumination on the street fa£ade. Along here we are actually utilizing street- supplied cobra heads. We’re not doing any project lighting per se other than light at the corner. We will splash a little bit of illumination on the corner of the building to acknowledge that the drive exists and to slow traffic down a little bit to turn that corner. The street is lit by center located cutoff luminaries that comply with City requirements in City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 terms of no light trespass. That illumination will bleed to either side to a lower light level at sidewalk adjacent to the resident area, so pretty minimal impact. We culminate in the entry plaza, and the illumination there becomes more civic, because one of our objectives is not just to be a good neighbor to the residences but also an active participant in the community. So the entry plaza has a little bit more of a civic solution. On the San Antonio edge we have again not added any illumination other than the City streetlighting system, which maintains the character of that street all the way back, other than right here at the garage exit where we have added a 20-foot mast-mounted cutoff luminaire to make that a safer little intersection there so traffic oncoming on San Antonio can see cars exiting. On this side of the project, on the west side, this serviceway is illuminated from wall- mounted light packs; however, they’re not your usual light packs. They are cutoff luminaires. So all of the illumination is directed downward, so glare has been completely minimized and neighbors will be unaware of it. 15 On the Charleston Street side, here is the most active street frontage that the project 16 has. In this case we have upgraded illumination. We do have a small amount of fagade 17 lighting on the cultural center. We think that that’s consistent with being a good civic 18 neighbor. We do want to have some read to that building. The lighting on that fagade is 19 limited to illumination of the banners that Rob’s rendering showed as well as uplights 20 that actually shine through the trees on this side, the idea being that in summer the 21 ’ underside of the canopy of the trees are illuminated, providing a little bit nicer quality of 22 light for pedestrians. And during winter as leaves drop from different tree types, that 23 light pushes through the branch structure and paints the fagade of the building with a 24 really gracious kind of dappled illumination, not at all harsh and I think will be 25 aesthetically beneficial to the neighborhood. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Further down the street is the entrance to the senior area. At this location we have light bollards that continue to link the cultural entry plaza here with the portico share of the residents’ area. In this location we are real concerned about seniors being able to successfully negotiate that area. And as you may be aware, illumination levels do have to go up for seniors, so we’re going to try to contain that, but we do need it to climb a little bit on the illumination levels. We do have uplighting of the portico share tongue that reaches out as a marquee for finding your way to the lobby area of the senior residence. That takes care of all the edges, and we’re perfectly happy to discuss any other elements of the lighting you’d like to. Board Member Kornberq: Thank you. Rob, did you have anything else you wanted to comment on? We have another three minutes if you want. Mr. Steinberq: No; as you say, we wanted to just really address the specific issues that you had raised last time. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Board Member Kornber.q: Let’s start with some questions. Clare, do you have any questions? Board Member Clare Malone-Prichard: No; the presentation addressed all of my questions, Board Member Kornber.q:, David, do you have any? Board Member Solnick: Just two actually. There’s talk about lighting on the tower. As lighting consultant, are you going to be involved in that, or do you know yet? Mr. Steinberg: We don’t know. We of course would like to have Patrick involved with that, but I have to emphasize that that element, the finishing of that tower is contingent upon finding someone that’s going to help support that effort. Board Member Solnick: My only other question has to do with the detail of the columns at the midrahov. I’m glad you did this detail. It’s the one detail that looks like what I worried it would look like. You’ve got the three materials all in a same plane - the columns, the headpeace fascia, and the cap. Do they have to be all on the same plane? Is there any reason why you couldn’t pull some of those materials into different planes, either the columns being proud of the fascia or the fascia being proud of the column - probably the column proud - or the cap coming over - any or all combination of the above? Mr. Steinberg: Well, we are using the stone in plane with the other vertical material as a theme throughout, so I’d be very hesitant to change that. That’s a pretty consistent detail. Board Member Solnick: Where else does that appear? Mr. Steinberq: That appears on the administration building, that appears on the fitness building as you come in. Whenever the stone is connected to either plaster or concrete... Board Member Solnick: But is that a stone wall finish that’s doing that, not a stone column, is that correct? Mr. Steinberg: It is in plane with walls that come out and become columns. It’s all of these different combinations, it’s all of the above. Board Member Solnick: I can’t remember anything that this is similar to in the project, that’s not to say it doesn’t exist. Mr. Steinberg.:. You can see a little bit on the administration building, but the best drawing is of our shared drive which is the one drawing we haven’t put up. Maybe if I could understand what your concern is I could address it. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 Board Member Solnick: I’ll be blunt- I don’t like this detail. It’s the one detail in this 2 entire project that’s bothering me, so I don’t feel like I’m being overbearing on it, and it’s 3 just that - it seems very unfinished - they should be either capped in some way solidly 4 rather than this very thin cap, or they should be proud of the finish to either side of them 5 - it’s very difficult in my opinion to get finishes in the same plane that come right up next 6 to each other to look good. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I don’t think it’s been done 7 here. I assume there’s some reveal between the finishes, I don’t know what it is. It’s 8 the one detail that’s bothering me. I think the thing below, the curved, I guess that 9 includes lighting, the awning is actually very good. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Mr. Steinberq: Let me offer this: I think we’ve come a long way together. If we’re down to one detail, we’re certainly happy to continue to look at this particular detail. We can explore that. Board Member Solnick: That’s really all I had. Board Member Kornberq: Judith, did you have any questions? Board Member Judith Wassermann: I had a couple little .questions about the lighting. You said in the shared entry you were using streetlights down the center. How tall are those? Mr. Qui.qley: Those are 20 feet. There’s a discrepancy between City and ARB allowances on that. At 20 feet we can have fewer units and arguably less visual clutter. They are in the center island, so they’re pulled off of the sidewalks and don’t interface with the sidewalks. I can show you that unit if you’d like. We have the fixture vocabulary on a slide. Board Member Wassermann: So at 20 feet how many do you have and if they were 15 feet, how many would you need? Mr. Quiqlev: It would probably be an increase of one unit. We would have to look at how that spacing works out with the islands. It’s a little awkward because there are two, and they’re almost the same lengths, so it’s a little awkward. But the fixture we’re talking about is this one. Board Member Wassermann: How many of them are there? Mr. Qui.qley:, There’s four of these units right now. Board Member Wassermann: Oh, two in each island. Mr. Qui.qley:. Two in each island. Board Member Wassermann: And if you had to add one, you would be hard-pressed to figure out where to put them. Mr. Quiqley: It would be a little tough. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 Board Member Wassermann: So that’s the same 20-foot fixture that’s at the back where the exit from the garage occurs? 3 Mr. Qui.qley: That is correct. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Board Member Wassermann: Are these on timers? Do they go off or are they on all night? Are they on photo cells or timers? Mr. Quiqley: It’s a very good question. The project is going to make extensive use of controls. And by the way, current new Title 24 requirements push that, so that’s no longer a matter of conscientiousness. But yes, the project will control all of its fixtures with astronomical time clocks or light sensors or whatever is most appropriate to the actual installation. On the street that would typically not be a unit that would go out. That would typically be a unit that was on all night, simply because of the shared use and not knowing when motorists are going to be traversing that area. 13 Board Member Wassermann: And the lighting on the fagade of the cultural center, does 14 that go off at some time? 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Quiqley: Exactly. That would go off and of course the hour that it goes off would be a completely negotiable item. I would assume that the City would potentially dictate that time. Board Member Wassermann: Okay, great. Those are all my questions, and I need to disclose that I did meet with the applicant on the subject of the cultural center corner. forgot to say that. Board Member Solnick: And so did I, we met together. Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. Board Member Kornberq:. Grace. Board Member Grace Lee: I have just a couple of questions - one on the tower and then a couple on the landscape at the corner. 26 I know that you can’t speak about the tower, but I just want to confirm that at the same 27 time for the donor, a potential donor- are you requiring that it be solid up to the 50-fo0t 28 point and then above that as a minimum, 15 feet should be transparent or lighter in 29 materials. I know you can’t require, but at the same time, are we to vote on this project 30 and understand that the base will be solid 0-50, plus 15 feet will be,transparent. I 31 appreciate these renderings and you really can’t see it from the outside, but I just want 32 to know that that is the case. And perhaps can that transparent piece be as a minimum 33 15 feet and actually be more, the whole thing might be more transparent. I just wonder 34 what exactly, in your discussions with donors, how are you presenting it? 35 36 Mr. Steinberq: What we’re asking of you is that we have the most flexibility. So what we’re asking for is the flexibility to have the solid element go up to a maximum of 65 feet City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 - doesn’t necessarily need to be that high but we’d like that flexibility - and then we’d like an additional 30 feet for the transparent piece, maximum. But that transparent piece could be ... 4 Board Member Solnick: Minimum actually. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mr. Steinber.q: Minimum, excuse me; thank you .... could be increased, so we’d like that flexibility. And as you know, with the design, what we’ve tried to do is with all of the intersections, not just have pieces but somehow integrate and knit together. So we’re asking for that flexibility so that when we get into the specific design of it we got a little bit more flexibility. Board Member Lee: So in the renderings you’ve shown it solid up to 65 feet, and then the plus 30 feet. That’s how you’re showing it right now in those renderings. Mr. Steinber.q: Right. Board Member Lee: So the likelihood that that 30 feet would be solid would be zero percent would you say? Mr. Steinber.q: The top 30 feet would be zero, correct. Board Member Lee: I just wanted to confirm that. My other question is regarding the landscape at the corner. I’m a big fan of the honey locust, but I just wanted to understand. We’ve seen it from the beginning, those honey locusts, even with the previous landscape architect. Has that always been honey locust - no, no; sorry, it was the other tree. It was the palarda. Mr. Ste nber.q: It was the palarda tree originally. 22 Board Member Lee: So honey locust is this kind of lacy - you can see through the 23 canopy. It’s a rather delicate tree. Maybe that was the thinking behind the approach, 24 that you would see through it. Did you consider a tree with the fuller canopy since we’re 25 really relaying on landscape to break the scale and the pedestrian screens. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 My second question is on the shrubs, lavender is wonderful for the color. I’m just wondering how high it will grow up, and did you consider other shrubs. When I look at your section it’s 3-4 feet. Did you consider other shrubs that actually grow up taller? Just want understanding of this section. Landscape Architect Willet Moss: Yes, we’ve considered numerous trees. In fact we had a whole array of studies, some outlandish even, with Hollywood junipers and Cedar of Lebanon and things that were very sculptural and evergreen, and we came back to the honey locust for the reasons that you said and because of the seasonality and their vivid color and lightness, so there’ll be a sort of haze, sort of ethereal we hope, around that corner, and play with the bulk of the building, the mass of the building. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 We’ve done similar studies for the planting and have landed at the lavender for a number of reasons. I’d thought about larger shrubs, and we were thinking originally about aceum. We’ve always been looking for something with a gray tone and a texture to it, the flowers. But our concern was something too tall is that you’ll start to feel - the issues of safety basically and visibility. Nothing like you’re trapped in a car door, but there’s still the sense that it’s open. So we’ve landedat something that’s around 18-24 inches that feels comfortable. And the uniformity will have a mass that’s appropriate for the scale of the corner and everything. And then the lavender is also something that people are familiar with, has great texture, great smell, something to pass through and also the resonance of the facility, particularly the seniors may relate to it in a particular way. There’ll be butterflies and they could come down and cut it. So it’s operating at a number of levels. Board Member Lee: Okay; those are my questions. Thanks. Board Member Kornber.q: I just have a few questions also. What’s the gage of that metal? Are you thinking of that as an extrusion or as sheet metal? Mr. Steinber.q: I can’t tell you the exact gage, but it would have to be heavy enough that as you look down the length of that you didn’t see the tipples and the wiggles to it. Board Member Kornberq: It’s probably an extrusion. On the tower, the views you’ve shown doesn’t show it visible. But you’ll see it pretty well from San Antonio and you’ll see it from 101 the first 65 feet, won’t you? Mr. Steinberq: I don’t think you will because number one, as you start moving farther and farther away from the site that height becomes obscured pretty quickly. Number 2, there is the Loral tower that is towards me that definitely is going to dwarf that and block that as you’re coming off of 101 on San Antonio. Board Member Kornberq: But if you’re coming down San Antonio from 101, either southbound from 101 and then you come off onto San Antonio, won’t that be pretty obvious? 28 Mr. Steinber.q:. I don’t think so. I walked San Antonio trying to find the most visible place 29 to capture this. Right now there is a certain amount of existing foliage, so right now if 30 we’re up there today, there are little small windows where you would see it, but as you 31 moved along it would be very hard to see. Now we are replacing that, so there will be a 32 period of time where it will be a little bit more raw initially, although when our double row 33 of trees takes hold along San Antonio I think it will be hardly visible, and that’s why in 34 order to get a good shot of it, I had to literally go across the street, wiggle into a parking 35 lot between two buildings, around the trees, in order to get a photograph that would 36 show that condition. So quite honestly, Ken, I sense that unless you are really 37 searching and looking for this thing you probably won’t see it. 38 39 Board Member Kornberq: The drawing you gave us implied that it’s plaster. Does it have to be plaster? City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Steinber.~." No it doesn’t. I know I sound a little like a broken record, but it is our hope to find a donor that would want to engage with this process. I’m very hesitant at this point to commit to a certain kind of material and what have you because we would like the flexibility. We’re showing that because the other materials are plaster at this point, but it’s a bit like Grace’s question. We’re asking for a degree of flexibility and we don’t want to over-promise. Board Member Kornber.q; It just worries me, a big square plaster box 65 feet tall isn’t going to be a very good symbol for the project, and that’s one area where you do have a stone you show in columns and other vertical elements, and it would be one place that I would think it would be absolutely critical. It’s just a comment that I shouldn’t get to. 1 1 Last question was about the landscaping. When I reviewed the landscape package last 12 time I though we’d lost a lot, and I was wondering if you’d reexamined if there are any 13 areas where the landscaping can get restored to what the original presentation was. 14 Mr. Ste nber.q: I’m not quite sure what it is you’re referring to relative to the... 15 Board Member Kornber,q" I think here it’s a disadvantage. For some reason it didn’t get 16 incorporated as one of the items that I thought was important to address at this point. 17 But as I went through the landscape package at the last hearing a lot of plants that were 18 originally planted in the project are now sitting in planters, and I thought just an isolated 19 little elements as opposed to feeling like they’re a part of the landscape. That was the 20 area that I thought was really hurt the most. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Mr. Steinberg:. Maybe let me give you my general feeling about the landscape. I think we were very privileged to have Larry Halpern work with us on the early stages of the planning, and I think that he assisted with clarifying in giving good vision to these outdoor rooms. The architecture, as we’ve told you from the very beginning, has taken on, and it was one of our goals that it be a contemporary aesthetic. We looked very hard to find someone that could work and implement in that vocabulary with us so that there was a real harmony between the landscape and the buildings. I think that the design that has been developed by Wilier and his company has taken on a symbolic, a thoughtful design that I am exceeding happy with, that I think is going to have a power of bold, strong moves that will give a hierarchy to our town square, our midrahov, our cultural court, the senior courts that are going to be powerful and wonderful. We have changed our direction a little bit, but I think what we’ve got will be absolutely outstanding, I really believe that. And I should just tell you, we had some very wonderful news. Willet was recently awarded the Rome Prize in landscape architecture and will be going to Rome September for nine months, so we have somebody very capable working with us, and I think we’ll all be very proud of it. Board Member Kornber.q: That’s all the questions I have. Are there any follow-up questions from anybody? City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Board Member Wassermann: I would just like to follow up that question. Was there a 2 substantial change from plants in the ground plane to plants in planters between the 3 beginning concept and the final submittal? 4 Mr. Steinberg.;. In the very earliest stages, in our very first concept we thoughtthat it 5 would be lovely to have all of the planters recessed below the podium. Very quickly we 6 understood the cost implication of that, and that was just well beyond our ability to 7 accommodate that. But that was something that we explored very early on, but it has 8 been out of the picture for quite some time. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Board Member Wassermann: Is that what you saw, Ken? It’s not a difference in the quantity or area. It’s just the fact that they were in .... Thank you. Board Member Kornber.q: I see no other questions. I’d like to open this to the public, and I have three cards. The first card I have is Richard Madegan. Mr. Dan McGanney:. Good morning. My name is Dan McGanney. Dick I sent ahead of me in case I couldn’t make due to a doctor’s appointment. I’m president of California Pacific Commercial Corporation, a neighbor since 1956 to this project. We presently own ten parcels in the immediate area including property on East Meadow Circle and three parcels along Fabian Way directly across the street from the proposed project. 18 Our development concerns relate to staff’s recommendations that the ARB approve an 19 exception to allow a tower which would extend 98 feet above grade, or almost twice the 20 permitted height of 50 feet. 21 First, absent knowledge or understanding of the proposed tower design it would not 22 seem appropriate to approve a concept without first viewing its features. Second, if as 23 Attachment D of the report indicates, the tower is to serve as the symbolic center of the 24 JSR and JCC programs, why is it necessary to extend it so much higher than the 65- 25 foot height already approved for this project? Before reaching a decision on this 26 proposed exception, we would thus ask the ARB to first address both the tower’s 27 specific design characteristics and the need for such a highly visible structure. Thank 28 you. 29 Board Member Kornber.q;, Thank you. I have Bill Chapman and then Robert Moss. 30 Mr. Bill Chapman: Good morning Board members. As previously, we’ve heard an 31 almost poetic description of the details of this project this morning. I cannot do that, I’m 32 just a simple person. But I’d like to say to you, would you consider this with me as 33 being similar to a small university being inserted into east Palo Alto on 12 acres where 34 the streets are already small and crowded? I have that.feeling about it no matter how 35 glorious its details are. I think it’s a wonderful project in the wrong place. 36 This morning, to minimize the appearance of a high tower, the architect showed us 37 some pictures that emphasize in the foreground from different aspects the high, 38 foreboding nature of the structures which when you’re close enough, hide the tower. 39 Those are the structures that terrify the neighborhoods. It’s as if a concrete wall is City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 being erected around Palo Alto, and this is just one stage of it. We have other land to be developed in the next 5 or 10 years if the projects continue. 3 So I would say to you - please - the developer knows that he’s building on a flood 4 plane. He knows that he’s going to elevate a garage above it and then build on top of 5 that. Please tell him to build three stories, not four stories, and stay within the 50-foot 6 limit, which is plenty high enough. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I want to commend to you some of the letters in a package you have. They talk about the traffic considerations. Please read them. I won’t say anything about them today. The traffic is going to be bad. the Charleston Road is already, as you know, overcrowded, and projects are afoot to see if there is some way to minimize the existing traffic without adding to it by this. We feel that the parking capability of this project will not be adequate for special projects. We feel that this is a project secretly designed to " put parking all over the neighborhoods without telling you ahead of time that that’s what they’re doing. 15 But my big message today is the project is too big for 12 tiny acres. As the developers 16 - what your time, buy more land, flatten it out, minimize its foreboding aspect, and then 17 go for what could be a nice, civic, friendly project. Thank you. 18 Board Member Kornber.q: My last speaker is Robert Moss. 19 Mr. Robert Moss: thank you Chairman Kornberg and commissioners. I also have 20 concerns about the scope and scale of the project. You’ve already raised concerns 21 about the building being too high. In the staff report there’s a reference to the podium 22 being 12-16 feet above grade when that is not required either by flood plane or by the 23 toxics underground which only extend over a portion of the site and do not preclude 24 recessing the garage 6-8 feet. I can cite projects which were being built over much 25 more toxic sites in this vicinity which have underground garages and working just fine, 26 620 Page Mill as an example if you want to take a look at having underground garages 27 over a very, very toxic superfund site. This doesn’t have that problem at all. So the 28 garage should be lowered by at least 6 if not 8 feet, reducing the podium height and the 29 height of all the buildings. 30 Second, you’re being asked basically to give a wild card approval to a tower;nobody 31 knows what it’ll look like. You don’t know whether the first portion above the 50-foot 32 height limit is going to be solid, transparent, rippled, crosscut, or what. How can you 33 approve as a design group a project that has no design? So I’d recommend that you 34 not give any variance to the tower, which is supposed to be not an architectural feature 35 but an artistic feature. When they have something really developed and have 36 something in mind, you should not be discussing it. The Art Board should be looking at 37 it, and looking at it as a piece of artistry, not as a piece of the structural design. 38 The other issue that I’m very concerned about is the parking, particularly the 60 tandem 39 parking spaces. I see no real justification for that. If the podium were dropped six feet, 40 a portion of the garage could be two layers where there is no building over it, for City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 example over the playing fields. And you could have more parking, reduce the impact of the parking offsite, which during events is going to be significant, and eliminate the problem of inadequate parking on the site and tandem parking not fulfilling the requirements of the residents and the occupants. So I urge that you take those steps or direct that they come back for further review and not approve the project completely as is approved. I don’t see that the justifications given in the report are met. The justification for exceeding the normal PC regulations, I don’t think that they’re logical and I don’t think that they’re met technically or legally. Thank you. Board Member Kornber.q: I see no more cards. Rob, would you like to make any closing remarks of your own? Board Member Solnick: I think I’d like you to address the special events parking issue if you could. Mr. Ste nber.q: I’m going to ask Shelly Eber, the Executive Director, to address that particular issue, and then I’d like to make just one final comment at the end of that. Ms. Shelly Eber, Exec. Director, JCC: The draft Environmental Impact Report states that the site is fully parked for special events with the possible concern that if there were to be special events held on weeknights, which we think is pretty unlikely, that the Jewish Community Center would be required in advance to submit a parking plan to the City of Palo Alto that would designate specific offsite locations, which would not be neighborhoods, where special events parking has been arranged, including provisions to shuttle people back and forth to the parking. Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner (?): If l could add to that - the final Environmental.Impact Report which is under preparation right now, you probably know because you’ve reviewed the BUILD project, that they’ve reduced the number of units on their project since the initial Environmental Impact Report was drafted, and the resultant parking analysis coming out of that shows that even with the cultural hall fully occupied for a special even, there are about 50 more spaces on the site than are required. We still will have, as was referenced, a condition however that if on weeknights there are special events, that they provide notice to us and have something available offsite, just in case. But the parking situation has gotten considerably better in the final EIR than the draft because of the reduced number of units on the BUILD site. Board Member Solnick: Is that for special events over a certain size, I presume? There’s some number... Mr. Riordan: There’d be some threshold. We’ve made an assumption, but if it looks like there’s some reason that’s not going to hold, then we would need to have some provisions made for offsite parking. Board Member Wassermann: How many seats are thee in the cultural hall? City of Palo Alto Page 14 2 3 Mr. Steinberg:. 380. Board Member Wassermann: And how many parking spaces are there? Mr. Steinber.q; 611. 4 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you. 5 Mr. Steinber.q:_ I wanted to just end by saying thank you to the Board. We have been at 6 this for 18-20 months. I think that there has been very thoughtful and good counsel that 7 you’ve shared with us that has enabled us to get some outside feedback as we’ve gone 8 through this process, and I would just say that we are very appreciative for the time and 9 the effort that you’ve put into the process. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We feel very, very positive about the design and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Board Member Kornber.q: I’d like to go back to the Board for recommendation, comments. Clare, do you want to start: Board Member Clare Malone-Prichard: I think that the applicant has very nicely addressed all of the last comments that we’ve left with. The tower element, I feel quite comfortable with approve the concept as presented, the 65 feet of potentially solid maximum and 95 foot total height as long as the upper portions are substantially transparent and an art element. I’ve only heard one issue on detail which David mentioned on the stone and the fascia being in the same plane. I share his concerns about different elements being in exactly the same plane, so I would like to see that again at subcommittee or as a consent calendar item. 23 I am in support of the 20-foot height driveway entry lights in order to get them nicely 24 placed on those planting strips. 25 I definitely appreciate the improvements you’ve made to the planting at the corner of 26 San Antonio and Charleston. I think that’s a great improvement. 27 Board Member Solnick: Just a couple of things. I’m just going to be specific about the 28 last things and I’m not going to go singing your praises as I have done before because 29 it’s already been said. 30 I would not refer to the tower, the most visible location of the tower as being the worst 31 case scenario. You’re being apologetic about the tower because of a couple of people 32 who are raising concerns and really, they’re raising those concerns because we don’t 33 know what it looks like. And like I’ve said before, there’s a design vacuum and I 34 understand why there’s a design vacuum. I would encourage you not to let that cause 35 you to be apologetic about the tower at this point. It’s the most visible location that you 36 presented, not the worst case location. I don’t think people talk about the worst case City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 location for viewing Hoover tower, I’ve never heard that before. They might refer to the most visible location, but not the worst case location. The hope is that this is something beautiful to look at and not something to hide. The fact of the matter is, it will be mostly hidden, but hopefully people won’t want it to be hidden, but we don’t know yet. 5 There was a suggestion made when Judith and I met with you about doing - a speaker’s 6 comments reminded me - about doing a joint session with the Art Commission for the 7 tower, and that seemed to all of us like a good idea. I presume that this tower is going 8 to come back to us in some form. This is really a staff question. Can we approve this - 9 I think of this as like a building envelope where we’re approving nothing more than a 10 building envelope for this, or a tower envelope for this thing. We’re not approving a 11 design. It’d be like approving a daylight plane in a setback sort of, but that doesn’t 12 approve the building that goes within it. Can we do that and have it come back in some 13 form - in what forms can it come back? Can we have a joint session that’s on a 14 consent calendar? I guess we could. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Ms. Amy French (Planninq M.qr.): Let me say first of all that the Public Art Commission is for public art on public sites such as the public right-of-way and public property. Board Member Solnick: Oh, it has to be on public... Ms. French: That has been their charge. In the past, such as on the PAMF, the Clark Building property, you have reviewed a location for art and then have them come back with their proposed art piece for your viewing. I think you’ve been reluctant to comment on the art content of the art portion, but you’ve commented on the structure related, or where the art piece is to be located and the surrounding context. That’s been the history and that is the function of the public art committee. It’s public locations, and Judith may want to comment more on this. Board Member Wassermann: The Public Art Commission also reviews art that has been submitted as a public benefit in PCs. But there’s some question in this case whether the location would be sufficiently public to qualify, although if you can see it from offsite, it might. But they would be happy to participate if we invited them. It’s not that they can’t participate, it’s simply that they are not required to participate. I think it might be a good idea to invite them. They would enjoy it. Board Member Lee: Can we just clarify. How is the tower coming back to us for review? Board Member Solnick: That’s what we’re talking about. Board Member Wassermann: We’re working on that. We don’t have a condition yet. Board Member Lee: You don’t have a precedent for how something like this would come back? Ms. French: No, but there has been past history of the Board requesting that the art come back to be viewed by the ARB. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Board Member Solnick: On other projects she’s saying. 2 3 4 Ms. French: On other projects, but not a procedure in place. Board Member Solnick: I would propose then that - there’s several items that come back to the Board, one on consent and the other is on subcommittee. 5 Board Member Solnick: I’ll make a motion to approve this project with the tower element 6 coming back on consent with the possibility of inviting the Art Commission to join us for 7 that item, and the following items to come back to subcommittee: The tops of the 8 columns at the midrahov arcade; the chain link fence along San Antonio Road; the 9 curved roof material transitions. I don’t know if you need to write all this down because 10 it’s really items. On their sheet it’s items #3 - the columns at the top of the midrahov, 11 #6 is the chain link fence; #7 is the curved roof material transitions, and #8 is the 12 wayfinding in the garage - that those four items - and others may have additional ones 13 - to come back to subcommittee and that item #4 regarding the tower comes back on 14 consent. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Board Member Wassermann: I would second that, but I would like to add some parameters to the tower condition if it’s agreeable to you. I would condition the tower so that the solid portion was between 50-65 feet and the top of the transparent portion was between 80-95 feet, and that the footprint be no greater than 12x12 and that the materials be consistent with the special condition of the tower. That’s sort of broad. Board Member Solnick: The one detail on that. Their drawing shows the maximum height being 98. Board Member Wassermann: I’ll stick with 95 feet, because it’s 30 feet taller than 65 feet, and they keep talking about 30 feet of transparency. And it can vary. Board Member Solnick: So you want the solid to be no less than 50 and no more than 65? Board Member Wassermann: Right. Board Member Solnicki And you want the total to be no more than 95? Board Member Wassermann: Correct. And that the footprint be no greater than 12’x12’. Board Member Kornber.q: Why is the 12’x12’ important to you? Board Member Wassermann: Because I don’t want this to get big. I want it to be slender. This is the image we’ve been looking at all this time and I think that’s effective. Board Member Kornberq:. so you’re not worried about the base being 12’x12’, you’re worried about some point where it becomes more visible being 12’x12’? If they need a structural base that extends beyond the 12’x12’. City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Board Member Wassermann: It can taper, I’m just talking about where it hits the ground. You tell me this has an elevator and a stair and you’ve drawn it for 12’x12’. Board Member Kornberq: The stairs are outside the tower. Board Member Wassermann: The stairs are outside. Then you’re talking about an elevator shaft? Board Member Solnick: A mechanical shaft as I understand it. Board Member Wassermann: Does that footprint worry you? Mr. Steinberq: I would like just a little bit of flexibility because we haven’t done the engineering.. It is in effect in a cantilever condition. Board Member Wassermann: Okay, then I’ll just take the footprint condition out of there, but that it contain no more than the required shaft and elevator structure. So that’s my second. Is that agreed? Are you passing comments onto me, or you have more comments, David? Board Member Solnick: Steven asked us to talk about the PTC items. Board Member Wassermann: Let’s get that. Let’s get this thing passed. I would like to say something about the height limit in the City of Palo Alto. The City passed the height limit at a time when there were a few tall buildings that had been built in this town, and every single one of them was ugly as sin, and people were terrified that every tall building was going to be ugly. I think that this will counter that popular opinion .and be a beautiful addition... Board Member Solnick: One is on this site right now. Board Member Wassermann: Yes, this might be the best of them all, which says something. Board Member Solnick: No, this site - this Site and that site. Board Member Wassermann: This one may be the best of them all, which says something about how ugly the rest of them are. That’s a real aside comment. I would say that if I were a neighbor and I couldn’t see this tower, I’d be ticked off. I think it’s going to be something that people about view corridors in order to see, rather than something that ought to be hidden. I think the tower is an exciting and lovely aspect of this building and I think we’ve done the rest of it to death, and I think we ought to pass it and get on with it. Board Member Lee: I just have a couple of comments. I think that the applicant has brought back the presentation and been very clear in addressing some of the concerns of the Board. My concerns were the two - one was the treatment of that corner at San Antonio and Charleston, and then the second was the tower, and I think that for me, if I City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 talk about the tower first, it’s unfortunate those perspective views didn’t earlier because I think that what they do communicate is that you do have very limited views of the tower form the perimeter and I appreciate that. However, you do have significant views of the top of that tower, and I guess on my part it’s a difficult situation that you have this very large element and it’s such a big question mark. I think that probably the best is to go the route that my colleagues have suggested. This Board is going to see the tower later, so I’m comfortable with that. But at the same time, on your diagram you showed this kind of 2/3, 1/3 knitting together and you talked about that. And just not knowing what a donor is going to want for this tower, I feel comfortable seeing it again and then also maybe in the conditions, some language that speaks to the 1/3 piece being lighter in materials, transparent perhaps. I don’t know how we word it - maybe transparent, but also maybe the adjective "lighter" in feeling in material. And overlapping between the 2/3 and the 1/3. I don’t feel strongly that it should be solid on the bottom 2/3 and light on the top, but there should be some combination. And then the other piece that I was concerned about was the corner, and I think the landscape addresses it appropriately. I guess we can hear Ken’s comments next. Board Member Kornber.q: As far as the tower, I think it’s so primitive at this point that we really shouldn’t restrict it. We’re going to see it, we can start at the beginning. At that point I think we should approve the location, approve the fact that it does incorporate some mechanical vertical transportation element, and then I’m just happy to see whatever comes through. I don’t think we should say it has to be 50-65 feet solid and then anything about that has to be transparent because I really don’t know what to do. Board Member Solnick: Judith, do you feel strongly then about the minimum solid part being 50? Board Member Wassermann: No. I just thought that if you .had to have an elevator that went to the top of your site... Board Member Kornber.q:. I like transparent elevators. I think there’s some gorgeous glass elevators that might be really nice. I just don’t know where to go with this. Board Member Wassermann: Maybe I should say the functional part should be no higher than 50-65 feet, that’s what the elevators are going to be. Because part of this is structure, part of this is architecture. It’s elevators and mechanical shafts and the thing holding it up, and part of it is an art sculpture and does not have to have a function. So I think I want to distinguish between the part that we’re going to get, whether it has a piece of sculpture or not, from the part that’s strictly optional. Board Member Solnick: You know, Ken’s comment brings up totally another possibility. I’m not suggesting this, I’m just saying "what if." What if all the structure were exposed? What if all the venting were exposed? It’s beau vu, it’s a little vertical beau vu, the Pompadou Center. What if all of that was exposed as transparent as possible, there were no walls? We wouldn’t allow that then. Our parameters would prevent that. City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O Board Member Malone-Prichard:: Could we say that the solid portion is no higher than 65 feet, which would allow it to be zero, [incoherent] come back to us with. Board Member Solnick: Right, so there’s not a minimum. Board Member Wassermann: Okay, fine, yes. Take the minimum out of it, fine. Thank you; that’s creative thinking. We do that around here.. Board Member Kornber.q; I had one other condition which you may not accept, which is that planters for the trees and other elements come back on consent. Board Member Wassermann: What aspect of them? Board Member Kornberq:. Well, they were presented at the last hearing, and a lot of them I wasn’t in favor of. I just thought they were inappropriate for the development. I may be the only person, but that’s my own condition I’d like to add. There are different elements that sit on the patios, and I think they should be looked at again. Board Member Solnick: I’m the maker of the motion. I’m fine with that. Board Member Wassermann: Yes, fine; sure. Board Member Lee: I respectfully disagree though. On my previous comments from the last hearing I actually felt on the other side, that I appreciate the direction it had taken. So for me, that wouldn’t be a condition. Board Member Solnick: This is just a condition that it come back. You have every right when it comes back to disagree as fervently with Ken as you like. Board Member Lee: It should be a condition for further study of the complete landscape design? Board Member Solnick: No, no, no. Board Member Wassermann: Just the shape and material of the planters? Board Member Kornber.q: The shape and material, just the design. Board Member Solnick: Of just those tree planters. This doesn’t keep you from disagreeing in the future, not at all. And if your side wins, then your side wins. Board Member Lee: So we’ll discuss it again. Board Member Solnick: I personally didn’t have a problem with them either. Board Member Wassermann: I didn’t either. Board Member Solnick: But I don’t have a problem with Ken’s looking at them again, City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 95 feet. Board Member Kornber.q: Any other comments? So I think we have a motion and it’s been seconded, and we can vote on that, but we have other things that you wanted us to address. Board Member Wassermann: We need to comment on the Planning Commission’s... Ms. French: yes, and I think just to clarify, after you started revising Judith’s add on the tower, that second part of the add, - so now the solid should be no higher than 65 feet. You also said "from 80-95 feet should be transparent - at least that amount? So what happens between 65 and 80? Board Member Solnick: the solid is no more than 65 feet, and the total is no more than 11 Ms. French: Okay, so we dropped the whole reference to 80-95 feet. 12 Board Member Wassermann: Yes, sure; let’s be consistent. I really don’t want it to be 13 shorter than 80 feet, but never mind, maybe it’ll be better, who knows? I’m not designing 14 it. Too bad. 15 Board Member Solnick: Even though we can’t vote on it until we talk about the other 16 stuff, but can you just read it back while it’s fresh so we know. 17 Board Member Wassermann: Our response to the Planning Commission is not part of a 18 motion, it’s just a response, right? So the motion is as stated: 19 MOTION: 20 Mr. Turner: We have a motion to approve by Board Member Solnick, seconded by 21 Board Member Wassermann for a portion of the project to come back on consent, which 22 is the design of the tower, that the solid portion be no higher than 65 feet, and the total 23 height of the tower be no more than 95 feet, that the planters for the trees and other 24 elements come back, especially the shape and materials of the planters. 25 And to come back on subcommittee will be the items: tops of the columns at midrahov 26 arcade, the chain link fence along San Antonio Road, the details of that; details of the 27 . curved roof material transitions; and details of the wayfinding in the garage. 28 29 30 31 32 Ms. French: I also have here in Judith’s motion that included the 12’x12’ print. Board Member Wassermann: Let’s take that out. Ms. French: Okay. Board Member Wassermann: Are the planters coming back on consent or to the subcommittee? City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mr. Turner: According to Board Member Kornberg, that’d be on consent. You can change that to subcommittee if you like. It might be easier. Board Member Kornber.q:. Leave it on consent. Board Member Wassermann: I believe the new protocol is that everything goes to the subcommittee before it comes to consent calendar anyway., is that not true? Board Member Kornber.q: No, that’s not true. Board Member Solnick: That was just for that important project. Board Member Wassermann: Oh, I see. Okay. Sorry, I misunderstood. I’d like to leave the planters on the consent calendar. I think we now know what we’re voting for. Board Member Kornber.q_: I think that’s fine. VOTE’ Motion passes 5-0-0-0 DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Board Member Kornber.q: On page 3 and 4, we have some items. You want to get a collective description for each one of these, Steve? Mr. Turner: Generally the Board just should comment. The Board can be specific, I think that would be helpful, but if you just have general comments that address each of those bullet point, that would be fine, too. Board Member Kornber.~. What I would suggest is that one of us make a stab at it rather than asking all five of us to go through all of them, and then if people have difference of opinion or want to add something to it, do it that way. Is that acceptable to the Board? Board Member Wassermann: You want to do it as chair? Board Member Kornber.q:. No, I don’t. Board Member Wassermann: You want me to do it because I did it last time? Board Member Kornber.q~. You’re so good at it. Board Member Wassermann: I wish I remember what I said. Let’s start at the top: The ways to inteqrate uses with the surroundin_q nei.qhborhood I don’t really understand what that means. The project has stairs and streets to the surrounding neighborhood. It’s a public use, it’s open to the public. Anybody can use it anytime they want. The project is surrounded on four sides by commercial uses. I’m City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 not quite sure what the question was, but it seems to me integrated as well as you can integrate anything that has to be above grade. Recognition that the project would create a precedent for design in the nei.qhborhood and how the design should be compatible with the neighborhood Well I am glad that it creates a precedent for design in the neighborhood because I think generally speaking, the design in the neighborhood is sort of terrible. And anybody that can meet this standard is doing a good job, so I think that’s a positive. Board Member Solnick: I think you might add that it eliminates some of the blight of the neighborhood and raises the bar, is what our objective is. Board Member Wassermann: Yes, exactly. Thank you. Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston to the other end of the street, which is more residential Well it isn’t residential, it is commercial from one end to the other of this project on all sides. There is no adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr. Turner: The second bullet point on that list there is more of a comment the Board made, you do not have to address that specifically. Board Member Wassermann: That the purpose of the EIR should include .... Mr. Turner: Yes, the visual resources and aesthetics, the second bullet Board Member Wassermann: We don’t have to comment on that? Mr. Turner: That’s correct. Board Member Wassermann: Thank you. The proiect could be seen as causing an abrupt change in scale which may be considered a significant aesthetic impact The project could cause a significant impact if the project would not maintain the scale and character of the property. We should discuss why there are no significant impacts. Well one of the problems with the way EIRs are set up is that you can’t discuss significant positive impacts. There is a significant impact, and it’s a good one. It adds a great benefit to the neighborhood which everybody can use, and I think that it’s a good thing. Board Member Kornber.q~ I would add that one of the problems of the corner right now is that it’s parking lot and rather incoherent structural objects, and this now provides a structure for the corner that it’s never, and I think that’ll be very positive. City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 Board Member Wassermann: And a major entry point to the City in fact, which is a good thing, not to get too fancy about it - it’s a good thing that this entry gateway to the City have a significant public cultural and institutional statement. 4 Why the podium.needs to be above tirade. 5 We talked about this. This was something that was determined at the very beginning of 6 the project. People whowere not there at the beginning or don’t believe the findings, I 7 suggest that you go back and look at the original findings and find out why the heights 8 are what they are. But these were approved because of significant existing physical 9 conditions. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 No discussion as to why the hazardous materials require such a tall podium. I would send you back to the original documents; look it up. Board Member Solnick: I remember asking that specific question. Board Member Wassermann: We asked it last time and we got the specific answer. Board Member Solnick: About the first time. Board Member Wassermann: The Planning Commission asked it, the City Council asked it. I’m not sure what’s at 620 Page Mill. I don’t know if it’s a residential project or not, but it makes a difference whether you have a residential project over toxics or a commercial project. The follow-up on the EIR should contain a discussion as to why a better street interaction is not possible. We’ve had long talks about that, and it has to do with the height. There is sufficient street interaction, the best you can do for a project that’s above grade. Are there ways to further miti.qate size from adjacent districts I don’t think there’s any necessity to mitigate the size. The adjacent districts are commercial districts. I think there was one planning commissioner, I read the verbatim minutes, and I think there was one planning commissioner who was relatively new on the Board and had not been party to the original discussion and simply didn’t understand the conditions. The proiect would create a precedent Yes, good thing, too. Security issues I believe those security issues have been addressed. There is a professional security organization that’s been hired to handle the security issues. I think that no one is more City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 concerned about security than the applicant, so I think that they’re perfectly capable of handling that. Board Member Kornberq: Well they had a hearing, but we didn’t hear the topic. Board Member Wassermann: But it’s a lot of key cards and membership Board Member Kornberq; Also, there was a significant packet that came with that hearing which we didn’t hear, so that’s probably available. Thank you very much. Mr. Turner: If there’s no other comments from members of the Board, staff finds that discussion to be acceptable and we’ll pass that along to the Planning Commission. Board Member Kornberq: Anybody else? Thank you very much. Thank you, Judith. City of Palo Alto Page 25 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Steven Turner, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment AGENDA DATE: June 28, 2006 SUBJECT:901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114|: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed PC district development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living .units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared. Zone District: GM. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the project, ask qu, estions of staff and the .applicant, conduct a public hearing, close the public hearing, provide comments, and continue the project to the July 26, 2006 Commission meeting. Although staff has recommended that that project be continued, the recommendation at City of Palo Alto Page 1 the July 26, 2006 meeting would be as follows: Find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR; The CEQA resolution is provided as Attachment B; Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided as Attachment C; o Grant a Variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.110(c) to allow portions of the proposed building to extend above 50 feet, based upon the findings as listed in the draft ordinance in Attachment C, Section 4; Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including findings for the DEE for the height of the sculptural tower, subject to the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D; o Approve the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan, including a total of 24 assisted living and congregate care units with associated housing services provided by the Jewish Senior Residence available to low income seniors. A draft of the BMR program elements between the developer and the City is provided in Attachment F; and Approve a Tentative Map that would create one mixed-use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units. The Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action is contained in Attachment E. PROJECT SUMMARY: An application for a Planned Community (PC) district, including a Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendment, environmental impact analysis, a Tentative Map, Variances, and design exceptions has been filed for the redevelopment of a 8.5 acre parcel at the former Sun Microsystems site at 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. The Background attachment to this staff report (Attachment G) provides more detail about the application processing and components of the project. The request for a PC district includes TKCJL’s specific site development plan for a senior housing project, the Jewish Senior Residences (JSR) containing 118 units of congregate care and 75 assisted living units (193 total units), a 134,150 square foot Jewish Community Center (JCC), and an "at grade" parking garage that would provide automobile and bicycle parking for all uses within the project. New landscaping, pedestrian access ways, and a private driveway would link the project with the adjacent BUILD project. The mixture of units and floor area for each use is as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 2 Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit E 1 Unit F 22 51 26 7 12 1,019 1,182 1,249’ 1,253 1,742 82. 105 105 105 224 Unit A Unit A 1 Unit B Unit B 1 Unit C Unit G Unit J Unit K Unit L Total 6 6 23 3 10 4 6 6 11 193 units 766 ~ 861 860 975 1,019 609 751 828 377 298,130 feet** * Net floor area is interior conditioned space 82 166 82 166 82 0 0 82 0 square ** Total gross floor area of building, including interior circulation areas Pro ect S Table: Jewish Cultural Hall/Space Fitness Center Activity Rooms Teen Center Administration Community Agencies Ancillary Commercial Preschool Total 35,299 55,127 7,204 1,904 7,043 5,546 5,375 16,650 134,148 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Senior Housing Community Center Total 193 193 units 298,130 134,148 432,278 0.81 0.36 1.17 610 spaces *For the entire 8.5 acre site The project includes specific discretionary review components, summarized as follows: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this site by David J. Powers & Associates, with staff assistance, encompassing both the BUILD and TKCJL projects. The EIR also considers the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR." The Program EIR component of the EIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project-specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the Draft EIR (DEIR) deals with the project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. The DEIR and Final EIR (FEIR) were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Planned Community Zone Change- The applicant has submitted a development program statement, development schedules, a development plan and proposed findings for the establishment of a Planned Community (PC) district in accordance with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18.68 (Planned Community districts). The PC district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit, and that conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- A Comprehensive Plan amendment has been requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation allows a mix of uses including Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office City of Palo Alto Page 4 development. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on upper floors. Under this land use designation, floor area ratios (FARs) can range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers can range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Height Variance- The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the 50-foot maximum height established by the PC district. The roofs of the residential building would extend to from 55 to 60 feet above grade with mechanical equipment extending to 65 to 70 feet above grade. The need for a variance for height was discussed with the City Council at the pre-screening meeting on June 14, 2004. The argument in favor of the variance are the location of the site within the "AE" flood zone and the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for Sculptural Tower Height- The project includes a design for a proposed sculptural tower element that would be approximately 12’ x 12’ and rise to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade. The tower would contain elevator equipment that would serve the parking garage, the podium level, and the two floors of Building C. The tower would have a solid portion that would extend no higher than 65’ above grade and a skeletal or transparent-type section that would extend to no more than 96 above the solid portion of the tower. A DEE would be required for this architectural element tO exceed the 50 foot maximum height for the PC district. Below Market Rate Housing (BMR) Proposal- The applicant has proposed a BMR plan that includes the provision of 12 congregate care and 12 assisted living units and subsidies of month costs for services offered by the Jewish Senior Residence. These 24 units would be made available at entry fee levels that comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years. Planning Division staffhas reviewed the proposed BMR agreement and finds it to be acceptable to meet the policies and programs of the BMR program. Tentative Map- The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map for the subdivision of one parcel and the creation of one mixed-use lot containing 193 multiple-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Planned Community Zone Change- Prior to approving a request for a PC district, the City Council shall review the applicant’s Development Plan (the project plans), Development City of Palo Alto Page 5 Statement, and Development Schedule (Attachment H). In order to approve a PC district, the City Council must make the following findings: (a)The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; (b)Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and (c)The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The draft findings are contained in the draft resolution for the establishment of the PC district (Attachment C, Section 4). Public Benefits- Section 18.68.060 of the PC district regulations requires specific findings to be made in order to establish any new PC district. The findings are described above in the Planned Community Zone Change section of this staff report. Finding #2 requires a determination that the development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of the general district or combining districts. The applicant has described the public benefits that would result with the PC zone change in the Development Program Statement, contained in Attachment F. The significant public benefits include: Conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for residential uses containing diverse housing types. The project would result in the redevelopment of a site listed in the Housing Sites Inventory list of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to a mixed use project containing 193 total units consisting of assisted living and congregate care units. Congregate care units would provide services and assistance for more independent seniors who wish to live in a supportive and structured environment. Assisted living units are for seniors living less independently who require more personal and individualized services. Community Center Uses Shared with the City of Palo Alto and the BUILD/BRIDGE Proiect. City of Palo Alto Page 6 TKCJL will enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of the Jewish Community Center (JCC) facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance/aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms with sinks, a playing field, large meeting rooms, a large cultural hall and performance center and the teen center, among other components of the facility. In conjunction with the City, the JCC and the City will develop a schedule of jointlY-SPOnsored programs, as well as programs and portions of the facility made available for programs sponsored only by the City. The specific provisions of the agreement, including hours of operation and payment of incidental fees, would be initially reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services with follow-up reviews on an annual basis. TKCJL would also provide reduced cost memberships for the JCC for residents of the adjacent BUILD/BRIDGE project. Other benefits that would be offered by TKCJL would benefit the adjacent BUILD project: Discounted Memberships- The JCC would provide discounted memberships to the low- income residents of the BUILD senior housing project, which include 56 units with approximately 70 residents. The discount offered would be an 80% reduction of the applicable JCC standard membership fee. Initially this reduced membership is projected to be $20 or less per month. Transportation Assistance- The JSR would provide transportation assistance to the low- income residents of the BUILD senior housing project. The JSR shuttle services will be made available to BUILD residents on a space available basis. JSR anticipates that space available will accommodate the needs of the BUILD residents because of the number and frequency of shuttle trips most likely to be offered to JSR residents. The cost to provide a shuttle is about $200,000 per year. In the unlikely circumstance that JSR discontinues shuttle services for its residents, then this transportation benefit cannot be offered to BUILD residents. Height Variance- The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the 50-foot maximum height established by the PC district. The need for a variance for height was discussed with the City Council at the pre-screening meeting on June 14, 2004. The arguments in favor of the variance are the location of the site within the "AE" flood zone and the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. Federal and local regulations require that all occupied development within the flood zone be constructed at least eight feet above sea level. The existing site is as low as three feet above sea level. The site is subject to a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) cleanup order due to the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. By constructing the community center and housing on a podium above the at-grade parking garage (and by applying specific construction methods and design features), the project would meet the requirements of the RWQCB for the location of sensitive uses within these cleanup areas. The podium development plan would result in a City of Palo Alto Page 7 unique condition where the tallest buildings would exceed the 50’ maximum height. In order to develop the site in the manner requested by the applicant, a variance would be required. The PAMC allows the variance process to be used to request exceptions in height. The Planned Community Ordinance includes an exhibit showing the extent of the height variances requested by the applicant. The buildings that would need the variance are the JSR buildings that would contain the congregate care and assisted living residential units (Buildings D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M), which have roof decks that would extend to approximately 55 feet (parapets would extend to 59 feet), a portion of the sports and fitness building (Building A) that would extend to approximately 58 feet, and the cultural hall (Building F) that would extend to approximately 60 feet. In addition, rooftop mechanical equipment rooms on Buildings E, J, and M would extend to approximately 70 feet. The mechanical room at the cultural hall would extent to approximately 75 feet. The draft approval findings are contained in Attachment C, Section 4. Sculptural Tower- The project includes a design for a proposed sculptural tower element that would be approximately 12’ x 12’ and rise to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade. The tower would contain elevator equipment that would serve the parking garage, the podium level, and the two floors of Building C. The tower would have a solid portion that would extend no higher than 65’ above grade and a skeletal or transparent-type section that would extend to no more than 96 above the solid portion of the tower. The tower would be approximately 46 feet taller than the 50’ height limit established by the PC district. Planning staffhas determined that the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process is the appropriate mechanism that would permit the construction of the tower to the height as requested by the applicant. The purpose of the DEE is to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties. The tower, with a footprint of approximately 144 square feet, is a minor architectural feature of the project. Although the proposed height of the tower exceeds the height limit, the impact the tower would have on the adjacent commercial and residential uses is not significant. The DEE process as described in PAMC 18.76.050 allows, generally, minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. This tower feature meets the intent of the DEE process for minor adjustments that would result in an improved overall design. The findings supporting the DEE are included in the Architectural Review resolution in Attachment D. Tandem Parking- In addition to the tower height, the applicant has requested that 60 parking spaces in the parking garage designed as tandem parking spaces, which represents approximately 10% of the 610 total parking spaces. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The PC Development Plan includes a specific design and parking orientation of the project. The garage would meet the standard for parking garages, such as number of parking spaces, dimensions, aisle width, and clearance. The DEE process, which would provide opportunities for adjustments to parking and zoning standards in order to allow a better designed project, was initially identified as the method to allow tandem parking. The ARB reviewed the DEE request and recommended approval of the exception based upon the DEE findings. Staff believes. However, the City Council would not be required to approve a DEE as a separate action apart from the PC district. Architectural Review Board Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Development Plan at two meetings on April 20 and May 18, 2006. The reviews focused on the design of the individual buildings, the contextual relationships between the projects and theadjacent BUILD projects, and other adjacent properties, the landscape plan, colors and materials, and on-site automobile and pedestrian circulation. The ARB voted to recommend approval of the project to the Commission and the City Council, subject to additional design review of specific project details. The ARB recommended a condition of approval that would limit the height of the tower to 96 feet and that the final tower design would be required to return to the ARB for review and a decision. The ARB also responded to the comments made by members of the Commission at the March 29, 2006 DEIR meeting that related to design, aesthetic issues and visual impacts. A summary of the ARB’s responses is included below along with the specific comments from Commissioners (in italics): Ways to integrate uses with the surrounding neighborhood The project would include pedestrian accessible entries at the shared driveway with the BUILD project, as well as pedestrian ramps and stairways at the Charleston Road sides of the project that would be available to residents and visitors to the site at all times (subject to security rules). Pedestrians would be able to access public ways and walk to nearby businesses and to the adjacent BUILD residential site.. Recognition that the project would create a precedent for design in the Charleston/Arastradero neighborhood and how the design should be compatible with the neighborhood. The project is a good design that meets the findings for Architectural Review. The newly constructed office building at 870 Charleston Road, along with the proposed architecture of the project, sets the correct design precedent for the commercial neighborhood. City of Palo Alto " Page 9 Ways to transition size and scale from the commercial area at the end of Charleston Street to the other end of the street, which is more residential The project site is separated from the multi-family residential site at Charleston Road and Fabian Road by approximately 225-feet. The site would be approximately 300 feet from the nearest single-family residential neighborhood, separated by an arterial street (Fabian Way) and low level commercial buildings. Project could be seen as causing an abrupt change in scale, which may be considered as a significant aesthetic impact. Project could cause a significant impact if the project would not maintain the scale and character of the property. EIR should discuss why there are no significant impacts. The adjacent BUILD project would result in the demolition of an existing 96-foot tall office building, to be replaced by residential structures that would be approximately 50-feet tall above grade. The parking lot that served the existing office use would be the site for the proposed TKCJL site. As this site does not contain existing structures, any new construction would change the immediate scale of the site and the neighborhood. Although the building heights are significantly taller than existing conditions, the architecture and design set a good precedent for the commercial district. This project would not set a precedent for height, in that specific variances are required for buildings taller than 50-feet. The combined project’s architecture would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Discussion of why the podium needs to be 12 ’-16 ’above grade. Flood zone is only 6" to 12" above grade. Buildings could be closer to the street, which would result in the uses better integrating with the street and a shorter overall project that would better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods. No discussion as to why the hazardous materials require such a tall podium. Flood zone requirements limit the construction of below grade structures, including parking garages. The hazardous materials located on the project site, as well as the mitigation measures needed for. the abatement of volatile organic compounds, also limit below-grade construction~ The at-grade parking facility, with residential uses above on the podium, results in a more efficient use of space that is oriented in a manner that is suitable for residential and community center-style development. The transitions from the podium to the street level have been sensitively designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. Follow-up on the EIR should contain a discussion as to why a better street interaction is not possible. The street interaction with the project is appropriate in that there are multiple connections for Cily of Palo Alto Page 10 residents and visitors to the public ways. Are there ways to further mitigate size from adjacent districts? The project is located in a commercial district and would include architecture and building massing that is appropriate for its location. The project site is separated from residential districts by arterial streets and other commercial properties.. This project would create precedent," project would set up how the surrounding properties will be used and how they will be designed. This project creates a good design precedent for the neighborhood, in that the massing, height and building design are all appropriate to the neighborhood. BMR Program and Other BMR Contributions- The Project will provide 24 Below Market Rate congregate care and assisted living housing units and the associated residential living services within the’ 182 unit Jewish Senior Residence for 59 years. This represents approximately 14% of the total number of housing units in the project, where a 20% contribution (equal to 36 units in this case) would normally be the minimum required under the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a project on five or more acres. All 24 BMR units will be one bedroom, one bath units ranging in size from about 730 to 870 square feet. In consideration of the applicants’ agreement to offer the full range of services to BMR residents at reduced monthly fees, staff accepted the reduced number of BMR units and did not require the BMRs to reflect the range of units types and sizes in the Project, as is normally required. The initial 12 assisted living units will be the 12 units designed for this purpose located on floors three and four. This area has its own dining and activity rooms. The other 12 BMR units have been designated and are located among the market rate units on all four floors. The designation of the specific BMR units is expected to Change over time to meet the needs of all the JSR residents; under the licensing rules, any units can be occupied.by a person receiving assisted living services. These 24 units would be made available at entry fee levels that comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years. The BMR program would include continuing support for the residents of the BMR units by subsidizing all monthly costs associated .with room, care, food and extensive support services at income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR Program for 59 years. For the first 15 years of operations, 12 of the BMR units would be occupied by seniors needing some level of assisted living services, provided there is sufficient need and demand from BMR qualified applicants. Any of the 12 units not needed for assisted living use, would beoccupied by independent living seniors. After 15 years, depending on the availability of proceeds from the endowment City of Palo Alto Page 11 and the financial situation of the JSR, some or all of the 12 assisted living units would be allowed to be phased into independent living use as vacancies occur. The Project’s owner has described the BMR contributions in the Development Program Statement letter (Attachment F) making a commitment to provide this housing and associated services. A BMR letter agreement must be signed prior to Council consideration of the PC ordinance and formal agreement must be executed prior to approval of the Final Map by the City Council and recorded concurrently with the subdivision map. In addition to.the BMR plan, the applicant has committed a $5,000,000 endowment restricted exclusively for the support of residents who cannot afford either the initiation costs or the continuing monthly costs at the JSR. The income from this endowment would provide housing and services subsidies in addition to those needed to satisfy the BMR agreement. Congregate care and assisted living housing and associated services for senior citizens represent a segment that has not been addressed in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Special needs housing is identified in Policy H-18, which states, "Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the healthcare, transit, or social services needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities." The TKCJL proj ect would be consistent with this policy. Although the project does not provide the full 20% unit contribution, the costs of providing the services to the BMR residents during the 59 year period would result in a contribution that would be equivalent to the units needed to meet the 20% requirement. Planning Division staff has reviewed the proposed agreement and has found it to be acceptable to meet the policies and programs of the BMR program. Tentative Map-As mentioned in the project Summary section of this staff report, a Tentative Map has been requested that would create one mixed-use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of the Tentative Map application should be limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. City of Palo Alto Page 12 (Government Code, section 66418) (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) It should also be noted that, when processing a subdivision map for a condominium project, the Subdivision Map Act does not require that the division of airspace be shown on the map. The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the proposed structures to be located within the subdivision. The design of the structures is part of the PC review process. Staff and City departments have determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The Tentative map plan set includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plans conform to the Development Plan submitted for the Planned Community zone change request (05PLN-00295). Because the request is to create more than four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010). A city must deny a Tentative Map if any of the adverse findings can be made (State of California Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474)). The Record of Land Use Action, which includes the recommendation for approval of the Tentative Map, is contained in Attachment E. None of the findings for denial have been recommended. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Development Schedule/Project Phasing- It is expected that in the first phase of construction, 100% of the JSR and a substantial portion of the JCC would be completed. This first phase would commence in 2007 and be completed within three years. Thereafter, the JCC will proceed with Phase 2 and, perhaps, a Phase 3, as soon as financing has been identified. These subsequent phases are expected to be completed during the years 2012 through 2022. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may extend these time limits once by not more than one year, as described in 18.68.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Director, at his/her discretion, may allow changes to the phasing order or sequence based upon a review of the request and the consistency of the request with the certified EIR, conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and any other dedications, exactions or reservations. A written determination of the Director’s decision would be made in writing to the applicant. The applicant’s proposed development schedule is containedin Exhibit C of the PC ordinance (Attachment C). Development Impact Fees- The City of Palo Alto has adopted an impact fee program as part of the municipal code that contains requirements for the assessment and payment of fees on new development projects throughout the City. The current impact fee program requires the collection of fees relate to the impacts of projects on parks, libraries, community centers, housing and automobile traffic within specific areas of the city. All projects are not subject to each impact fee. Exemptions are made for affordable housing, existing commercial or residential units that would be removed as a result of a project, and certain community uses and private organizations. The JCC portion of the project, at approximately 134,000 square feet, would be considered a commercial, rather than a residential use. The existing site contains a 260,000 square foot building that would be demolished. Since the JCC would "replace" the demolished area, it would not be subject to the Housing impact fee, the San Antonio/West Bayshore Traffic impact fee, and the Community Facility impact fee, as well as the School impact fee. The JCC project would be required to pay the full Charleston/Arastradero impact fee. The JSR portion of the project, containing 193 residential units, would not be subject to the Housing impact fee or the San Antonio/West Bayshore impact fee, as housing projects are exempt from these fees. The project would also be exempt from the Community Facilities impact fee, in that the JCC would be providing a community center that would be open to the public. In addition, the JCC would enter into a shared-use agreement with the City of Palo Alto that would allow the City to use the facilities of the JCC for public programs, classes and events. The JSR project would be required to pay the full Charleston!Arastradero impact fee. The JSR would also be required to pay the School impact fee. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the 901 San Antonio Road site by David J. Powers & Associates, with staff assistance, encompassing both the Page 14 City of Palo Alto BUILD and CJL projects. The FEIR is comprised of the Draft EIR (DEIR, under separate cover), Responses to Comments on the DEIR, and text revisions to the DEIR. The DEIR addressed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the site as a "Program EIR" and the BUILD and CJL projects as a "Project EIR." The Program EIR component of the DEIR focuses on policy and code provisions to satisfy potential impacts, rather than project-specific mitigation, and would apply whether these particular projects are constructed or not. The "Project EIR" component of the DEIR addresses project-specific impacts and mitigation measures of the two proposals. The DEIR and FEIR were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Prior to approving the proposed project(s), ~he Lead Agency (City of Palo Alto) is required to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the decision-making body (in this case the City Council) has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to project approval, and the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs CEQA (Section 21081) requires that when an EIR for a project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt findings for each impact indicating that 1) changes or alterations (mitigation measures) have been required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the EIR; or 2) such changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of another public agency and that the required measure has been or can and should be adopted by that agency; or 3) mitigation measures or alternatives are not feasible due to economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations. Attachment B includes a resolution of the Commission recommending adoption of Findings for the proposed projects, indicating that all mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels. CEQA (Section 21081.6) further requires that, upon adoption of such findings, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), outlining responsibility for implementation of all mitigation measures. The measures must be enforceable through project conditions of approval or other means. Attachment B includes as an appendix the MMRP for this project. The MMRP specifies the proposed mitigation measures, the timing of implementation of each measure, and the responsible parties for implementation (usually the applicant) and enforcement (the City of Palo Alt0). The conditions of approval include Condition #4 to require that all mitigation measures be complied with at the appropriate stages of development. Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review on February 17, 2006. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR was available for City of Palo Alto Page 15 a minimum 45-day public review period, and the comment period closed on April 3, 2006. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on March 29, 2006, to accept comments from the public and from Commissioners. The FEIR provides an index to identify each written or oral comment, and outlines responses to all of the comments. A copy of the entire FEIR was made available to all persons who submitted written comments, including public agencies, which must receive such responses a minimum of 10 days prior to certification of the FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) includes the Responses to Comments and, where appropriate, revisions to the Draft EIR language to reflect the response. The revised text includes substantial changes to the Project Description to reflect the reduced scope of the BUILD project and minor modifications to the CJL project, and to the description of Risk Management Plan (RMP) components of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation for CJL. Responses to several substantive comments and related revisions in the FEIR are discussed below, particularly relative to transportation, hazards and hazardous materials, visual resources and aesthetics, and public facilities. 1. Transportation Transportation impacts are addressed in Section III-B of the DEIR. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by the transportation firm of Korve Engineering (Appendix B), based on staff direction and an updated version (2005) of the City’s traffic model. This model estimates traffic conditions through 2015 and reflects local traffic growth associated with approved and known projects. The model’s forecasts also incorporate the regional land use data projected by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for municipalities throughout the County, including neighboring cities such as Mountain View, where projects may have an impact on traffic within Palo Alto. The FEIR responds to numerous comments about traffic impacts, including the following key concerns and responses: Evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle impacts, particularly in .the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor, was supplemented by outlining improvements anticipated by the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan, such as wider sidewalks, adding bikelanes, countdown signalization at intersections, and an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Louis Road. The improvements do not extend to the frontage of the 901 San Antonio site, but will provide improved safety for access. Specific improvements, such as widened sidewalks and a new pedestrian crossing on Fabian Way near .the primary entrance to the project, are also noted. A pedestrian and bicycle level of service analysis was not completed, as the City and VTA methodologies for Transportation Impact Analysis do not include such an evaluation. Transit improvements, including improvements to bus shelters and pads along Charleston and San Antonio, will be Page 16 City of Palo Alto required as conditions of approval, to address VTA and public comments. b. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is required as an added mitigation measure (B.1-2) for the CJL site, including a number of employer- sponsored efforts to enhance the use of non-vehicular transportation modes (see Attachment G). The intent of the program is to result in a 15% reduction in vehicle trips, and an annual monitoring program is required. A shuttle service is also proposed by CJL to transport senior residents to and from local services, such as shopping areas and health facilities (Stanford, PAMF, etc). CJL will also make the shuttle service available to BUILD’s senior residents at no charge. In addition, CJL has incorporated service facilities, such as an automatic teller machine for banking, a postage and mailing outlet, and an on-site sundry store to serve residents and employees. c. Mitigation for parking for special events (3.5-1)is not changed, and includes notification at least two weeks in advance of a weekday special event and commitments for off-site parking and other measures (shuttle, valet, etc.) if necessary. The parking situation is improved by the reduction in the number of BUILD residential units, so that there is no longer a need for BUILD and CJL to share some parking spaces. The mitigation measure remains as a precautionary approach for weekday special events. d. Queuing and safety impacts from left turn movements into and out of the site from Charleston have been addressed by a revised mitigation measure (B.3-1 ) that prohibits left turns into the site from Charleston Road, but allows left turns onto Charleston from the site. A queuing and gap analysis by the traffic consultants showed that there is sufficient time available (gaps) to safely turn left onto Charleston and that only a total of 8 peak hour trips were expected to make that turning movement. Design details will be necessary with the Final Map improvements to provide for appropriate channelization and signage to discourage prohibited movements. e. Queuing and safety impacts from the loading space along San Antonio Road near the Charleston intersection have been addressed by a revised mitigation measure (B.4-1) that allows such turns only where 1) the space is designed to be totally on the CJL site, 2) egress is designed to allow the trucks to readily turn into the right turn lane on San Antonio and trucks are then required to turn right on Charleston and then onto Fabian Way (both of which are City truck routes), and 3) loading and unloading is limited to the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Details of curb and sidewalk crossings, landscaping, and signage must be provided with the Final Map improvements. f. Review and refinement of traffic impacts showed no significant impacts to Louis Road or Ross Road due to cut-through traffic. A total of less than 10 additional vehicles per lane are expected to use neighborhood streets in the peak hour, below the threshold for analysis. The consultant’s evaluation indicated that no significant impacts would occur on any residential streets. g. The analysis of the cumulative impacts of traffic continues to show that the combined BUILD and CJL projects will not contribute substantially to the cumulative increases in traffic through 2015. The City’s traffic model includes increased growth in nearby City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mountain View, reflecting most of the .new development cited in neighborhood letters, as well as the specific upcoming anticipated developments in Palo Alto. Fee contributions to the Charleston-Arastradero improvements and other traffic improvements will be required as conditions of project approval. The FEIR concludes that the mitigation measures included in the project or other conditions of approval would reduce all identified transportation impacts to less-than-significant levels. 2.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards and hazardous material impacts are addressed in Section III-E of the DEIR. The analysis relies heavily on environmental assessments prepared for the site and on Risk Management Plans (RMPs) that require review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (E. 1-2). The Risk Management Plans (RMPs) require implementation of an extensive array of measures, such as the provision of vapor barriers, ventilation, dewatering during construction, plan reviews, protection and abandonment of wells, monitoring and reporting, public disclosures, and contingency plans and funding. The Risk Management Plan for the CJL site also includes on-site remediation of contaminated soil on the site. The RMPs are enforceable by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Palo Alto. The FEIR responds to several comments about hazardous materials impacts, including the following key concerns and responses: a.Concerns of the Regional Water Quality Control Board are addressed by incorporating the most recent Draft Final Risk Management Plan (RMP) conditions for the CJL site. Those conditions have been modified to substantially address the concerns of the Ford Motor Company as well. b. The measures included in the RMPs for the BUILD Site and the CJL Site may be amended on the basis of changed conditions on the property. Such changes must be submitted to the City and approved by the RWQCB following public comment. If the RWQCB amends either of the Risk Management Plans in accordance with its standards, the specific mitigation measures must be adjusted accordingly. c. The types of hazardous materials (including acids and flammables) stored on nearby sites is included in the Draft EIR. The basis for the Fire Department’s requirement for Shelter in Place and Emergency Preparedness plans is the site’s proximity to industrial areas that use and store hazardous materials. d. Contaminated soil on the CJL site will be removed and a "soil management"protocol is required during site grading to inspect, treat and/or remove the material. Geotechnical and structural design measures will be required during building permit review to assure the integrity of the vapor barriers and other measures given soil and/or seismic constraints. The FEIR concludes that the recommended mitigation measures would reduce all identified City of Palo Alto Page 18 hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. 3. Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impacts Visual resources and aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section III-I of the DEIR. The DEIR determined that the impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were proposed. The FEIR responds to several comments about the project aesthetics, including the following key concerns and responses: go No The City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed and recommended approval of both proj ects (see Attachment D). The approvals were subject to returning to a subcommittee of the Board (or on Consent) with some further details of the design. The ARB, in a subsequent discussion, responded to the Planning and Transportation Commission concerns regarding the projects’ visual impacts. The ARB indicated that they believe the design represents a positive precedent for redevelopment of this industrial area, and that residential character is not an overriding consideration because the surrounding uses are almost all commercial and industrial (please see the ARB minutes for more details of the Board’s responses). The CJL applicants have requested a Design Enhancement Exception for a combined equipment and artistic tower of up to 96 feet in height, which is of concern to some nearby property owners and residents. The tower would (as conditioned by the ARB) be solid, housing an elevator and other equipment, for a maximum height of 65 feet above existing grade, the height permitted for mechanical equipment. The remaining 30 or so feet will be an "open" framework of materials, with design contingent on the timing of future funding for implementation. The FEIR includes photo simulations of the tower imposed on off-site views of the future development. The tower would not be visible from two of the four vantage points and only the topmost "open" section would be visible from other views, including from San Antonio Road. The ARB required that the specific design of the tower element return for review, allowing for public input at the time that a specific design is prepared. The FEIR concludes that there would be no significant visual or aesthetic impacts, as subjected to the review and conditions imposed by the ARB. 4. Public Facilities Impacts Public facility impacts are addressed in Section III-M of the DEIR. The FEIR responds to several comments about cumulative impacts of development on schools, parks, and libraries, including the following key concerns and responses: ao CEQA prescribes that payment of school fees is sufficient to address potential impacts on school facilities. In addition, the project is expected to generate only approximately 15 school age students, due to the extensive senior population. The Palo Alto School District’s demographer has indicated that the District does account for transitions of City of Palo Alto Page 19 seniors from single-family homes to areas such as this in its forecasts. The District also indicates that capacity is available at schools on a district-wide basis, but that individual schools may be at capacity so that nearby students in the area may not be able to attend the school closest to their homes. b. In response to concerns about parks and parkland, the development is providing for substantial recreational use that will be open to the public. Additionally, park demand is not expected to be high due to the predominance of seniors at the site. Additionally, market-rate condominiums will be required to pay Quimby Act and/or park impact fees to the City. c. The projects will be required to pay library impact fees as part of the City’s Community Facilities fee requirements. The FEIR concludes that there would be no significant public facility impacts. 5.Cumulative Effects ~ CEQA requires that an EIR identify and discuss significant cumulative environmental effects of a proposed project. Comments made by the public included concerns about cumulative effects on traffic and public facilities, including schools, parks, and libraries. Those effects are discussed above under those specific topics. The FEIR concludes that cumulative effects would not be significant. 6.Alternatives Specific comments were not directed to the Alternatives analysis of the DEIR. However, the BUILD revised project is nearly identical to Alternative D (BUILD Design Alternative) outlined in the DEIR. Alternative D has therefore been deleted in the FEIR and is reflected as the "proposed project." Significant Unavoidable Impacts CEQA requires that an EIR identify and discuss significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. Subsequent to the revisions and responses to the DEIR, the FEIR continues to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. There would be no significant unavoidable impacts. Commission Action and Certification of FEIR The Planning and Transportation Commission, prior to recommending project approval, must recommend certification of the FEIR, including adoption of the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment B). The City Council must then certify the FEIR prior to final project approval. NEXT STEPS Following the Commission’s review and recommendation of the planning applications City of Palo Alto Page 20 and the Final EIR, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and review for a final decision. No date has been set for the City Council review. ATTACHMENTS A.Location map B.Draft CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan C.Draft Planned Community Ordinance, with exhibits D.Draft Architectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval E.Draft Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action F.Development Program Statement G.Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan H.Project Background and Description, Verbatim minutes (separate document) I.Correspondence J.Development Plan (Commissioners Only) K.Final Environmental Impact Report (Previously Distributed) COURTESY COPIES Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stern, Campus for Jewish Life Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & F!egel, LLP PREPARED BY: Steven Turner, Senior Planne~ - DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 pm Commission ers:Staff." Patrick Burr- Chair - absent Steve Emslie, Planning Director Karen Holman - V-Chair - recused Curtis Williams, Chief Planning/Transportation Lee I. Lippert Paula Sandas Phyllis Cassel Annette Bialson - absent Daniel Garber Donald Larkin,_Senior Depu~_ Ci_ty AttorneF Amy French, Current Planning Manager Steven Turner, Senior Planner Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1 a.901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050] lb.901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114] Commissioner Cassel: Those of you who wish to speak this evening, I am Phyllis Cassel, and I am going to chair the meeting this evening. I ask you to fill out a card with Zariah, print your name carefully so I can read it. It is not a signature but rather helpful to us to know who is speaking. Put your address on it and leave it with Zariah. Thank you very much. Will the secretary please call the roll? Thank you. I am going to call the meeting to order for June 28, 2006 at seven o’clock or slightly thereafter. The next part of the agenda is Oral Communications for anyone who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page I of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Commissioner Cassel: I don’t have any cards for that so I will close that item and we will proceed. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Commissioner Cassel: I have no agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. The business this evening is two items listed as la and lb, 901 San Antonio Roadl A request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community district and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The other one is listed as 901 San Antonio Road a request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community zone for the purpose of a Planned Community district development plan, which will allow 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall and other Spaces, 193 senior residential units and it goes on. The plan this evening is that we will hear both of these items together. We are going to have a Staff Report, which will cover both items. We are going to have presentation by the developer, which will last 30 minutes rather than 15 because there are two projects here and this is an extensive development and we wanted to give an opportunity to hear the total program from what they have to say. We will ask questions to clarify of the Staff and of the developer before we go to the public hearing. I ask that we keep those mostly to questions that will help the audience and ourselves understand what has been presented. We will go to the public hearing. You will get five minutes to speak on both items. In other words, combined, whatever you have to say please combine it for both projects and you will have five minutes to do that. We will then follow that up with questions and comments. A decision will not be made this evening on the project. It will be continued so that we can continue our discussion on July 26, 2006 but the public hearing will be closed this evening. Don Larkin, you wish to have a word? Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: I was just going to mention that I think we can all see that we are very close to our quorum. If for some reason, a phone call or a restroom break, any Commissioner needs to leave the dais we would stop the hearing at that point for that period of time. So just raise your hand and we can do that if it becomes necessary. Commissioner Cassel: We may have more breaks than normal. We are ready for a Staff Report. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 2 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ¯ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 -1191 NEW BUSINESS Public Hearings: ]a.901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, and a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM. lb.901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295~ 06PLN-00114]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 3 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, and a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared. Zone District: GM. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Cassel. There are a couple of housekeeping items before we start. Number one, I just wanted to give the speaking schedule in terms of the Staff Report this evening. My name is Steven Turner, I am a Senior Planner and I will be giving the oral presentation tonight regarding the Planned Community application and the various application components that go along with both applications. I will then pass the mike over to Curtis Williams, our new Chief Planning and Transportation Official who has worked extensively on the environmental portion of this project and allow him to discuss the environmental aspects of the project. Supporting Curtis we have our transportation consultant, Dennis Struecker and our consultant on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, Nora Monette available to answer any questions as well. I believe after Curtis speaks we have Judith Wasserman here from the Architectural Review Board and she can answer any questions and can also provide a brief overview of the ARB’s review of the project. At that point we would then turn it over to the applicant for their presentation. The second housekeeping item refers to the BUILD Staff Report. You may have noticed as you started to read through the Staff Report that about halfway through it appears that the pages were flipped. So starting at Exhibit A of Attachment C you will notice that the pages were stapled in backwards. So you should just simply flip them if possible so that you have the correct order of the attachments. We apologize for that. Okay, on to the Staff Report. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the project, ask questions of Staff and the applicant, conduct the public hearing, close the public hearing, provide comments and continue the project to the July 26, 2006 Commission hearing. This is the second formal hearing for both of these projects. Before I go into the specifics of the projects I just want to provide a brief background and history of the reviews. The first take a look at where we have been in terms of this Planned Community application. As you know, Planned Community applications get at the minimum four public hearings. There is the initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the project then if they are recommended to a forward go on to the Architectural Review Board and it is at that Board where the bulk of the design and architectural work is studied. The ARB would make a recommendation back to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. The third meeting, the meeting, which we are at now, is that Planning and Transportation Commission and a fourth meeting would be the City Council meeting. That City Council meeting has not yet been agendized but we expect that that would take place sometime in September. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 4 of 49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Although we are recommending continuance the Staff Report does go into a recommendation for 3 the July 26 meeting. At that meeting Staff would be recommending the following items and 4 those items are listed in the Staff Report. So Staff at that meeting would be recommending that 5 the Commission find that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan for the requirements of CEQA and certify the Final EIR. The CEQA resolution is provided in Attachment B of the documents. We would also recommend that the Commission and City Council grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. We would also recommend to approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the Conditions of Approval that are provide for you in Attachment D of the Staff Reports. We are recommending approval of the Below Market Rate plan. We are recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Map for the BUILD project that would subdivide the site into two sites, one a half-acre site that would contain 56 senior apartment units and the larger part of the site that would contain 103 town home units. On the TKCJL side we are recommending a Tentative Map for 193-condominium unit project. The site would remain essentially the same but it would be prepared for condominium units for the residential units on the site. For the Campus for Jewish Life we would also recommend a variance to exceed the height limit as described in the Staff Report as well as a Design Enhancement Exception for a sculptural tower that would exceed the 50 foot height limit as well. Those would be the recommendations that Staffwould bring forward to you on July 26, 2006. So getting back to the review history of the project. The first review in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission took place for BUILD on December 1, 2004 and for the Campus for Jewish Life on September 14, 2005. The ARB review, the second review, took place on March 16 and April 20 and the Board recommended approval of the BUILD project on April 20 and the Campus for Jewish Life project was reviewed on April 20 and May 18 and the Board recommended approval of the project on May 18. Also with the last 12 months Staff has been working very hard on the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report with a mitigation monitoring reporting program and a Final EIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45-day public review period in mid- February of this year and we had received public comments from agencies, Commission Members and members of the public. Staff held a Draft Environmental Impact Report meeting with the Commission on March 29 and based upon that meeting and all the comments that we received we prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report that included the responses to all the comments that we had received. The Commission has copies of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. The other part of the project that came in your packet was a project background and description document. This was the comb bound document that contained a detailed description of the project and its elements as well as minutes from all of those meetings I have previously mentioned. So you can refer to those to see your previous comments and those of other Boards and Commissions as well. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 5 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So on to a summary of each project and I am going to start with the BUILD project and move then to the Campus for Jewish Life project. The BUILD Bridge component is essentially a 100 percent residential project that is comprised of 56 senior housing units comprised in a rental apartment building and a for sale town home project of 103 units. The total floor area of all the units combined would be a little over 216,000 square feet, which would be an FAR of about 1.24. The parking garage, which is constructed at grade, would contain 303 spaces. The town home units would be constructed on top of that garage podium and a portion of the units would be constructed along the shared driveway with the Campus for Jewish Life. The senior town home building would be located closest to Fabian right out in front. For the Campus for Jewish Life this is a senior housing project and a community center project. The senior housing project would contain 193 units of congregate care and assisted living units and the community center would contain uses such as a cultural hall and a preschool and fitness centers. That would approximately be 134,000 square feet. When you add all of the floor area together on the Campus for Jewish Life project it is at about 432,000 square feet which is about a 1.17 FAR. The garage, which would also be constructed at grade, would contain 610 spaces and predominantly all of the uses for the community center and the residential uses would be located on top of the podium. The building heights on the Campus for Jewish Life would range from 50 to 60 feet above grade and have mechanical units that would extend from 70 to 75 feet. The applicant has requested a variance from the 50-foot height limit for the project. Another highlight of the design is the shared driveway in between the two projects. This is off of Fabian Way and this is really the front entrance to both projects. This driveway would serve both garages and really be the main entrance to both projects there. There are a number of project components that are similar for both the Campus for Jewish Life and the BUILD project and I will briefly go through those items. As I mentioned before the Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by Staff and David Powers and Associates and it encompasses both the BUILD and Campus for Jewish Life projects. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR includes a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that would be required to be implemented to reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Again, Curtis Williams will talk a little bit more about the environmental issues associated with the project. Both projects also as previously mentioned include a Planned Community zone change. This includes development program statements, development schedules, a development plan and proposed findings for the establishment of the Planned Community District. These PC districts are intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional or other activities that would require flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is particularly intended for unified comprehensively plauned developments that are of substantial public benefit and that conform and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 6 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 In order to approve PC districts the City Council must make findings with regard to the site and proposed uses that the project would not be possible under the existing zone district of the site, that the development would bring public benefits not otherwise attainable within existing zoning and that the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed PC findings are contained in Attachment C of each Staff Report in Section 4. Both projects also involve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendments have been requested to change the existing land use of Light Industrial to Mixed Use. According to the City’s Comp Plan the Mixed Use designation would allow a mix of uses including live/work, retail/office, residential/retail and residential/office development which would be appropriate for these sites. Then we get into the specifics of each application. I will start off with the BUILD site. With regards to a Below Market Rate Housing plan the BUILD project would have 103 market rate town home style uses and this PC would allow BUILD to designate a one-half acre parcel for the development of 56 senior apartments that would be affordable to low and very low income levels. These 56 units would satisfy the BMR requirement for the 103-unit town home project. The applicant has indicated that the senior housing project would require federal, state and local subsidies to develop the project and in the event that Bridge is unsuccessful in securing all of the necessary funding commitments the BMR proposal also includes two alternative plans that would allow the City to receive the BMR contribution required for the town home project. Alternative number one would be approximately a 32 unit mixed income for sale residential project that would include 16 BMR units to satisfy the 103 unit town home project and additional BMR units to satisfy the additional requirements for the for sale town home units that would be built as part of the 32 unit alternative project. Alternative number two would be a fee payment in lieu of providing any BMR units. This fee would be at least $4.5 million but no more than $7.5 million and the final fee would be based upon certain costs, credits and proceeds on the half-acre parcel that would have contained the original 56 units. The Planning Division Staff has reviewed the proposed BMR Agreement and finds it to be acceptable to meet the policies and programs of the BMR program. The BMR contribution is further described in the letter from Bridge Housing, which is contained in Attachment E. The final part of the application is a Tentative Map. The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four-acre site and create one multi-family residential lot of approximately one-half of an acre containing 56 multi-family residential apartment units and one multi-family residential lot containing 103 condominium town home style units. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for the project is contained in Attachment F. Moving on to the Campus for Jewish Life project we will speak for the Below Market Rate Housing program, the Tentative Map and a number of exceptions that they are seeking. For the Below Market Rate Housing proposal they have proposed a plan that includes the provision of 12 congregate care and 12 assisted living units and subsidies of monthly costs for services offered by the Jewish senior residents. These 24 units would be made available at entry fee levels that comply with the income and affordability standards prescribed by the BMR program City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 7 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for 59 years. The Planning Division Staff has reviewed the BMR proposal and finds it be acceptable to meet the policies of the BMR program. The BMR contribution is further described in the letter from the applicant in Attachment F of the Staff Report. The applicant has submitted a request for a Tentative Map for the subdivision of one parcel and the creation of one mixed use lot that would contain 193 multi-family congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for those projects is contained in Attachment E. The applicant, as previously mentioned, has requested a height variance. This is a variance to exceed the 50-foot maximum height established by the PC District. The roof of the residential buildings would extend from 55 to 60 feet above grade with mechanical equipment extending 65 to 70 feet above grade. The argument in favor of the variance is the location of the site within a flood zone and the presence of groundwater contaminants as well as the previous aerospace uses on the site. Federal and local regulations require that all occupied development within the flood zone must be constructed at least eight feet above the sea level. The existing site is as low as three feet above sea level and the site is subject to also a Regional Water Quality Control Board cleanup order due to the presence of groundwater contaminants as a result of the previous aerospace use on the site. By constructing the community center and housing on a podium above the at grade parking garage the project would meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the location of sensitive uses within these cleanup areas. The podium development plan would result in the unique condition where the tallest buildings would exceed the 50-foot maximum height. In order to develop the site in the manner requested by the applicant this variance would be required. In order to approve the Variance the Council must make findings that special circumstances or conditions are present on the site that generally would not be present on other properties within the district, that no special privileges would be granted that would be inconsistent withthe limitations on other properties in the district, that the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, that the variance would not be detrimental to other property owners in the area and the findings for the variance are contained in Attachment C, Section 2. The project includes a design for a proposed sculptural tower element that would be approximately 12 feet by 12 feet and rise to a maximum height of 96 feet above grade. Staff has determined that a Design Enhancement Exception would be the appropriate mechanism for this feature. The tower would contain elevator equipment that would serve the parking garage, the podium level and two floors of the adjacent Building C. The tower would have a solid portion that would extend no higher than 65 feet above grade and a skeletal transparent type section that would extend no more than 96 feet above grade. A DEE would be required for this feature to exceed the 50-foot height limit in this PC district. The purpose of the DEE is to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site or its impact on the surrounding properties. The tower with a footprint of about 144 square feet is a minor architectural feature of the project and although the proposed height of the tower exceeds the height limit the impact this tower would have on adjacent commercial and residential uses is not significant. In order to approve the DEE the City Council must make findings that special City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 8 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 circumstances or conditions are present and the site generally would not be present on other properties within the district, that the granting of the exception would enhance the appearance of or improve the neighborhood character and that the exception would not be detrimental to other property owners in the area. The findings for the DEE are contained in Attachment D in Section 3. The ARB has reviewed the request for the DEE and recommended approval of the project with a condition that the design of the tower return to the ARB for formal public meeting. Both projects include public benefits. As part of the PC request the applicant is required to provide public benefits that would not otherwise be attainable utilizing the existing zoning. There are a couple of common public benefits that would apply to both projects. One would be the development of this shared plaza at the Fabian Way driveway. This 5,000 square foot plaza would demarcate the main pedestrian entrances to the two developments and really be a focal point for the projects. Another public benefit would be conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for housing. The projects would result in redevelopment of sites listed on the Housing Sites Inventory, listed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element to residential and a community center project. The site has been largely unoccupied in a deteriorated state for many years. While this has generated little parking demand or traffic it has been an obstacle to creating an environment that would be beneficial to a variety of uses. The site is presently zoned to permit industrial/commercial development including office uses, which would exacerbate the City’s shortage of housing relative to jobs. The project would replace a deteriorated, largely vacant office building with well-designed structures built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high quality. The individual public benefits provided by each project are as follows. For the BUILD project BUILD is proposing a second mortgage program for local employees. This would be mortgages from between $25,000 to $100,000 low interest second mortgages that would be offered to local employees within the area. It would be for targeted households ranging from 100 to 200 percent of the median area income. The intent of the second mortgage program would be to have employees live near the workplace as a way to alleviate the jobs/housing imbalance and impact on traffic.. The fund would initially be established at $500,000. The applicant has also indicated that they would pay approximately $480,000 towards the costs of implementing the Charleston/Arastradero transportation plan. Moving on to the Campus for Jewish Life public benefits, they are proposing the community center uses that would be shared with the City of Palo Alto and the BUILD/Bridge project. The Campus for Jewish Life would enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of Jewish Community Center facilities. These facilities include the gymnasium, dance-aerobic rooms, storage, classrooms, playing fields, large meeting rooms, cultural hall and performance center, and a teen center. In conjunction with the City the JCC and the City would develop a schedule of jointly sponsored programs as well as programs and portions of the facility to be made available for programs sponsored only by the City. The specific provisions of the agreement including hours of operation and payment of fees would be initially reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services with follow up reviews on an annual basis. The Campus for Jewish Life would also provide reduced cost memberships for the JCC for residents of the adjacent BUILD/Bridge project. Other benefits that would be offered by CJL City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 9 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that would directly affect the BUILD senior housing project would be discounted memberships. The JCC would provide discounted memberships to the low-income residents of the BUILD senior housing projects, which includes the 56 units, which would house approximately 70 residents. This discount offered would be an 80 percent reduction of the applicable JCC standard membership fee. Initially this reduced membership is projected to be $20 or less per month. Transportation assistance. The Jewish residents would provide transportation assistance to the low-income residents of the BUILD senior housing project. The JSR shuttle services would be made available to BUILD residents on a space available basis. The JSR anticipates that space available will accommodate the needs of the BUILD residents because of the number and frequency of shuttle trips will most likely be offered to the JSR residents. The cost to provide the shuttle is about $200,000 per year and in the unlikely circumstance that JSR discontinues shuttle services for residents then this benefit would not be offered to the BUILD residents. Following up on the Architectural Review Board reviews of the project, in addition to numerous preliminary reviews over the course of about two years the ARB has conducted two formal reviews of each project and has recommended approval of each project to the Commission and City Council. Minutes of the review are contained in the supplemental book that came with your Staff Report. During the March 29 review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report the Commission made comments and had questions that related to architecture and design. The ARB responded to those comments and a summary of those review meetings are contained within each Staff Report. The Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment D of each report summarizes the Architectural Review findings that would be required for the approval of the development plan. Again, Judith Wasserman is here from the ARB to answer any questions for you. Finally the Conditions of Approval would also apply to the project. Both projects would have standard condition of approval that would apply during the final map and building permit processesl These conditions are contained in the Architectural Review Resolution in Attachment D. Staff recognizes that each of these projects is large and complex and would represent a significant change to the neighborhood. In response to comments from members of the public and adjacent property owners Staff has recommended specific conditions of approval that would address concerns that have been communicated to Staff. So within the Conditions of Approval condition number six in the Campus for Jewish Life Staff Report and condition number eight in the BUILD Staff Report would require a construction impact minimization plan on neighboring businesses developed with cooperation from the neighboring business owners. The plan would identify potential impacts for construction and the time when those impacts would be expected to occur and how those impacts would be minimized. Specifically for the Campus for Jewish Life there are a number of conditions that Staff is recommending based upon the size and complexity of the project and the uses that are being proposed, Condition number eight contains a condition about the cultural hall and it is a cultural hall use schedule requirement. It states that the JCC shall provide to the Planning Division a City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 10 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 monthly calendar that includes all of the proposed events within the cultural hall theater space. Each event shall include a description of the event, hours, expected attendance and a description of any other significant events that are taking place at the JCC during the time of the event. Staff has recently requested that the applicant provide a noise study to address the effects of amplified music on nearby residences. Copies of that noise report were put at your places and are available at the table to the rear. The noise study concluded that effect of the amplified music on nearby residential areas would be within the limits of the Noise Ordinance until 10:30 each evening. So based upon that noise report Staff is recommending a condition that deals with amplified sound limitations. We have recommended, condition number nine, that all outdoor events with amplified sound shall cease operations no later than 10:00 PM seven days per week. Noise levels shall not exceed those limits proscribed by the City ofPalo Alto’s Noise Ordinance and if Staff receives substantial complaints about amplified sound these hours may be further restricted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment or referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for review. Condition number 10 speaks to the Jewish Community Center and neighborhood association meetings. JCC management staff and Board Members of the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association shall meet periodically as agreed upon by the participants to discuss issues related to the operation and use of the JCC facility. JCC management and staff and Palo Verde Neighborhood Association Board Members shall make contact information including telephone numbers and email addresses available to each organization. In order to improve pedestrian movements into and out of the Fabian Way driveway Staff is recommending that the Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD projects shall relocate and upgrade the existing pedestrian crosswalk across Fabian currently located near the northern property line of the BUILD parcel. This crosswalk shall be located to align with the Fabian Way driveway into the Campus for Jewish Life. Finally, condition number 21 of the Campus for Jewish Life conditions indicates a requirement for shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking Onto adjacent facilities for special events when required by the Conditions of Approval or the EIR mitigation measures. This shared parking agreement must be submitted at least two weeks in advance of any event. So that concludes the Staff Report and description of the projects. There are a couple of minor corrections that we would like to let the Commission know about and they are mainly in the BUILD Staff Report within the Planned Community District Ordinance. This would be Attachment C in Section 4, Roman Numeral V. Commissioner Cassel: Do you have a page number? Mr. Turner: Yes, it is on page 3. This speaks to the second mortgage program for as it states here for public employees. It should state second mortgage program for local employees. It essentially would be offered to local employees instead of the public employees as listed there with a priority on City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District employees. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 11 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The second correction would be to Roman Number VI this is payment of the additional Charleston/Arastradero fees. It should state that payment of $480,000 of the cost of implementing the Charleston/Arastradero Plan would be part of the public benefit package. In Section 7 of that same Attachment under Site Development Regulations it speaks to the development schedule. The development schedule includes the project phasing of the plan. So about halfway down in that paragraph on page 9 of that attachment the sentence starts off, "That the applicant anticipates that the completion of Phase 1," this is what the correction should be, "the completion of Phase 1 is likely to occur no sooner than 2009 with the senior phase to be completed by the end of 2012." That would be a correction that would be brought back. Each of these corrections would be brought back to the Commission on the July 26 meeting. So that concludes my portion of the Staff Report and I will hand it over to Curtis Williams to speak to the environmental aspects of the project. Mr. C. Williams, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thanks Steven, take a breath. That is a lot of work Steven put into this effort. I just want to try to encapsulate for you some of the changes that were made in the Final Environmental Impact Report. For the project you reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, held a public hearing on it, accepted comments and the Staff and the consultant have addressed all of those comments, indexed them and responded to all of those. That Final Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with the Draft represents the final environmental document for the project. You are required as the lead agency and the Council ultimately to certify that this Environmental Impact Report is completed in accordance with CEQA, that you have reviewed and considered the impacts and information contained in the Final EIR and that it reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The CEQA findings are inclUded as Steven mentioned in Attachment B of to the Staff Report and that also is appended then by the mitigation monitoring program for each of the projects. The mitigation monitoring program essentially sets out all the mitigation measures, who is responsible for implementing them and when that is to be done. It serves as kind of a checklist to go through before a building permit or before occupancy these things are all taken care of. The responses to comments were primarily directed at three or four key areas. Transportation was one. There was some supplemental information included outlining improvements in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor particularly pedestrian and bicycle improvements that would help mitigate impactson pedestrian and bicycle use. A TDM, Transportation Demand Management, plan is an additional mitigation measure and has been submitted by the applicant as an attachment to your Staff Report. The intent of that is to achieve a 15 percent reduction in total trips generated from the site and it requires an annual monitoring program be submitted. The mitigation for parking for special events Steven mentioned has not changed. Previously the situation has been made better by the reduction in the number of units on the BUILD portion of the property from the original proposal. So there is no longer a need for the two projects to share City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 12 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 parking but we do still request that on weeknights when there is some possibility of some overlap of the uses that we have the special event parking plan and if necessary off-site agreement from the applicant, CJL. There is a revised mitigation measure for the left turn movements from Charleston that now rather than prohibiting all left turn movements prohibit the left turn in but do allow for left turns out of the site because of the minimal number of turns and the time for getting out into traffic appears to be adequate based on the transportation analysis. Similarly the loading space along San Antonio Road, which was originally suggested, should not be there the applicant has proposed a series of conditions and a design that we feel works adequately. It limits.trucks leaving that space to turn right only onto Charleston and use truck routes out of town and also requires that the loading space be entirely on CJL’s property and not in the right-of-way. There was further analysis of impacts on local roads, neighborhood cut-through traffic, and the traffic consultant determined that there would not be a significant impact in terms of the number of potential additional trips particularly on Louis and Ross Road. Hazards and hazardous materials. The CJL risk management plan has now been approved. There is an indication that it was close to approval in the Staff Report and it now has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and all of those various conditions in there are made conditions of this permit and are required to be implemented along with some Fire Department requests for shelter in place and emergency preparedness plans. Visually resources and aesthetic impacts. As Steven mentioned the ARB has looked at the plans and is supportive of both projects. They have provided responses to some of the issues that the Commission brought up and did consider that in their deliberations. Approvals are subject to some items returning either on subcommittee level to the Board with the exception of the tower, which has to come back wholly as a new public hearing before the Board, and noticed to all the neighbors to look at that design when it is prepared. I do want to note because some of the letters and cards that came in mentioned lighting on the top of the tower. At this point there is no lighting proposed for the tower. That would be something that would be reviewed at a later date if that were even proposed. There is a condition of approval that suggests that any lighting shall be very low level and just for highlight and should be turned off at a reasonable hour. It didn’t specify the hour but that would be determined as part of that review. Cumulative impact on public facilities was a common comment particularly schools, parks and libraries. School impact fees are paid and that from a CEQA standpoint is specifically adequate to address the school impact issues but there is some additional information in the document that has been provided about some of the background on schools. We can go into it if you like. As for the parks issue we think that this project is providing community facilities that are going to be useful to all of the residents of Palo Alto. So it is not deficient as far as parks go. There will also be some park fees paid by the market rate townhouse units on the BUILD property. Also community facilities fees include library impact fees, which will go into helping support additional library improvements. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 13 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 One other comment is that what was Alternative D in the original Draft EIR has been deleted from the Final EIR. That is what is called the BUILD Design Alternative. That is BUILD’s proposed project now. So the project definition has been refined to specifically represent that reduced number of units that BUILD has proposed and the alternative is no longer necessary. The analysis was adjusted to address the project as it now stands. So the Commission as its first action on July 26 is to recommend and is necessary to address the Environmental Impact Report part of this before making any actions or approvals on the rest of the project. So you will need to again certify the EIR including adoption of the findings and the mitigation monitoring program that are attached. So that is a summary of the environmental and we will let Judith discuss a little bit the ARB review of the projects. Ms. Judith Wasserman, Architectural Review Board Member: Thank you. I am not going to say very much because I would rather answer your questions. One of the things that we did discuss about EIRs in general is that they never ask about the positive aspects of the project. They always assume anything new is a bad idea and we have to figure out how to mitigate that. Whereas we felt that this project was a benefit. It was a good thing and that we didn’t have to make excuses for it. The project was enthusiastically and unanimously supported by the Board and we felt that it was both inspired and inspiring. There is a lot of poetry on a lot of different levels in this project that made us feel like architecture had a good name after all. We did see it a lot. It came to us in many preliminary hearings because it was just too big to get our hands around in the two allowed formal meetings. So we saw it in many stages. We had what we felt was an extremely cooperative applicant. When we asked for further delineations of things, very long contextual elevations, color renderings of various things we always, got what we asked for. It always described how much better things were getting as things went along. Technically there are two projects but they both had the same architect, which turned out to be although unusual very beneficial. The projects are tied together very well, they use common space very well, and the color palettes are compatible with each other. The whole thing seems to hold together very nicely. We understood from some of your questions that one of the difficult issues had to do with the raised nature of the project that basically at grade all we had was parking and that the real stuff was all at the podium level. One of our concerns was how that podium level related to the street and how did you get from grade up to the podium level. We felt that was addressed successfully both from Fabian and from Charleston that we didn’t feel it was an appropriate consideration to do that from San Antonio because there was hardly any pedestrian traffic on San Antonio. There is a way up but it is not a major - I am sure Rob will go into all the site planning with you. So we thought that that worked out very successfully. One of the questions had to do with the relationship to the neighborhood and precedent setting. My immediate reaction to that was yes, this is a precedent setting project and a damn good thing too because this is a neighborhood that doesn’t have very much to recommend it architecturally and this will be a very high bar to set for City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 14 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the neighborhood and that it will be an improvement in both the real estate way and the literal way that this is going to be a great asset not only to the neighborhood but to the City as a whole. I think that the applicant is going to discuss all the details of the project but one of the things that I thought was particularly well done was the way the site planning took advantage of the fact that there are no cars on the podium. I think this is something that we will all envy as we go about our daily lives dealing with cars in our pedestrian lives to have a space in the City that is free of vehicles and you can just walk arotmd and enjoy the varied differently designed spaces for different purposes. I would be happy to answer anything that I might remember from what we did. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much. Do we have questions that we want to ask now of Staffor can we go do the developer’s report? Okay, then Iwill proceed. I will ask the developer to come forward. By the way, if any of you wish to speak please fill out a card. Please print your name, you are not signing anything, I need to be able to read it. The first person to speak tonight is going to be Lydia Tan the developer is putting these two projects relatively together. Someone will speak from each project and then the architect is going to present the whole project. We are going to give them half an hour to do this since it is two projects. Just speak right into these mikes. They are very sensitive to the angle that you are speaking into them. Ms. Lydia Tan, Bridge Housing Corporation and Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, Applicant: Thank you very much. I am Executive Vice President of both Bridge Housing Corporation and Bridge Urban Infill Land Development. Very quickly on agenda as Chairperson Cassel indicated I am going to speak a little bit about our proposal, the BUILD proposal. Shelly Heb6rt, the Executive Director of Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life will do the same for her proposal. We are going to give the bulk of our time to Rob Steinberg, our architect, to walk you through our development proposal. So very quickly about Bridge Housing Corporation for those of you who are unfamiliar with us we are a non-profit housing developer. Our offices are in San Francisco we are based in San Francisco. We also have a satellite office in San Diego and we work throughout C~ilifomia to create as much very high quality affordable housing throughout the state as possible. That is our main mission. Over the 23 years we have been in business we now have a portfolio of about 12,000 homes. We are home to about 25,000 residents all working and very active members of their communities. Very quickly BUILD, Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, is the applicant for us and BUILD is a partnership between Bridge and the California Public Employees Retirement System. When we started this process back in 2002 we were a $100 million partnership between Cal-PERS and Bridge. We got another allocation being able to invest Cal-PERS dollars into urban environments throughout California trying to create great urban environments. Very quickly on the development our first presentation to the City was in 2004. Steven Turner talked about our first presentation to the community was the end of 2002. We have been having a very extensive dialogue over the many, many years as the project has morphed and changed over time. Frankly, from the time we started our first initial concept to where we are today we City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 15 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 really appreciated all of the input from the community, the input from all of the public bodies who have helped us along over the past years. Just to highlight our original proposal was about 230 homes on the four-acre parcel and we are now down to 159 units as Mr. Turner had indicated. The other main change since we originally made our application is that the senior component has moved from San Antonio over to Fabian to try and give more of a pedestrian orientation to the project but also to help with the seniors in terms of access to other parts of the City. As we think about what we have done we have reduced the height, we have reduced bulk, we have reduced impact on traffic and other things and we actually scratched our heads a couple of weeks ago and said why are we doing a PC zone? We are actually under 40 units to the acre. We really don’t have the kind of impact that a normal PC zone would be having on the environment but we are happy to be doing that. We are happy to be providing the public benefit that we proposed. Just very quickly on the public benefit the Charleston/Arastradero improvements are actually quite near and dear to our hearts. Folks might recall that when the original study for Charleston/Arastradero was in place both the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD donated $20,000 to start that study. So we are very much invested in making sure that those improvements go into place and are successful. On the mortgage assistance program we are really excited about the idea of trying to create more affordable housing above and beyond what we would normally be required to do and provide it at a level that isn’t normally addressed with the normal public programs. So we are really happy to be doing that. Then very quickly on the BMR agreement there is the proposal, and there are two backup alternatives. I just want to very strongly iterate that it is our strong preference that the proposal that is in front of you is the preferred direction as far as Bridge and BUILD is concerned. We fully intend to build the 56 units as affordable senior. There are a lot of funding sources we will still have to pull together in order to make it happen so. Staff has wisely asked us and pushed us to come up with a couple of alternatives to make sure that in some way, shape or form the BMR requirements would be dealt with. So we are happy to have come to agreement on that. The last thing I want to say is I do want to very much thank Staff over the four years. As you can imagine ifI listed everybody I would list every single person that works for the City of Palo Alto. So just very quickly I want to thank in particular Steven Turner, Curtis Williams and Amy French and Steve Emslie for sticking with us and helping us to create a really great project. We are really excited about this project. So I will now ask Shelley Heb6rt to come up and talk about the Taube-Koret. Ms. Shelley Heb6rt, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Applicant: Good evening. I am the Executive Director for the development of the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life. On behalf of the partners in the project, the Palo Alto Jewish Community Center and the Jewish Home of San Francisco I want to say how excited we are to have reached this point. We have appeared before you two previous times for a conceptual review and in relation to our Draft Environmental Impact Report. All together there have been 15 public hearings on the project over the past several years in addition to many meetings with neighborhood groups including the City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 16 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Green Meadow Community Association, Palo Verde Neighborhood Association and Palo Alto Neighborhoods among others. I believe that working with Staff all issues and concerns have been addressed. We havemade some modifications as a result of neighborhood input. I would especially like to express our appreciation to Staff for their hard work throughout this very complex process. This evening we brought several key people from our project team to be able to respond to questions. I would like to introduce Rob Steinberg and Randy Popp of Steinberg Architects, from our project management team Todd Aris, John [Eicko] and Jerry Fang of the Regis Aris Group, Jim Baer our City Approvals Consultant, Sandy Sloan our land use attorney and David Cook, our environmental attorney. The unique combination of a privately funded community center integrated with senior tiousing in a true inter-generational environment has inspired our Board, our volunteers, donors and professional team to create a project that we are very proud to present to you this evening. We believe it provides significant public benefit to the entire community through open membership to the JCC and access to the senior living residences for people of all backgrounds and faiths. In addition to the public benefits inherent to the project the Campus will provide great public benefit through an arrangement described earlier this evening with the City of Palo Alto Department of Community Services for shared use of JCC facilities including a gymnasium, aerobic and dance rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms, teen center, cultural hall among others. We are very respectful of the extensive public input process over the past two years as well as the time available this evening. Therefore we have not asked the hundreds of JCC supporters in our community to be here tonight to express their concerns and support of the project. Now I would like to ask Rob Steinberg to provide you with an Overview of the project design. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects: Good evening. As we heard from Staff there are quite a number of issues to discuss so what I would like to do is just give you a brief overview of our proposal. Let me begin by saying that this is a redevelopment of an existing site. You can see a fairly large existing building, almost 100 feet on the site. I will remind you that we are near residential but we are not tangent to the residential and interestingly enough and positive we have access to a number of different roadways in order to distribute traffic in a variety of different directions. The 12.5-acre site is broken up roughly sort of one-third/two-thirds. On the left or the north side is the BUILD/Bridge component that Lydia just told you about. There are 3.5 acres for market rate housing located here and about half an acre for senior housing, low and very low income on that part of the site. The additional 8.5 acres to the right or to the south is the Campus for Jewish Life site. As you have heard we have been at this process for about two years going through the entitlement process. Our anticipation is that hopefully in the next several months we will conclude that. We have certainly done our very best to be inclusive and collaborative as we have gone through this process and we look forward to a thoughtful exchange with you this evening. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 17 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The proposal that we have has two components and I would like to begin by talking about the four acre component that is comprised of Bridge housing and BUILD. Our original design that we brought to the City was significantly more aggressive than the proposal that we are sharing with you this evening. It had about 230 units. It was a large interior hallway loaded building. It had four large courtyards that really were defined by three, four and five story buildings. Our current proposal that we have in front of you this evening as you heard has been reduced by about 30 percent. Probably more significant than that is we have taken this one very large building and we have broken it into 12 smaller buildings. We have organized these 12 smaller buildings along pedestrian walk-streets on top of the parking. It is a very interesting prototype. It is a building type that we don’t really have here in Palo Alto currently. We have organized this part of the site around a large open courtyard and then there is a muse or a pedestrian walk- street that goes off to the east and connects through to the Campus for Jewish Life. There is also an eastern muse that takes you and connects through a grand street stairway out to Fabian. We have purposely located the senior component on the front of the site near our shared driveway in effort to provide dignity for the seniors, to provide convenient access to transportation and a connection to the City. What is interesting is that comer of that building is the shared entry drive to the entire mixed use development and is shared with the Campus for Jewish Life. For that reason we took the lobby, we took the internal stair and we raised that up as really an entry gateway to the entire mixed use community. The market rate housing is comprised of two and three story buildings. Instead of being large elevator access buildings all of the units are accessed through private courtyards or stoops or gardens that lead you directly from the outside into your unit much like a single-family house. What is kind of interesting and one of the things that we tried very hard to do is to create a sense of arrival to these homes that made that experience sort of an unfolding adventure. So for example if you walked into the site you would come along a gateway and someone’s private patio, you would come to a very wide stairway instead of having it go up vertically it comes up a few steps to a landing, up a few steps to a landing and then you come to a large portal and you are able to look into the site. What you do is you look into a very large central square, our open space. On this large open space we have actually developed what we refer to as sort of community sized front porch swings adjacent to the lawns and the open area, some very large swings that are a place to connect with your neighbors, to have activity and movement, some kinetic energy in that space and to liven that space and to give our central square a sense of identity. From that space you could move off into the muse and down to the individual residences. Similar to the BUILD and the Bridge activity the Campus for Jewish Life is all about connections. This portion of the site also has two components. It has 193 units of continuing care retirement community residence for seniors and support activities and has about 135,000 square feet of community center space to it. It is really a very unusual mix of uses. You might say, Rob, with this kind of mix of uses how do you pull together a design that knits this together? I will tell you it has been a very interesting experience. One of the mechanisms that we used is with our group we developed nine guiding principles. We used these principles to help us sort of gauge the success of ideas that we brought forward. It gave us a sense of focus and an ability to direct our decision-making to see if we were really achieving our goals. So for example one of the things that we decided is that the journey is as important as the destination, that the interstitial City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 18 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 spaces and the connections were very, very important and we should encourage informal kinds of activities as much as program kinds of spaces. Another principle that we talked about was trying to get the buildings to reflect their purpose and function. The reason that we did this is we wanted to have variety, we wanted to have a unified campus but we wanted to do that without having uniformity and repetition to the buildings. I will show you how we did that in just a minute. The third and sort of the last principle, I am just giving you a little sampling here, is that we wanted to reinforce the idea of looking upward for divine inspiration. So we tried to add detail that visually drew your eye upwards on the buildings as part of our design vocabulary. So maybe that sounds very simple but it actually was rather complicated. We spent several years exploring different alternatives. You are looking at five of them and I am not going to go into all of them but you can see for example the green is the senior housing, here it was in this location, then it was in that location, then it moved in a different way, then it folded in different directions. In each of these iterations we wrestled with issues like security, connection, access both pedestrian and vehicular, and we focused not just internally but how we were also connecting to the City fabric as well. So we wound up and we settled on a land use plan that we think is very successful. We think it is open and welcoming and inclusive and we also think it gives a sense of identity to each of our users. So for example, the blue is the community center and the blue and the community center expresses itself on each of the three streets in different ways. The green is the senior housing and that has its own presence on Charleston. You can see that we moved it away from the busy intersection and sort of brought it into the middle of the block. The tan or orange color is where we have community center on the ground or on the grade or the podium and we have housing vertically integrated over the top of that. So we have a sense of identity but we have also tried to knit the two into an integrated, inter-generational mixed use neighborhood. To me what really makes this plan extraordinary is not just the mix of users but the mix of uses and how this can contribute to our community. We have fitness, indoor and outdoor pools, administrative areas, after school programs, preschool programs, restaurants, retail, adult activities, senior residential, senior dining and support facilities, cultural facilities all integrated horizontally and vertically on the same site. From the very beginning our vision included the idea that we wanted this not just to be a collection of buildings but we wanted to create outdoor rooms that were framed between the buildings. What is so exciting to me is that we have a whole series of different shaped outdoor rooms and they vary between places that are hardscape and areas that are more richly landscaped so that they can accommodate a whole variety of sizes and different kinds of functions. I just wanted to wrap up by showing you a few images of this. This is a view of the cultural hall looking from Charleston. There is a two-story glass lobby into the theater that suggests a sense of openness, a transparency. If you look carefully you can see that we are detailing the roof so that there are elements on the top of it that draw you eye upwards as I explained to you. When you enter from Fabian you see outdoor pools and indoor pools. There is the outdoor pool on the terrace, indoor pools with glass connection to the outdoor pool and the gymnasium. What we are trying to do is to suggest a sense of structure like your bones, like the skeleton of a body with skin that is stretching between them. So it has a little different character than cultural building. The senior building on Charleston is proud, it is welcoming, it is part of our front door. It combines a whole series of outdoor and indoor spaces that are tailored to the special needs of mobility and visibility of seniors. As I mentioned to you as important as our rooms in our building are these interstitial spaces that we have, spaces that City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 19 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 are for arrival, more intimate kind of spaces, our town square that will accommodate all sorts of large activities and abilities to have cultural activities indoors and outdoors where the campus and the community could come together as one. I would like to just tell you as a long term resident of Palo Alto, as a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects that it is really a privilege to be with you tonight and share our vision for BUILD and for Bridge and for the Campus for Jewish Life with you. I want to tell you on a personal note that I am very confident that this proposal that we have in front of you tonight combines the best practices of Planning, of Design, of Smart Growth with the values of our community and the expectations for the quality of life and activity that our residents deserve and expect. So we are very appreciative to share our thoughts with you tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Do you have questions of the developer? Do you want to go right to the public hearing? All right then we will move directly to the public hearing. We may have questions of you later. Those of you who wish to speak you will have five minutes to speak. You may speak on both projects at the same time so that we will not have two .separate hearings on each project. You can integrate your comments then for both and any comments you wish to make on the Final Environmental Impact Report. We will give you five minutes to speak. If you don’t need the five minutes you don’t have to use it. We have 27 speakers so that is over two hours if you all use five minutes. I am sure you will not all do that but on the other hand I want to give you an opportunity to say what is important to you. The first person to speak tonight is Bob Evans to be followed by Betsy Allyn. When you come up will you please say your name and the town in which you live? Thank you. Mr. Bob Evans, Palo Alto: Hi. I live right on Gailen on the other side of Fabian. I think the project looks beautiful. When I first started to see it on the website I think it was quite clear what it would look like and everything. I like the idea of taking down the Sun building and hopefully getting something that I didn’t see from my front, back and side yards anymore, which would be the Sun building. However, I notice that these buildings which are 56 feet are now moved closer to Fabian than the Sun building is so the one think I would like to criticize although the website and the architecture stuff is beautiful is it didn’t give me any kind of a aspect ratio as to what I’ll be looking at from the neighborhood. What is the perspective from the surrounding streets as to how high this thing really is versus the fact that the Sun building was set so far back from the residential area there, which is the Meadow Park area. So that is number one. That aside I would like to make sure since these are 56 feet tall and they actually have very large wide roofs that we don’t have any plans or future plans on having any parties or any kind of stand up and look around at Palo Alto on these rooftops, any kind of an area other than air conditioning and general maintenance. I am hoping that is the case but I haven’t seen that spelled out. Perhaps my biggest concern is the fact that the City of Palo Alto has already voted on and passed something to fix all the storm water runoff. In our neighborhood we flood. That is just right on City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 20 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the other side of Fabian. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist although perhaps we should have hired one for this report because I think this person that did the storm drain water report probably didn’t make it through high school science. The reason I state that is because this water report and the storm stuff seems to be totally focused on the pollution aspect and impact of what we are going to do to the creek. This project doesn’t state nor does this report state that this water runoff will go into that creek. Now, I think that the fact that this is a report about the water runoff kind of alludes to the fact that the City or somebody has hired a consultant to explain that it is really not a problem they are going to take care of the pollution. Well, that is really deflection from the fact of flooding because it doesn’t really talk about flooding at all or our streets or our problems in the neighborhood which is the water runoff from our streets during a storm opens up into a gate that like less than halfway in height from the full height of Adobe Creek. Every time that water level rises with the tide that gate closes and the water begins to rise all the way up my driveway and my neighbor’s. So much so that in our neighborhood we went out and all chipped in and bought a pump because the City doesn’t pump the water out. So we have our own pumping station in our neighborhood for the flooding issue. This doesn’t talk about that. They didn’t talk to anybody in our neighborhood because there are so many people that know about it and yet it is not mentioned. That is a 10,000 gallon an hour pump we got from Granger that kind of keeps up with the rain. So the City passed something where we were supposed to get $600,000 for this pump station to be put in but the San Francisquito Creek is really getting all the focus of making that area stop flooding and there is nothing in our area. I would like to know if the builders of this project, which all stand to make a lot of money, the architects, the builders, the community itself and the retail and so on have even heard of this before? You said I am asking questions, right? Commissioner Cassel: No, you are not asking questions. You will just give us the information and then we will check on that later. Mr. Evans: I see. Okay. I misunderstood you then in the beginning of this. Commissioner Cassel: The Commissioners will be asking questions. Mr. Evans: Okay. So my primary concern then to sum it up is how come we can’t hire real contractors to go investigate and explore this? Thank you.. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Betsy Allyn to be followed by Judith Fields. Ms. Betsy Allyn, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Willmar Drive on the comer across from Terman School. I would like to just make a few comments tonight. I would like to thank Mr. Steinberg for his drawings they show a great deal of imagination. I want to speak sort of from a South Palo Alto neighborhood standpoint and that is that this is really a city in city. This is the first time Palo Alto has ever done anything like this. This is precedent setting and what you do will be with us for a long time, the bad and the good. It is a regional facility. People will be coming from all over the Bay Area so there is much traffic and much safety and much impact to be thought about. I think that there is no possible way that the full future impacts on South Palo Alto and the neighborhood of this massive project can be measured or for that matter mitigated. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 21 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I am extremely concerned about the safety in this area and up on the corridor. As it has been said many times it is a School Safety Corridor, it is a school commute corridor, thousands of children use it and I don’t think there has been an adequate analysis of the safety features of this road at certain times of the year and at certain times. I would like to see lighted crosswalks for the children and pedestrians. I would like to see lighted bike crossways for the bicyclists and maybe even possibly lighted bike paths on the streets through there. Another important point I think is the total actually approved multi-family housing units in South Palo Alto so far is now 3,550 units planned and going to be built. There are 2,454 units noted by the City but it is 3,550. There is a study that has been done showing the housing units sold in South Palo Alto, 43 percent of those that have been sold were sold to families with what else? Children, and those children will be going to school. Adding a 134,000 square foot recreation center and a 380 seat theater for special events and the usage on a 24/7 basis is going to be a real problem for this intersection and this area particularly for the neighborhoods because they will get the traffic. I am wondering if both those buildings could not be scaled back just a little bit and make very sure that the parking is on site. Having lived across from Terman for several years we did experience the parking on our neighborhood streets. I think also that the applicant should be required to provide shuttle services for all of its occupants for local shopping and medical trips to decrease the traffic. I think the City should require that the construction company use certain traffic routes and parking areas for trucks and workers and have enforceable measures of responsibility so that the construction company is responsible for those rules being followed and not the City. I think that the 50-foot height limit must be respected with a six to 12 foot above grade allowed where possible. The 50-foot height limit in Palo Alto has been rather sanctified and respected. Also, there should be absolutely no 60 to 95 foot tower. This would be setting a huge precedent and is way beyond being acceptable. It is not one ofPalo Alto’s values and it should not be. It would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. I want to say it would be almost an insult but I am not going to say that. Palo Alto has never managed a project of this complexity and size. It is certainly precedent setting and therefore must be held to acceptable standards and accountable standards for the City and the residents. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. We are going to hear two more speakers and then we will take a break. The next person to speak is Judith Fields to be followed by Alan Bennett. Ms. Judith Fields, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am going to speak in favor of this project. Many other people will laud the design or tell you about various components. I am going to speak to why I think philosophically it needs to be approved. One of the things Palo Alto prides itself on is maintaining diversity. This is one way to do that to have homes for our seniors. The price of this project is likely to be more affordable or more accessible to a greater number of people than some of the other projects in Palo Alto. Our seniors should not be punished because they grow old. They should be able to live in Palo Alto. We know the Bay Area is going to grow, different communities by different amounts. This is one way to manage our growth. Change is difficult whether change is personal or in our community and we need to accept that change is difficult and go from there. Every change has a reaction. We need to think of the common good. For instance Palo Alto has taxed itself to provide more money for the schools. We all agree the children deserve the best possible City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 22 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 education and it doesn’t matter whether we have children in school or have never had children in school. In the same way we need to look at the common good and have housing for our seniors because we will all be old someday and this is the kind of resource we. need. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Alan Bennett and when we finish the break Louise Lyman will be speaking first. Mr. Alan Bennett, Palo Alto: Good evening. I wanted to say a few words perhaps somewhat selfishly about what the project means to me and my wife and why I see it to be important. First the senior housing would be a potentially attractive option if we should age further. Despite what I deny whenever I look in the mirror I have a number of friends and contemporaries who are busily considering the senior housing options and I suspect that we will eventually be doing just that. The mix of independent and assisted living, the religiously diverse population and the chance to be next to a community center with an age diverse population all make the housing component of the project very attractive to us. I guess it is sort of obvious that at least the senior housing component of the projected plan really wouldn’t make any additional demands on the schools. Secondly, the senior programming will be potentially important to us no matter where we live in the area. Things like bridge, which frankly I leave to my wife but language clubs and lectures and social events and movies can all make a difference to the quality of our lives during the coming years. The bottom line is as a Palo Alto resident I am certainly concerned that traffic and environmental effects be minimized and I suspect City Staff and the Commission will work to. make that the case. I strongly support getting the campus up and running as quickly as is sensible. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you’. We are going to take a break of seven minutes. We will come back and we have another 20 people to speak. I’d like to call this meeting back to order. Would everyone please take a seat. We have a very good Vice Chair, he gave me a 20 second warning. Lee is acting as Vice-Chair this evening and we even have our next speaker, ready to go. That’ s how we get this moving this evening. Louise Lyman. Ms. Louise Lyman, Palo Alto: Hi, good evening. My name is Louise Lyman and I live right on the comer of Louis and Charleston and I can tell you that’s a busy corner already. I want people to realize that this is the biggest development that has ever been done in Palo Alto and do we realize how many homes are in the process of being approved of being built. I think somebody had already mentioned it, 3500 .feet. The biggest concern that I have is the traffic. Right now, this is on Charleston, the Charleston Corridor study, and the plan is to make Charleston go one lane each way. As it is now, cars are backed up the block with two lanes in each way and we know that there’s going to be hundreds of cars going into this development. Its going to be a gridlock, I can assure you. Now, as far as the plan for the Jewish Community Center they have got beautiful ideas, nice ideas, but to be able to put all of that in eight acres, they need 20 acres. It is going to so dense and so tall. We have a 50-foot building height limitin Palo Alto but it almost seems like that has not been obeyed at all with a 95 foot tower that is going to be 12 by 12. I noticed I didn’t see any of that on any of those buildings or in the display. Now I am kind City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 23 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 of wondering just exactly is that that little thing in the middle? That isn’t 95 feet comparatively. So many of the neighbors in the neighborhood are very concerned about a 95 foot tower especially if it is going to be lighted and what is going to happen. Another thing we are very concerned about is traffic, the U-turns and the left hand turns. As I say it is just going to be gridlock. The noise. This business of amplified music in the courtyard. Now no other place in Palo Alto lets you have outside noise until ten o’clock at night. When you have twilight orchestras or when you have any of the other outside events they stop at eight o’clock or 8:30. When I heard ten o’clock or 10:30 I’ll tell you that will never fly with us because I am like three doors away from it and I am already going to get earplugs. The density and the height I already mentioned. The parking is going to be I think a problem. I think that the auditorium holds 400 people and if there is another event that is also at the same time they are probably going to need some overflow parking. I know we would like to have it be that they call it an event so that they tell the City how many people are going to be there and how much parking is going to be needed. I did take a bit of offence at the woman who said, well this is going to be an improvement that is not a very nice neighborhood anyway. There isn’t really anything to be proud of. I thought, okay, I didn’t feel very good about that because we have some very nice homes and to have this dense and this high buildings right next to us is not going to be an improvement in livability. So as I say there are some very nice features in the whole center but you need 20 acres not eight to put them in. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Doris Petersen to .be followed by Richard Madigan. Ms. Doris Petersen, Palo Alto: I am President of the League of Women Voters. Well Commissioners, the League of Women Voters supports with enthusiasm the two proposals for developments at 901 San Antonio Road which are before you tonight. We urge you to recommend the Planned Community District that is requested. These developments have been in discussion with the City for at the last two years. An extensive Environmental Impact Report has been completed. Changes to the plans have improved them. The proposals adhere to dozens of Comprehensive Plan policies, help the City meet its Housing Element agreement with the state, further availability of diverse housing types for different income levels in the City, improve a deteriorating section of the City and provide other benefits to families already residing there. The League is pleased that the 103 unit for sale townhouse development will provide some entry-level housing and units at prices not often seen in Palo Alto. One bedroom to four bedroom units are priced at today’s market from the range of $400,000 to $800,000. BUILD’s inclusive housing requirement of 16 units will be met by fund to Bridge for 19 rental units of the 56 affordable senior rental units planned on the Fabian side of the property. This entire rental housing project will serve low income and very low-income seniors with at least 30 units reserved for extremely low-income persons, a group often ignored. This housing responds to many of the League’s housing positions as well as to our City Housing Element contract with the state. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 24 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Many components of the Campus for Jewish Life development like the 193 senior residential units it is building, the Fabian entry plaza shared by both BUILD and TKCJL, the shuttle service that will provide senior from both developments and CJL recreation facilities that will be open to the community will improve the livability of the area. We are pleased with additional public benefits from BUILD. One, an impact fee to the Charleston/Arastradero road improvement program of five times the required amount and two, a new second mortgage program for local workers with preference for Palo Alto City and school district employees with terms such as three percent simple interest, interest only payments for ten years of the loan, targeted to households earning from 100 to 150 percent of area median income and available for properties throughout the City. This will encourage homeownership for families now priced out of the market. We urge approval of the Planned Community District for both BUILD and TKCJL. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Richard Madigan to be followed by Karen Stiller. Mr. Richard Madigan, Menlo Park: Good evening. I am Director and Senior Property Manager for California Pacific Commercial Corporation with an office in Menlo Park. We have been a property owner in Palo Alto since 1956. We presently own ten parcels totaling nearly 18 acres in the immediate are of the proposed development including three properties right across the street on Fabian Way. Of primary concern to us as a neighbor is a requested Design Enhancement Exception for a sculptural tower element of approximately .96 feet in height. We strongly believe this artistic element, which rises some 30 feet higher than the already imposing 65 foot structural tower is both inappropriate and totally unwarranted. Having recently met with the project manager and the architect it is now evident that this highly visible illuminated spire is not a key element to the project nor does it serve any useful purpose. It is simply a self-promotional architectural adornment the details of which still remain unknown. Given the massive size and scope of this development one would hope the applicant would endeavor when possible to mitigate the project’s impacts on the community. Instead, this non-functional, needless, aesthetic element would attract still further attention to this site compounding such important concerns as traffic and parking. Finally, given the low profile nature of our neighborhood where safety and security have long been valued how is such a visible potential target of any benefit to the neighborhood? Put simply, our view is that the most excessive feature of this project is also the least essential and that only negatives will potentially result from approval of this ill-advised, non-integral, aesthetic element. In offering these few remarks her tonight Cal Pacific would also be pleased to discuss the matter in greater detail with the Commissioners. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Karen Stiller to be followed by Natalie Krauss Bivas. I hope I am pronouncing your names close to right. Ms. Karen Stiller, Jewish Community Relations Council: Thank you. I am the Peninsula Director the Jewish Community Relations Council. I am here to speak this evening in strong City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 25 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 support of this project. I have been really impressed with the planning process that the Campus has gone through with the diligence they have engaged the community with and the degree to which this will be a project and a place for the entire community. I would like to focus on a few areas behind why I am so supportive of this project. First of all, this will be a tremendous bridge building for our community. It will be open to people from all walks of life and all backgrounds. It will be a place of gathering for people who might not otherwise cross paths. Other Bay Area JCCs bear out this and the Terman site also showed this to be true. Second, we are all concerned about the welfare of the youth in our community. As a former social worker I can attest to the benefits of having a healthy and positive place for teens to go in the times that they are out of school or not sleeping. The teen center in the new JCC will really be a big benefit to the teens in the community. It will be an excellent resource and a positive place that they can go and find programming that is needed. Additionally due to the unique nature of the project there would be opportunities for intergenerational exchange, which is something that will be of benefit both for seniors as well as benefits to teens. Third, a mom of a nearly one-year old daughter I am looking forward to the preschool programs and after school programs the JCC will provide. As many people here I am sure know there is a limited amount of resources for this in our community, limited amount of resources of high quality preschool programs. Wasn’t there just a ballot initiative about this particular issue? Anyway, I am really looking forward to the expanded services that the JCC will beable to provide. So in sum I just want to again state my strong support for this project and I thank you for your time. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Natalie Krauss Bivas to be followed by Jeff Rensch. Ms. Natalie Krauss Bivas, Palo Alto: Thank you and I must say you are one of the few people who has ever pronounced my name absolutely correctly. I am a Palo Alto resident. I am also a Palo Alto Unified School District teacher. I am a reading specialist and English as a Second Language Specialist at Palo Verde School. I am here to speak in support of this project. I can tell you as a teacher that parents are really burdened in trying to find daycare, preschool and after school programs for children in Palo Alto. The benefit of this project is that this project can service children from Hoover School, Fair Meadow School and Palo Verde it is a very short commute from all of those three schools. As a teacher of English as a Second Language I try to find programs for my children who have come from China, Korea, Japan, Israel who don’t speak English such as after school programs, summer camp programs where they can improve their English in a way that is better than being in a classroom where the rule is quiet. They can have an exchange with children before they have really made friends. I really look forward to the new JCC providing that service for children. As I listened to Mr. Steinberg and Ms. Tan I realize another benefit of this program as a teacher in Palo Alto. Two of our most beloved teachers at Palo Verde this year are leaving because they cannot afford to live here. They happen to be married to two other Palo Alto teachers. So just in my small orbit that is four teachers leaving because they can’t live in Palo Alto. This project City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 26 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 could potentially provide housing for the many, many teachers who leave, the young teachers who cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. I also realized as I was sitting here that I am about to reach the 24th anniversary of my move to Palo Alto. I came here 24 years ago pregnant with my first child. The very first people that we met were moving from New Jersey, they knew our sisters and they were bringing my sister’s crib with them. The husband was the director of the JCC and he was to oversee the move to Terman, which was a temporary location. Twenty-four years have passed, this man has been retired for years, the baby that I was pregnant with is now a graduate student and there is still not a permanent home for the JCC. I really hope that beside the service that first used at the JCC, the nursery school, but the next service that I use isn’t the senior housing because it hasn’t seen its fruition yet. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. JeffRensch to be followed by Sandra Grimsrud. Mr. JeffRensch, Palo Alto: Honorable Commissioners I live in South Palo Alto and am a member of All Saints Church. I work with the housing team of the League of Women Voters. I am not speaking for the League for sure but I strongly agree with everything that Doris Petersen said about the project. I am strongly in favor of the project, every detail of it really and I don’t have anything original to say except that this stuff does bear repeating and that there are quite a lot of us in strong favor and just to remind you that we are here, that there are so many of us. The thing that really drew me out of my comfortable chair in my house to come in is the 56 units of low income and very low income housing for seniors. I really agree with Lydia Tan’s comment earlier that we really must put in those actual physical units and not money for speculative units in the future. Actually putting that in is a very important thing. I love the recreation facilities. I will probably want to use them and our kids really need them. I love the more meeting space and the cultural facilities. I love the fees for the parks and schools. I love the extremely generous contribution for our Charleston Corridor transportation plan because that needed funding to achieve its goals and the $500,000 worth of help for the low interest mortgages. It seems to me that the traffic and parking and noise complaints I just feel they are not of a monumental scale and they can be resolved by negotiation and trust. Any small nuisance residue beyond that will be acceptable as the price of converting a kind of a dead site into a really vibrant community space. It is an outstanding project. It is really an abundant project and I am willing to bet that a very strong majority of residents support it as much as I do. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Sandra Grimsrud to be followed by Paul Grimsrud. Ms. Sandra Grimsrud, Palo Alto: Hi, I would like to start out by saying that I feel that this project is a plus for the neighborhood and the area. It fulfills a lot of needs. I will also say that this project is the biggest undertaking of its kind in the history of the City of Palo Alto. Any project this large can have a significant impact either good or bad on the community at large. This impact will be felt most strongly by the surrounding neighborhoods. In order to be good neighbors we must be considerate of basic needs before our ideal wants. In order to maintain the City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 2 7 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 tranquility and traffic safety and quality of life we must be able to address issues before they become a problem. Traffic. With no left turn from Charleston or even with the increased traffic some people may turn that way, with no left turn on Charleston back onto 101 many vehicles could decide to take the most convenient turnaround by turning fight onto Louis and taking a fight onto Bibbits and Gailen and loop around back to take a left on Charleston and return to 101. This would be extremely dangerous and intrusive to what is essentially an open-ended cul-de-sac where children play. As far as the amplified sound I feel that the study that was taken was an independent study first of all about the sound. They deemed that it was an acceptable amount of sound for our neighborhoods. I suggest that it be an independent study and that the neighborhood be let in on it. I know amplified sound systems. An example is Gamble Gardens is not allowed to have any amplified sound even for weddings so as not to disturb the neighborhood. Another example is our twilight concerts in the park the amplified sound is not allowed after I believe eight at night for the park programs of this kind. They are only by permit. Even the sound of a leaf blower is not welcome in Palo Alto. We only ask that our neighborhood be given the same opportunity to be free of unwanted amplified sound and these small studies that have been done for our - first of all these postcards that we sent you with our concerns for the neighborhood I feel independent studies were done as to diffuse the things that we had to say. I don’t appreciate that. Construction noise and pollution and the hours. We understand that construction is expected to last at least two years and with what was said tonight it sounds like six years from the beginning the final phase will be finished. So that is six years of listening to construction and demolition and we would ask as a good neighbor that you put reasonable time limits on the times that these noises will be listened to by us. As far as the amplified sound 10:00 to 10:30 at night is just ridiculous when you look at the rest of Palo Alto. The building design, I think most people have already talked about the tower being an unnecessary aspect. Again, as a good neighbor why would you do this if you want the neighborhood to welcome you? I know this project is your jewel and I can appreciate that but don’t be blinded by your enthusiasm. I challenge you to be a good neighbor. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Paul Grimsru& If anyone else would like to speak would you complete a card now? I would like to call an end to cards coming in. It will be nine o’clock in five minutes. Paul. Mr. Paul Grimsrud, Palo Alto: Sandy and I have lived in our house for about 33 years. We are probably within about 100 yards of the project and that is why we are quite concerned about the possible impacts of the large development. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 28 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I agree with my wife and with others that have presented the project it can be a very good asset for the neighborhood and for Palo Alto but there are some concerns that have been voiced and I would like to add a little bit to that. Iwork in the power plant industry and my clients build and. operate power plants. The tower as I look at it reminds me of the stacks that two of my clients, Morrow Bay and Carlsbad, Califomia, the power plants there. Those stacks have really defaced those communities. This is a much smaller scale to that but I don’t think that this 96-foot tower is also going to be visible from our second story bedroom. It may be a divine inspiration for some but I don’t think it would be to me. The traffic I think my wife didn’t hear that the left turn on Charleston now looks like it would be allowed. That is going to be a very difficult thing to get onto Charleston on a left turn. If that becomes difficult it may turn out to be a fight turn. We already get a lot of U-turns around the Bibbits Drive and Louis area and I suspect that that will continue to increase with this project. If there were commercial vehicles that are doing that it would be very detrimental. I don’t know if there is anything on asbestos in the buildings that exist but I presume that if asbestos is in the existing building that the demolition process will mitigate any fibers coming into our neighborhood. Parking is already an issue in our neighborhood from the people that live on Charleston when they have parties there is a lot of parking in our neighborhood. This could be a problem from this project, I don’t know, but I hope that you take that into account in your plans. I won’t talk any more about the sound. We do get sound from Shoreline occasionally, which is several miles away. I would think the sound from 100 yards away could be more significant if there is much amplification. So certainly a decibel rating or decibel limit on the sound should be applied for this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jone Manoogian to be followed by Ann McColl0ch. Audience Member: Jone Manoogian has left. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Then Ann McColloch to be followed by Smita Joshi. Ms. Ann McColloch, Palo Alto: Thank you. Everything that I would have brought up has been brought up. I just want to second the motion or not the motion but please, someone, look at the flooding concerns. They are real. The information that was given by Bob Evans is not fabricated. I live directly across the street from him right behind Fabian Way. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. We will make note of that. Smita Joshi to be followed by Jean Wilcox. Ms. Smita Joshi, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I am the President of the Palo Verde Residents Association. Commissioner Cassel: Pardon me. Can you give us your name? Thank you. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 29 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Joshi: Sure, I am Smita Joshi. I am the President of the Palo Verde Residents Association. We had the opportunity of meeting with the developers of this project a couple of times. Once many Board Members met with them and then they came over and gave a presentation at a neighborhood-wide meeting and we appreciate that. This is going to be a very exciting project for us. We are very close to this project. The cultural and social opportunities that this project provides us we welcome very heartily and gratefully. I do believe that the architectural element of this project will bring a lot of excitement to our part of town, which lacks much. I wish I could just stop right there but I can’t. We do have three main areas of concern from this project because we are so close to it. One of them is parking, the second is traffic and the third is noise. When we met with the developer we were told that at least for event parking there would be offsite campuses either purchased or at least for long term, five to ten years, and there will be shuttle services provided to and from the campus from those offsite services. At least the FEIR does not include any such agreements to date and when we inquired of the Staff and the developer they have not been made. Time and again reference has been made in various documents and at various meetings to parking possibilities at Kehillah Jewish High School that is across the street but when one of our Board Members, Pam Raden, contacted the admissions officer at the school she was told that they plan to rent out their facilities to renters at night and on weekends, at least a couple of nights a week and on weekends, so on those days the parking spaces will not be available. Also, currently Kehillah High School is about 90 students. In a couple of years they are hoping to go up to 250 so the daytime parking will get significant even before the building TKCJL is built. Some other projections that were made for daytime parking we found a little disturbing the number of parking spaces that are being allotted to senior housing within the TKCJL is rather low especially because they are high end units and many of them are two and three bedroom units. There are not even as many parking spaces as the number of housing units and many of them as I said are more than one bedroom and you expect at least a couple to live in them. There are going to be a large number of employees, large number of contractors, large number of nurses, physical therapists of various kinds and there are so many different uses of these buildings go on that there is going to be a lot of parking crunch even during daytime. We are afraid that without an ongoing offsite parking space that overflow is going to fall into our neighborhood and all the other surrounding neighborhoods. So as far as traffic concern, I am sorry I still have to speak about the event parking. We really would like a long-term lease agreement to be part of the conditions of approval of this project. We don’t want offsite parking to be done an event-by-event basis. We would really like to support this project as an enthusiastic neighbor being assured that all of our worries are taken care of and then we will be able to support this project wholeheartedly. That really is our wish that long-term leases be done once and for all for all event parking is our request. So as a topic of concern our neighborhood is very close to this project and we have two of the main feeder streets to this project East Meadow Drive and Louis. Both of these are school corridors as is Loma Verde Street. Our entire neighborhood was not studied by their traffic study except for the one little intersection between Middlefield and East Meadow. Especially with the narrowing of the Charleston corridor we are concerned that there will be extra traffic on City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 30 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 East Meadow Drive. Some of the projections that have been mentioned in the FEIR are that no more than ten extra cars will be expected run our streets because of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jean Wilcox to be followed by Penny Ellson. Ms. Jean Wilcox, Palo Alto: Good evening Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. I would like to welcome both Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD development to my neighborhood. They will be a great addition to South Palo Alto. There are, however, some problems with the projects, which will impact myneighborhood Charleston Gardens. Charleston Gardens is located directly across the street, directly across Charleston, and we are not a deteriorating neighborhood. During an earlier session Council advised the Campus for Jewish Life that they could exceed Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit by about four feet because of groundwater problems. Now they want to go up above the height limit by ten feet so they can build to 60 feet or more. Ten feet is one whole floor, why can’t they take one floor off and comply with Palo Alto’s 50-foot height limit? In fact, they have doubled their floor area ratio since they presented their plans initially. A 96-foot tower and a 75-foot variance for an equipment building are unacceptable. These tall structures will be directly in our line of sight. Every story they go up generates more traffic on our nearby residential streets. Over 800 vehicle trips per day are expected to go to and from the site. Many of these vehicles will use Montrose and Sutherland to avoid traffic signals on San Antonio at Leghorn and San Antonio at Charleston and the lights at Middlefield and Charleston. The Final EIR did not analyze the increased traffic on the residential streets of Montrose and Sutherland, which are very close nearby. This needs to be done. Parking is another huge problem .07 spaces per unit is not enough. Parking will need to be found not only for residents, but for some of the 280 employees and themany daily visitors to the Campus for Jewish Life. Evening events at the cultural hall will be a particular problem. The theater will hold over 300 people and the suggested shared parking with residents who leave for work in the morning will not be available. AdditiOnal land needs to be purchased for parking. Vans or mini buses must be provided to bring event patrons to the cultural hall. Also, the Campus for Jewish Life should be required to get an event-by-event permit approval from the City for all special events. Outside music in the courtyard has been proposed. I would like to ask you to ban amplified music outside and to set a time limit of 8:00 or 9:00 PM not 10:00 PM for all musical events. Groundwater contamination is another problem. In the event of an accidental hazardous release either during construction or afterwards plans should be put in place to warn neighbors to shelter in place. If these concerns can be addressed and satisfactorily dealt with we welcome both projects to our neighborhood. Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 31 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Penny Ellson to be followed by Susan Fineberg. Ms. Penny Ellson, Palo Alto: I live in Palo Alto and I am the Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee for Green Meadow Community Association. The Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD outreach to our community continues to be appreciated by Green Meadow residents. Both applicants very early in the process invited us to share our concerns about their projects and to collaborate to find solutions to many of the problems this project might have created in the community. They were early supporters of the Charleston/Arastrad6ro plan and participated in its development. We want to thank Staff for their leadership in helping that happen and the developers for their outreach. At Green Meadow’s quarterly meeting in April with 58 residents present the Campus for Jewish Life presented their architectural plans. Overall the response to the design was very positive. Well, there had been some concerns about that very long wall on San Antonio we have referred to in the DEIR comments. CJL assured the community that it would be well screened with landscaping and that the San Antonio approach to Palo Alto would be inviting and attractive. Green Meadow is still in the process of reviewing the FEIR. It is summer and I am moving slow. Our comments will be presented to the PTC in writing before the July 26 extended hearing date. Now I am going to take off my Green Meadow hat and be traffic lady. I want to comment I was very glad to see the inclusion of a TDM program. I had one question though, I was wondering why if the regional report, the rides report, reports the alternative mode rate at 26 percent was the alternative mode used for the project set at 15 percent? How about a compromise of 20 percent, maybe? It is food for thought. The shared shuttle for BUILD residents is a great way to build on the natural synergies for this site as well as the discounted CJL memberships for the BUILD residents. It is a great idea, yahoo you! Let’s see I had one question that - two questions actually. One was Green Meadow had commented that it wasn’t clear to them from the drawings what accommodations would be in place to help bicyclists merge safely with vehicular traffic to get to the bike racks in the garage and the FEIR response said that this question would go to ARB, etc., etc. It seems like a more perfect question for you guys so I am asking you tonight. I just want to sort of bring that up again and have you consider it and maybe talk about it a little. I would like to clarify, a request was made to include the Charleston/Arastradero plan pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements as mitigations for the project and the response says they will be included in the text of the EIR. I still wonder if they can include it as a mitigation. That was not clear so I would sort of like that question answered as we are reviewing the FEIR. Finally, a comment that I hope will get forwarded to Council, which is this. I spent last night at the 100 Mayfield meeting. A comment that I made was between these two projects we are getting nearly 1,000 new units of housing on San Antonio Road to say nothing of new Jewish day school and all the other development coming along. Both of these projects are according to CEQA going to generate zero or maybe 15 additional peak hour trips. I talked about the Louis Carroll world of EIR analysis in my DEIR response but when it comes right down to it this is CiO~ of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 32 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 just not what we are going to live with and somehow the City needs to look at this. If it is not going to be done in the EIR we have to take a look at arterial functionality. It is going to be very important for the future success of the Charleston/Arastradero plan and for the future success of our community in South Palo Alto. Thank you very much and thank you again to our new neighbors. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Susan Fineberg to be followed by Sally Probst. Ms. Susan Fineberg, Palo Alto: Commissioners, good evening. When you consider these two projects I would like to ask you to decide if the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan matters. Let me explain why I am asking that question. The Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 considered the environmental impacts of 2,454 additional residential units within the sphere of influence. The residential units on Stanford were included there was an allocation for 280 graduate student beds. The EIR found that with this number of additional residential units there would be significant and unavoidable impacts on transportation, circulation and parking as well as on other public services such as schools. However, in the Statement of Overriding Considerations when Council approved the Comprehensive Plan they approved this level of development because the public benefits would outweigh these significant negative impacts. To date there are more residential units built than were analyzed even in the high development alternative analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Start with the 1,196 units that City Staff cites then add the 1,033 units built on Stanford Campus, add the single family homes built on empty lots that Staff does count and the 96 approved for Classic Communities not counting another 600 units that are projected before 2010. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted the City rejected the high development alternative as environmentally inferior, therefore, although a project may have impacts that are individually limited it will based on the higher development alternative discussed in the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan have cumulatively considerable and potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts include all the things people have talked about tonight increased traffic, noise, decreased air quality, overcrowding of our public facilities like schools, parks and libraries. There is a fair argument that because the number of residential units added through any additional development is higher than the development caps that were considered in the Comprehensive Plan’s EIR that there will be significant negative impacts of these past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The EIR for these two projects does consider the cumulative impacts it is on page 23 but it finds either no impact or less than significant impacts for everything but a few key intersections. These conclusions that there are simply no impacts stand in stark contrast to those of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Palo Alto in 1998. One of these two documents, either the Comprehensive Plan or the Environmental Impact Reports for these projects, must be wrong. Do we get to decide that the Comprehensive Plan and the underlying environmental analysis is wrong? Can we ignore the analysis from the Comprehensive Plan EIR and build 4,000 units when the Comprehensive Plan approved a project with 2,454 units? This is why I ask you if the Comprehensive Plan matters. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Sally Probst to be followed by Irene Sampson. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 33 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening. For ten years my husband and I had a company office in the commercial land just across San Antonio from this area. So I have observed it day after day and I think these projects are a tremendous improvement. Also I had my antique furniture refinished in a little shop that was in some of the land that CJL has already bought. I think it is a great improvement not only to the area but to the City. These projects have required collaboration between four entities CJL, BUILD, Bridge and the City. I compliment all of them for working together collaboratively. I think that there are many, many, dozens really of policies in the Comprehensive Plan will be fulfilled by these developments. I am particularly happy that there will be a diversity of housing types available for the City and I like that second mortgage plan. It will not only add to these projects but also be available for people who meet the criteria for other areas of the City. So I hope that you will consider this positively and thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Irene Sampson to be followed by Bill Chapman. Ms. Irene Sampson, Palo Alto: I live about three blocks away from where this project will be. I have lived there for 49 years so I probably have a record. I have been following the proposals for both the BUILD housing and the Campus for Jewish Life for some time now and I have watched the many changes that have been made to meet neighborhood concerns and desires. I am pleased with what they are offering for our corner of town -- needed housing and a range of affordability and services that can enrich the entire community. I am aware that many of my neighbors have concerns about what they feel are changes too big for the area to absorb but I personally believe that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I look forward to seeing these attractive facilities replacing the rather dismal properties that are currently there and the sooner the better. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Bill Chapman to be followed by Janet Owens. Mr. Bill Chapman, Palo Alto: Hello folks. I think we have heard many compliments for this project tonight and many, many well-reasoned concerns. I want to tabulate some of them very quickly. One, traffic. Two, parking. Three, noise in the evening. Four, height. Five, setbacks. Six, schools. Seven, sufficient land. The flooding problem. The precedent setting problem. And one that hasn’t been mentioned which I would like you to consider is that here we are shortly after Katrina with a lot of publicity about global warming and the rising sea level and we are constructing this development right at the edge of the Bay. If we go 30 years, 40 years into the future will they be suing us because Palo Alto failed to either get an agreement they would never sue us or that we failed to warn them that they were doing something very dangerous with their $250 million development at this time in history. Is this a logical place to put so massive a structure? Now, Mrs. Wasserrnan said, this is precedent setting and damn good, or something like that. Well, it could have been precedent setting and much better if it had been more modest. This is not a modest development. This is so immodest a development that they come here and build it right out to the edge with hardly any setback. They want to build a 95-foot immodest tower and they want Palo Alto to give them the right to build immodestly high. If this is as Wasserman says, precedent setting, what will the next developments around East Meadow do? Why would it City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 34 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 not be logical for them to say to you folks we want 65 feet? What is an extra five feet? They got 60. Nine days ago I was at a meeting where Classic Communities was already saying we want something extra because compared to Trumark, which was approved only half a year ago we are better in some regards. They are already comparing each other’s special specifications and gifts from the City. So I think there are tremendously intelligent people from Palo Alto who have spoken wisely about the beauties of this but the need for more modesty. Lower it. Take off the top ceiling. Tell them to get more land. Tell them to do away with things. Tell them to get rid of the nighttime amplifiers. That is awful. Why don’t we do this? In recognition of the size, the mass, of this project and the political significance of it and the religious significance of it why don’t we accord it the extra respect it would get if your Commission held special meetings primarily for the citizens who are concerned, something you wouldn’t do for little projects like Trumark. Does not this big project warrant special attention to community concerns, which are massive in this case? Thank you very much. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Janet Owens to be followed by Robert Moss. Ms. Janet Owens, Palo Alto: I live in the Downtown area. I have been in Palo Alto since 1963 and most of that time I have been actively involved in the development of housing especially for low income people not only in Palo Alto but throughout the Bay Area. We continue to need more housing than we have built. It is a critical need and it puts burdens on people to solve those problems individually. So I am delighted to see this project going forward. I have not always been in favor of it but they have assured now that the low-income housing will remain low income in the future and in the future we are going to need it now as much as we needed it in the future when I first started worrying about this sort of thing. The need has grown faster than any response to it. As always individual variations cause concern, and worry, and reaction. As a resident myselfI have felt this sometimes. I have found that in the Palo Alto area these things are usually worked out in actuality much better than in discussions before public bodies. I wish this project the best of luck as it goes forward for everyone those who live in it, those who enjoy the facilities and those from the inside and those who enjoy them from the outside. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Ellen Fletcher. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in Barron Park. I will begin by complimenting Rob Steinberg on the design and the architecture as we have gone through this process for the last several years every iteration has been even better and he has done a good job. However, I do have a few issues with both the Bridge project and the Campus for Jewish Life. Let me go through them. I think these are things you haven’t heard before tonight. First you have heard a lot about housing and how the building over 3,500 units already exceeded our bogie for ten years by 50 percent in only six years. You have heard arguments on both sides on traffic impacts and so on but there is an impact that hasn’t been mentioned and that is money. Because of Prop 13 and Prop 218 and other things that have been imposed on local governments housing costs money. Every housing unit requires services from the City approximately $1,000 City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 35 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 to $1,200 a year more than is recovered in taxes. So the housing units, which have been improved already, are going to have a net cost to the City of over $3.0 million a year. Bear that in mind. One of the things you have heard about especially is event parking. In Appendix A, mitigation measure B-5.1 says, special event parking for special events on weekday evenings or events. There is nothing to limit the impacts from special events to weekday evenings. Strike ’weekday evenings’ any special event any time, weekday mornings, weekends that is going to have a parking impact. When the JCC was at Terman under the Terman Specific Plan there was a limit to the number of special events that could be held every year. I think as a first cut we should have a limit to the number of special events. I am not prepared to say what a fair number is six, eight, ten, but we should put a number in and anything beyond that requires a special permit. Also, in that same mitigation it says if parking is provided on a nearby site attendees can reach the Campus for Jewish Life on foot. However, who determines what is nearby? I can see a couple of years from now the Campus for Jewish Life saying somebody could park over on East Bayshore and that is within walking distance so we won’t have to provide transportation. So I would like to have a figure put in for what is nearby. Put a number down 200 yards, 500 yards so there is no argument in the future and we don’t play games. One of the things about the Bridge housing proposal that concerns me greatly, there are actually two things, one of them is that all of the BMR units are for seniors. One of the reasons that we have had BMR requirements initially is to have people who worked here be able to live here. Earlier you had a teacher talk about how teachers can’t afford to live here. Some of the BMR units should be in those townhouses. At least ten percent of those townhouses should be BMR. If that means that some of the senior housing is market rate so be it. Secondly, the density of the senior housing is projected at over 110 units an acre, which is grossly excessive. That is more than three times the normal development density and far higher density than any other development in Palo Alto in the last 40 years. Now there are a couple of ways you can reduce that. One of them is to reduce the gross number of units and the other is to increase the area instead of a half acre make it perhaps three-quarters or one acre. I am also very concerned about having the money, the $5.0 million or $7.0 million, to build that in escrow basically for six years. At the rate housing costs are increasing if they don’t build that in six years you are not going to get the full number of units with that amount of money. So shorten the time period or have an escalation clause so that you take into account the reduction in value, currently it is between eight and ten percent a year for construction. In the case of the Campus for Jewish Life I would like to see on Appendix D there is a section 50, which talks about giving the amount impervious area and then making some adjustments. Reduce the amount of impervious area by requiring wherever possible that that be permeable and the water will drain. Finally, get rid of that 95-foot tower. We don’t need it. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Ellen Fletcher to be followed by Pat Saffir. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 "Page 36 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Ellen Fletcher, Palo Alto: I live on San Antonio Road just two blocks from this project and I must say that I am really excited and looking forward to completion of this project because it is going to be such a big asset to all of us in Palo Alto especially those of who can just walk over. I wanted to mention that on our block where we are so close we are not organized into any neighborhood organization but neighbors that I have spoken to are all very, very positive about this project. I haven’t heard any complaints about it. One final comment that people are talking about all the impacts including traffic increase. Of course there is going to be traffic increase. There is going to be traffic increase if you don’t change the zoning. If the zoning is fully built out as commercial you are going to have impacts too. So no matter what you build there you are going to have traffic impacts. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Pat Saffir to be followed by John Fredrich. Ms. Patricia Saffir, Palo Alto: I live on Bryant Street in South Palo Alto. I am just here to urge the Planning .Commission to recommend approval of the Planned Community development zones requested by both Bridge and the Campus for Jewish Life. Both BUILD and the Jewish Community group have listened carefully to the commentaries and concerns, to the communities concerned and their projects have been altered considerably to make them fit in better. Low and very low income housing for seniors is a continuing real need in Palo Alto. Both these projects speak generously to helping fill that need. The family townhouse units will also help fill our previously approved housing commitments. I am not going to make a speech tonight I am just going to say that I believe that the facts that were presented by the Planning Staff in their reports more than justify the approval of these projects. ! urge you to do so. A further comment, not everybody in Palo Alto is afraid of a little immodesty. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. John Fredrich to be followed by Scott Petersen. Mr. John Fredrich, Palo Alto: I live in Barron Park and I am an employee of the school district and a long time resident. In fact I have lived on the south side of town now most of the last 20 years. I wanted to add my perspective as somebody that lived in the Terman apartments across from the JCC for eight years starting in 1985 and used the facilities and was a member of that community. So I wanted to both commend the people that have brought this proposal forward and you Commissioners and people in the community that have worked so hard to bring it along these many years. It is an asset and a set of amenities that are much in need since we lost the JCC at the Terman site. When it was there many of the concerns about noise, traffic and other things were dealt with in creative and imaginative ways. As problems came up restrictions were developed and there is the statutory and procedural methods for dealing with a project even of a greater scope as this one is. So I wanted to make that clear that it wasn,t always smooth sailing but the community development group and the many things that were talked about as the JCC operated at Terman worked out very positively. When it went away many of us went to the Y and unfortunately at the same time the Elks wellness center was taken out of commission. So there are many .people in the community that look forward to the physical culture possibilities that this new site will deliver in addition to many of the housing components that other people City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 37 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have talked to. I guess in the end though I wanted to encourage us to focus on imagination on the long term and think about of course many of the traffic and environmental problems may be solved by the catastrophic success of our current environmental and foreign policy as we work at a national level. I think it is wiser to think of how forward looking people throughout Palo .Alto’s history going back to the Stanford’s and the Hewlett’s and the Packard’s and the Schultz’s that got the Terman center there going envision where we could go in the future and deal with these many commtmity needs. In that regard see this set of possibilities as something that can be worked with and be a real augmentation to the quality of life. Yes, it does seem to many people a very urban type of development and it is but it is a very well conceived development that is going to fulfill many community uses. So I encourage you to move it forward at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Scott Petersen to be followed by Pete Squire and that will be our last Speaker. Mr. Scott Petersen, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at the intersection of Fabian and Charleston diagonally across from the proposed site. I believe that the proposed building is going to be a great asset to the community. I think it is going to greatly improve our area and the architectural diagrams and drawings I think really exemplify the thought and interest and use of the site and has been very well done. I am concerned on two different levels. One is an operational level and the other is at a constructional level. I will start with the constructional level. My understanding is that given the shear magnitude of this project and the costs of the project that it is going to be done in multiple phases potentially spanning ten or more years. I am very concerned that we are going to be dealing with the ongoing noise, dust, heavy traffic, vibrations, etc. associated with building a project of this size for potentially up to a decade thus lowering the value of our properties and lowering our quality of life. I hope that anything that can be done to increase the speed of the project is taken to minimize that effect as well as the hours of construction. The other area that I have a concern on duplicates many of the things that were said earlier. This is at an operational level. The items of traffic, the items of parking, the items of noise and in particular any amplified noise are of real concern to us. I would hate to see these operational items that I believe can be easily addressed get in the way of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Peter Squire. That is our last speaker tonight. Mr. Pete Squire, Palo Alto: I think this project is going to be good. That land is very valuable and it is good we can get something like this there but I have a few concerns of course. The amplified sound is one. I wonder if it is possible to aim the sound toward the highway. I notice in the architectural there are big plates that funnel sound and things in various areas. Can we take that and funnel the noise toward the highway? I don’t think anybody on the highway is going to care about the noise but us in the neighborhood do. We live near Cubberly and they get loud noise at Cubberly all the time and Mitchell Park and Shoreline and here is another one that is just going to be adding to it. I would like to see some City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 38 of 49 1 real enforcement too. They always start out good and underestimate it. I know Foothill College 2 when they moved to Cubberly they said everybody would park fight there at Cubberly. Well, 3 they are on all the side streets everywhere and there seems to be no way to control it. So they 4 grossly underestimated Foothill and it looks like the same thing here. So I would like to have 5 some kind of way to curtail the events or something if they can’t contain the parking. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then the cut-through traffic - same thing. If they underestimate the cut-through traffic what is the enforcement? Will they cut down the size of the events or the number of events going on at one time? I think it is still there, there is going to be no entrance from San Antonio coming from the highway. I think if that can be opened up there can be a lot of traffic there. I know there are some concerns but that would be a great way if you could have 1,000 or so more cars going in and out of there that still should be used if possible. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. I am going to raise my hand and call a five-minute break. We will come back and the next step will be for the developer to get five minutes. Why don’t we do that first? Does the developer want to make comments for five minutes or a summary statement? Ms. Sandy Sloan, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life: I would like to point out a big picture perspective of some of the things that have been mentioned. First with regard to traffic there is no doubt that a community center will generate traffic but the traffic during peak period hours actually decreases with this project compared to the situation if the Sun building was reoccupied or as Ellen Fletcher said if another commercial use like Sun moved into this area. At page 235 of the Final EIR the traffic study points out that there might be 15 more trips in the AM Peak Period but 76 fewer trips in the PM Peak. In other words, if you look just at the peak hours there are 61 fewer trips than if the Sun building was reoccupied. With regard to parking CJL is providing 610 parking spaces. This is actually 23 more spaces than is required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the community center including the preschool. Even though the JCC is 50 percent larger in square footage than the Terman JCC the parking provided is 250 percent what was provided at Terman. The last thing an applicant or the City wants to do is to have excessive parking on a site because that entices people to drive alone and is absolutely counter then to any TDM program. Our parking analysis as the Staff pointed out is ample for weekend nights when a special event is taking place because at that time there will be no preschool and very few people use the fitness center on a weekend night. The traffic report has asked that for special events on the weekday nights that there be offsite parking available and CJL will obtain that offsite parking well in advance and will notify the City of where it is as required by the conditions of approval~ With regard to noise as Steven Turner pointed out there was a noise study conducted by Charles Salter and he points out two things in the study about amplification. The first one is the obvious. If there ever was a self-policing neighborhood for amplification or any noise this is it. The seniors will be living right above the JCC spaces and right above the courtyards. Second, when he did the noise study he determined that amplified noise would comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance as long as the amplification ceased at 10:30 PM. The Staffis recommending that any City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 39 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 amplification cease at ten o’clock but the CJL is requesting that on Saturday nights you consider allowing it to go to 10:30 PM. Finally, our architect, Rob Steinberg, would like to say a few words about the tower. He does have a few slides to show you. Mr. Steinberg: Because the tower has been talked about I just wanted to address that very briefly. If you look at first the model you can see that the solid component of the tower is ever so slightly taller than the rest of the buildings. Beyond that what is being recommended by the ARB is an open see-through element on top of that. What we have done is taken a few photographs and superimposed the new buildings on that. This is a view across Fabian from the office buildings. In fact these may be the office buildings that the gentleman spoke of earlier. In fact, from that view or from the residents that would be on the west side you cannot see the tower from this view. If you go over to the comer of Fabian and Charleston again you cannot see the tower at all from offsite where any of the residential is. ffyou look from the comer of San Antonio and Charleston the solid part of the tower ends right there just slightly above the residential part. This very faint element is the part that would be the open see-through part of the tower. The visual impact from offsite is very, very minimal. I just wanted to share those few images with you. Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Okay, I am going to call a five-minute break as Don said we can’t have one of us walk out. We will be back with any comments that Staff wants to make at this time and then we will be making some comments. Thank you. Let’s call this meeting back to order. I want to thank everyone. I hope those of you who wanted to see the model and the tower had a chance to do that. It will be here I think a little bit after the close of our meeting. Staff, did you want to make any comments at this time? What we are going to do is raise questions that we have that we think are significant or important that will then be answered at the next meeting. We have about a half an hour. I don’t think it does us much good too much beyond 10:30 because there just isn’t enough time to get into anything really substantive at this time. So do you want to make any comments before we start? Mr. C. Williams: Just a few. There were a couple of comments that I would like to respond to and then I would like to ask Dennis Stmecker, the traffic consultant, to come up and respond to a couple of issues as well. First of all as far as the flooding and the storm water runoff goes the EIR did review that and determine that the impervious surface for the proposed project would be slightly more than the existing. As you know the site is almost all paved already. It will be slightly more than that. There is a mitigation measure and condition that the applicants provide onsite detention that would reduce the level of runoff to less than the predevelopment runoff levels. So in other words there will be less runoff from this site than there is now under the existing conditions. That is a condition of approval that they must provide the design for that before getting building permits. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 40 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Cassel: Does that water go into the creek or does it go into the storm water system? Mr. C. Williams: It goes to the drainage ditch along San Antonio Road I believe. Commissioner Cassel: You can get that information later to clear that up. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we can get the specifics of that. Secondly, there was a comment about asbestos and the demolition of the existing building. There is a process for demolition that you must get a permit from the Air Quality Management District for properly addressing that before the demolition permit can be issued. So that will be required. There were a few comments about the construction period, truck routing, hours of operation and that kind of thing. We have a logistics plan that is required to be developed and is presented to the plan review committee for their review so that the Staff all looks at those very issues as to not only what are the routes that trucks and employees are taking but also where are you parking, where are you storing materials, etc., etc. so they won’t impact neighboring properties. Construction hours are limited by the Municipal Code and that would be strictly adhered to. Then the couple of traffic issues that I would like to ask Dennis Struecker to talk about the cut, through traffic potential and the parking spaces per unit that were used for the senior residences. Mr. Dennis Struecker, Traffic Consultant: Good evening. I am from Korve Engineering. I worked on the EIR traffic analysis and recently I am also a contract employee to the City on general traffic issues. on the cut-through traffic it has been pointed out tonight and correctly so that this is a regional facility and a lot of the traffic is going to be on 101 and it is going to access the site as conveniently as possible. We did some look through on the roadways that go to the north towards Oregon Expressway and clearly the highest speed of any roadway there is West Bayshore, which is how we assign most of the traffic that would go back to Oregon Expressway to and from the north on U.S. 101. The next highest street in terms of travel speed would be Middlefield which we also assigned traffic to. We didn’t analyze any intersections on Louis or Ross, which traffic analyses of these types generally concentrate on the signalized intersections but both of those streets are much slower and people tend to optimize their travel time. There are speed humps on Ross. There are several stop signs on both streets. As Sandy Sloan pointed out I guess we do these Louis Carroll traffic analysis but we do look at the net new traffic. So there is very little net new traffic from this project. The reason that we do look at net new traffic is because the future projections assume a reuse of this site as something like the Sun project. So having said that the total traffic going to the north in the peak hour is about 70 to 80 trips. So we have four streets, we have West Bayshore, we have Louis, we have Ross and we have Middlefield. So if you divide them all equally that is ten but my professional opinion is that yes some traffic could leak onto Louis and Ross but most people would optimize their travel and use City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 41 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Middlefield and to a greater extent particularly if they are going north on 101 to use West Bayshore. Now to Momrose and Sutherland, Montrose has possibilities. In my opinion Sutherland is not an efficient route at all for any cut-through traffic in the out of direction travel that it would have. The only traffic that would want to use Montrose is the traffic that comes up from San Antonio from the south or Middlefield from the southeast. While I was listening to the comments I looked at the left turn delay at Middlefield. So if you are coming up on San Antonio and want to turn left on Middlefield it is nearly identical to the left tum delay if you want to turn left at Charleston. So there is no advantage really of turning left early in terms of minimizing your delay. There is greater delay though from turning left from Charleston at Fabian. So if you came up Montrose you would have to turn right onto Charleston, I am looking at a map here so I am maybe at a greater advantage from people that don’t live in the immediate area, that you have to turn right on Charleston and then left onto Fabian. That left turn delay is greater than the right turn delay from continuing to Charleston and then turning right on Fabian. If I have you totally confused now it is late I can understand that. So again it is not a very efficient route. It almost depends on where the signal cycle is at San Antonio what somebody may do. But here again the inbound traffic is about 40 and I would expect that no more than ten of those people would find Montrose to be an attractive inbound route. Then outbound route you tend not to want to do a lot of left turns and the outbound route using Montrose would involve a left turn from Charleston onto Montrose and then another left turn onto Middlefield as opposed to a series of right turns going onto Charleston and San Antonio. So before I go onto the next one I’ll stop. The parking for the BUILD project for the senior housing we used a number that BUILD provided of .7 spaces per unit. Before we used that we checked Parking Generation, which is a national publication by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Their rate for senior housing is .5 per unit. There were two studies there that they had data for and both of those studies had a greater supply, as a matter of fact more than one space per dwelling unit, so it wasn’t constrained by a lack of supply. It was constrained by seniors not owning as many vehicles as the general population. When we found that there was a .5 in a national publication we felt using .7 was more than conservative enough. Commissioner Cassel: My understanding was that you have .7 because that was what BUILD has found on their sites locally which was fine as far as I was concerned but what I understand is on the other site, on the Jewish Community Center site, I thought you used .41 for the congregate housing and .50 for the assisted living. I presume the larger number was because in assisted living you are counting staff in that process because they would have fewer drivers than the congregate housing would have. I wondered why you used .7 for BUILD or at least not the .5 because of the reason that was mentioned in the audience that it is a higher income group moving in. Mr. Struecker: We used the .7. BUILD suggested the .7 as long as it was conservative enough for us. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 42 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: But the other one I thought used .41. Mr. Struecker: Let me grab the report. Commissioner Cassel: That can be answered later. You can check on that for the next meeting. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we will bring that back to you. Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead. Commissioner Garber: One other question to be followed up on that is if you can address one of the concerns that was raised which is the impact of employees parking in the parking facility relative to the other uses of that parking lot. Commissioner Cassel: Staff, do you have anything else that you want to add before we make any comments? Mr. C. Williams: No, thanks. Commissioner Cassel: What I thought we would do if it were agreeable to all of you is we would each take a few minutes and try to summarize the most significant questions we have or the most significant comments. I have five or six pages here so I figure all of you would ask half of those questions. But as best you can in about five minutes. What to start? Commissioner Sandas: I will take less than five. Since Curtis answered the question I had about flooding or at least addressed that question. I appreciate that. Complimentary to that question someone in the audience spoke to the issue of maybe if that contaminated groundwater were to percolate up to the surface or something that there might be a dangerous situation created and there may be the need for an evacuation or warning the neighborhood or something. So if you can address that topic when we come back that would be great. Then one other thing, I think Penny Ellson mentioned a compromise in the Traffic Demand Management from 15 to 20 percent. I can’t remember exactly what the issue was I wrote sketchy notes and that doesn’t do any good at this hour. But if you remember it a little better or we could look back in the notes and see what that was about and you could address it that would be great. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert:, May I ask my questions of the architect? Commissioner Cassel: You want answers tonight? Commissioner Lippert: I have questions for the architect. Can we do that tonight or do you want me to hold that until the next hearing? City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 43 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead and ask them so he knows what they are. We don’t have time to get answers to all of them is the issue but ask them and get them out there. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. With regard to mechanical equipment on the roof we have a 65 foot requested height for the buildings. Would we still permit a 15-foot roof screen for mechanical on this kind of a project? Is it necessary? Can the mechanical units be located far enough away from the edge of the building so that they are just not visible from the public fight- of-way therefore eliminating the need for significant mechanical screens? With regard to the benefit program for the Campus for Jewish Life in there it indicated the use of the facilities there. It said that ten City events could happen in the auditorium space but it wasn’t specified over what period that was whether that was a year or the lifetime of the facility. With regard to the tower element that is being proposed here, is it being proposed as a lighted structure? What is being lit? Is it going to wind up being like the Eiffel Tower with a bunch of little lights that go up it and pop and flash? That was for your benefit Curtis. Or is it just when you light air you don’t see anything. Those are my questions. Commissioner Cassel: Dan. Commissioner Garber: The other Commissioners got most of mine, however, I would be curious to learn from the applicant if any market study has been done to determine or what has determined the size of the cultural hall, the size of 380 seats or almost 400 seats. I am curious to learn if it will ever be filled or if it will always be filled depending on the types of events that are there. Obviously without a fly space and side space the types of things that will be presented in there become significantly limited. So that is one question. The other question has to do with again the use and utilization of the project as it faces Charleston in terms of the use of the stair, how frequently that is used, why it is used, the entry into the cultural center there, the relationship between those two elements and the entry to the senior housing. I am curious as to the use, the liveliness, and the occupancy of the street by the project in that particular area. That will be it for the moment. Let me come back to one other thing. Commissioner Cassel: I can probably take up all the time the rest of you didn’t take. I had a variety of questions. I think before I lose it because ! didn’t have this on my original list is we need to define what a special event is because we keep talking about special events. What does that mean and when does an event actually overflow the parking that is there? I think that would help us. I was kind of curious about why the Charleston Road/Arastradero Corridor Study didn’t include the section on Charleston from San Antonio to Fabian. I still have some more reading and studying to do on this I didn’t happen to find out how the bicycles fit into this underground parking, how people get upstairs to the first level, the flow when the traffic comes through. I know the parking itself is done by the ARB but I am trying to understand what happens with this City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 44 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 traffic flow in terms of people getting in. How long does it take to fill this space? I guess my comment here is that when we get overflow parking part of that is that you can’t get into the site not only do you have to have enough spaces but you have to be able to get into it adequately. We are talking about one entry point to get into a 600 space parking garage. For a special event or major events can’t the parking garage be opened on San Antonio Road for those making right hand turns so that it could fill easily from that side? That would help to fill the section near the cultural center. So I had questions that related to better understanding of the traffic flow in and how it is going to be occupied rapidly and not cause backups onto the street and not cause people to want to park in other places even if there are enough parking spaces underground. How do they find them? How do they get upstairs? I am sure they are on that picture I just haven’t looked carefully enough and I am not an architect as to how people are moving up onto the podium level from inside the garage. There has to be more than one elevator. I already asked the question about the difference in the parking spaces for senior housing. Someone else asked some of the other questions I have here. There is a delivery drop off area for deliveries other than this big garage area and part of that circulation question and understanding the circulation I would like to know more about what size vehicles can pull into that area and how that works. Just an explanation, I am looking at a map but I think it would be helpful if that were explained. Mr. C. Williams: You mean on Charleston? Commissioner Cassel: You pull off Charleston into that area. Mr. C. Williams: Okay. Commissioner Cassel: And then there is a little driveway to the Fabian Way side of that and down there in that section goes people who are doing deliveries to the site. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Commissioner Cassel: I think we talked about this once before. I am still interested to look a little more at this external shape. I have already talked about basically issues with first level traffic circulation. I am not so concerned about what is going on on the podium that is internal and I am sure that will come out really nice but rather how does this traffic level flow on the first level. Questions came up about someone doing security. I don’t understand what the security is. It has come up in several different ways about people getting into the facility, it being screened. I guess this is part of my concern about getting 600 cars into this place. What is this security person going to be doing? They said something about cards to go into buildings, cards to go into the caf6, and I am sure I got this all mixed up with a number of other things. So I would like to know a lot more about what this security is. Is this an open facility that everyone is going to be welcome into and are they really going to be welcome into it or is this really a very closed facility because people are very concerned about security issues? How does this feel and can you walk in? City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 45 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The TDM, basically I see three parts to that the seniors become TDM because they are there and they reuse the stuff that is on the site, they might consider working with a bank. I have a mother in a similar type of facility and the bank is open a couple hours of the day and it is a very busy space. It keeps people from going offsite and it helps people who no longer need their cars. A small sundry store works very well on this site. Is it going to be available as a little retail store? There was a gift store there, is that what they mean by what is going in there and will it be open to people other than just the seniors? The caf~ available for staff and guests will work very well for keeping people on site and helping people out who are transitioning from truly independent living into more need for assisted living. Then they can stop off there. The TDM for the employees is probably okay at the numbers they gave us because it is going to be very difficult for this staff to do two people driving at the same time because although the staff numberslook large people are .working rotating shifts and rotating days. So there is not that many staff on at any one time but they are working all kinds of funny hours. I can promise you I have worked in a medical facility and the hours are funny. However, what there isn’t in the TDM program is any kind of way to deal with or encourage less traffic from the people who are using the facility in the format that we are doing with the YMCA. They had real limits with their parking and people were concerned in the neighborhood and they are doing some perhaps model things in terms of encouraging the people who are using the facility, essentially the customers, to try to walk, bike and come together with their neighbors when they are driving. I think we ought to look at that because that is where most of the traffic is coming from. It is not the employees who are just a couple hundred people but the users, which will be large numbers. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the TDM program, and I believe it is the benefit that was talked about, about the Campus for Jewish Life having their own shuttle. In there it talked about if the shuttle were discontinued it wouldn’t be available for the residents of the adjacent Bridge housing project. Would it be possible if that program were discontinued that in fact an in lieu fee would be paid to the Palo Alto Shuttle and they would pick up service? Commissioner Cassel: My follow up to that is to be of use to people at Bridge it has be as dependable as it is to people at the JCC site. You Can’t expect people to use and depend upon a shuttle if they are going to wait until maybe there is an extra space. So I can’t plan on going to the food store on Friday because I have to wait to see if there are enough people in another building that want to go there first before I can find out if ! can get there. There needs to be a little more quality in that if that is going to be a public benefit. Under noise I think we have to deal with that a little more. There isn’t going to be noise from the inside amphitheater. They have that double walled so they aren’t going to hear anything from the outside that isn’t the issue. The issue is what kind of external events do they have and when we talk about special events I can see us having problems when we are having an outdoor event and an inside event. I mean a real festival then we are really going to have some issues there. I don’t know how many of those events happen but those kinds of things would be appropriate for this site but then of course we really do have a problem. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 46 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then the BMR issues. We have learned I think from work we have done in the past that we are better off with more units than we are trying to have too many BMR units on high-income units. I know in other situations we have said we can get 56 units, we are going to get two units although they are small units and they are isolated in one building for special senior housing and we are going to get one unit for every two units. The units are smaller, they are more specialized but we actually get very usable units out of these. The money that is coming for the special program to subsidize the other units, the people moving into the for sale family units is unique and nice. Go ahead, Dan. Let me run through this and see if I covered everything. Commissioner Garber: I would like to echo Phyllis’ comments with two emphases one of which is there is a lot of depth to the BMR information that has been offered here and I will endeavor to get through all of it that I haven’t been able to get through in the last four days. I would be interested in further discussion about some of the different alternatives that have been raised here tonight as well as the recommendations that the Staffhave made thus far. The other thing is a general comment that the amount of attention and focus and solutioning that has been done to create a viable environment on the project’s ground floor plane is tremendous. The ultimate success will include its active interaction with its surrounding neighbors which is not just a traffic issue in terms of dropping off and being able to adequately house cars but how the site actually interacts with the neighbors which hopefully is really a future issue in terms of what the project can present as a way of precedent setting for that part of Palo Alto. I think it could bear further conversation. I know it has been a theme in the conversations that we have had in these Chambers in months past. How that actually happens and how the project actually supports that interaction is critical. Commissioner Cassel: I just have one last thing before I turn this over to Lee. I am really glad to see that the senior housing on the BUILD project was moved forward. That was one of my biggest concerns about this project when I first saw that this housing was going to be in the back and it was going to be isolating. It really made me apprehensive to have it back there and I really appreciate your moving that forward. Go ahead, Lee. Commissioner Lippert: During the public testimony it was alluded to that the traffic element in the EIR is out of sync with the traffic element of the General Comprehensive Plan and I know we are going through a General Comprehensive Plan, I won’t say amendment but update. It might be worthwhile to take a look at that portion of it when we get to the General Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Cassel: Anyone else want to make a comment? Anything jog anyone’s memory? Anything else you would like from us? You got enough? I want to thank everyone, the public hearing was helpful, and the contributions from the developer are very nice. They have done a lot. of hard work and we really appreciate that. The Staff has worked very, very hard. Don. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 47 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Larkin: The Chair needs to close the public hearing and you will need a motion to continue the item. Commissioner Cassel: Yes. I am closing the public hearing and I need a motion to continue this to the July 26 meeting. MOTION Commissioner Garber: So moved. SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Seconded. MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Holman recused herself with Commissioners Burt and Bialson absent). Commissioner Cassel: Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That motion passes four to nothing. Is there anything else on our agenda tonight? Mr. Larkin: Announcements From Officials APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Commissioner Cassel: Announcements From Officials. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. Mr. Larkin: The only announcement I was going to make is for those of you that haven’t heard Wynne Furth is retiring from the City not from the practice of law. There will be a reception in the City Attorney’s Office tomorrow at 3:30 PM. I know it is short notice but you are all welcome to attend. Commissioner Garber: I believe there is a person with a new title at the desk. Commissioner Cassel: Curtis has a new title is what he was saying. City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 48 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Steve Emslie: Well welcome. I made the announcements last time at your meeting that Curtis was made full time and I think you are all familiar with Curtis. We are very lucky and glad to have him with us. So welcome to you r new Planning and Transportation Officer, Curtis Williams. Commissioner Cassel: Are there any other comments or announcements or anything? COMMISSION MEMBER Q UES TIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Commissioner Cassel: Our next meeting is going to be on July 12, 2006. There is a Stanford item on that first I believe and then there is a study session for the Zoning Ordinance Update that is going to be held second, You had a comment on that? Commissioner Sandas: Not on the agenda item but that I will not be in attendance at the meeting and this is my one and only notification. Zariah, I am not going to be at the meeting on the 12th. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Anyone else not going to be there? We all need to be here on the 26th please. Okay. NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of July 12, 2006. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much and I will adjourn the meeting. ADJOURNED: 10:31 PM City of Palo Alto June 28, 2006 Page 49 of 49 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Steven Turner, Senior Planner July 26, 2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment SUBJECT:901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-001141: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed PC district development plan, which includes the development of an i34,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared. Zone District: GM. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review the project and make the following recommendations to the City Council: Find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR; The CEQA resolution is provided as Attachment B; City of Palo Alto Page 1 o Grant a Zone Change from the existing General Manufacturing (GM) district to a Planned Community (PC) district and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided as Attachment C; Grant a Variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.110(c) to allow portions of the proposed building to extend above 50 feet, based upon the findings as listed in the draft ordinance in Attachment C, Section 4; o Approve the Architectural Review resolution, including findings for the DEE for the height of the sculptural tower, subject to the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D; Approve the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing plan, including a total of 24 assisted living and congregate care units with associated housing services provided by the Jewish Senior Residence available to low income seniors. A draft of the BMRprogram elements between the developer and the City is provided in Attachment F; and Approve a Tentative Map that would create one mixed-use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units. The Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action is contained in Attachment E. BACKGROUND The Commission reviewed the project on June 28, 2006, in conjunction with the adjacent BUILD/BRIDGE project, in that a single EIRwas prepared to encompass both projects. Staff recommended that the project be continued to allow absent commissioners to participate at the July 26th Commission meeting. The Commission heard from staff, who gave at~ oral summary of the project, and the applicant, who provided background information on the TKCJL organization, an outline of the proposed PC development program, and a description of the architecture and design as part of the development plan. The Commission opened the public hearing to accept testimony from members of the public on the TKCJL project and the BUILD/BRIDGE project. The commission heard from 28 individuals who spoke on various aspects of the project. The applicant presented a brief statement in response to questions raised by the speakers. The Commission closed the public hearing and presented questions to staff. Staff was directed to respond to the questions at the next Commission meeting. Verbatim minutes from the June 28, 2006 meeting are contained in Attachment H, Section 2. The staff report is available upon request. The development plan sets and environmental documentation were previously distributed to Commissioners. Staff has prepared responses to Commissioner’s questions, which are contained in Attachment H, Section 1. Staff has received correspondence from members of the public after the June 28 meeting. Copies of those letters are contained in Attachment H, Section 3. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In response to a question from a member of the public, the applicant has amended the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program to increase the trip reduction goal from 15% to 20%. The applicant believes that additional trip reduction would be achieved by expanding the TDM program to facility users in addition to the residents of the Jewish Senior Residences. The TDM program would include an additional section to address trip reduction efforts for users of the facility. The new section is contained in Attachment G. Minor edits have been made to the draft CEQA resolution in Attachment B and the ARB resolution in Attachment D. Those changes are in an underline/strikeout format. NEXT STEPS Following the Commission’s review and recommendation of the planning applications and the Final EIR, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and review for a final decision. It is expected that the Council will review the project in September, 2006. ATTACHMENTS A.Location map B.Draft CEQA Resolution and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan C.Draft Planned Community Ordinance, with exhibits D.Draft Architectural Review Resolution and Conditions of Approval E.Draft Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action F.Development Program Statement G.TDM Program- Section for Additional Trip Reduction Efforts H.Response to Questions, Verbatim Minutes, and Correspondence from the Public (separate document) COURTESY COPIES Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stern, Campus for Jewish Life Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph Forbes McCarthy, BUILD Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects Randy Popp, Steinberg Architects Nora Monette, David Powers & Associates Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP PREPARED BY: Steven Turner, Senior Planner~ DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 3 Planning and Transportation Commission Questions Response from Staff June 28, 2006 Commission Meeting Dan Garber Was employee parking considered in total parking required for the TKCJL project? The parking required for the TKCJL project was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for Congregate Care, Assisted Living, Recreation Center, and Day Care uses. The rates used include the combined parking requirements for residents, recreation center users, employees and visitors. Paula Sandas Regarding hazardous wastes- Is there a plan for emergency measures or contingency plans for an accidental release that may affect adjacent neighborhoods? (note: comment was not specific to construction period) Soil cleanup is currently underway on a small area of the site and is being conducted by Ford. The cleanup, which consists of soil excavation with off-site disposal, will not create unacceptable exposures to nearby residents due to the low levels of VOCs that are present in the excavated soil. Also, additional measures are being undertaken by Ford to protect nearby residents, including dust suppression and air monitoring during excavation activities. Soil cleanup will be completed prior to redevelopment of the site. The groundwater cleanup is also being conducted by Ford. The active phase of the cleanup also will be conducted prior to site redevelopment and will consist of the injection of innocuous compounds into groundwater and the construction of a passive treatment wall underground. Both of these activities will be conducted in a manner similar to the soil cleanup with measures in place to suppress dust and monitor air quality. Again, these cleanup efforts will not create unacceptable exposures to nearby residents due to the low levels of VOCs that are present With respect to the discharge of vented air from the garages, TKCJL and its contractors will be working under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to ensure that unacceptable outdoor air exposures to VOCs do not occur. Because the VOC levels are very low, it is expected that the discharge from the garage can be vented directly to the atmosphere without treatment. However, in the event that the discharge contains VOC levels that are higher than the levels allowed by the BAAQMD, the discharge will be treated using activated carbon prior to venting. The determination for the need for treatment will be made following completion of construction, but prior to occupancy. 3.TDMPlan- Compromise trip reduction from a target of 15% to 20%. Would that be possible? (with reference to Penny Ellson ’s comments) The applicant has committed to increase the trip reduction goal as described in the TDM plan from 15% to 20%. The applicant believes that additional trip reduction would be achieved by expanding the TDM program to facility users in addition to the residents of the Jewish Senior Residences. The additional section of the TDM plan to address this change is contained in Attachment G of the July 26, 2006 staff report. Lee Lippert o Mechanical equipment on roof- are there ways to minimize the amount of roof screening needed? Is there equipment that would not be seen from public right-of- ways? Can equipment be moved so that screening is not required? Screening for the mechanical units has been designed to integrate into the buildings by extending the exterior skin up and around the equipment. The major equipment has been placed so that its massing is central to the campus at Building M. Equipment for the buildings at the Northwest portion of the site has been carefully nestled between the roof forms of Building A and the side of Building K. For the Cultural Hall, the equipment has been located adjacent to the urban edge of the site at the East Charleston/San Antonio comer, pushing it as far as possible from the residential elements. 5.City use of CJL facilities- ten events in the Cultural Hall over what period of time? The ten events in the Cultural Hall for the City would be on an annual basis. These events are the minimum number committed to the City by JCC and will be specified in the Use Agreement developed in conjunction with the Community Services Department. When the project is completed and operational, the City and the JCC Review Committee may establish more periods of use when the JCC is not’ using the facility. 6. Is the tower a lighted structure? Lighting will be provided only to highlight the sculptural aspect of the Tower. Design consideration to nighttime sky issues will be given as the design progresses. This will be studied in detail by both Staff and ARB. The tower design guidelines as contained in Condition # 12 of the Architectural Review resolution, would require that low level accent lighting would be the maximum amount of lighting that could be proposed for the tower. See Sketch 6 for a representative view of the tower. 2 Dan Garber Cultural Hall- How was the 380-seat number determined? Was a market study conducted? How often would it bejqlled to capacity? The capacity of 380 seats in the Cultural Hall was established because this is the number of seats in the San Francisco JCC and it works well. Charleston Road edge of the project, including the entry to JSR, the stairway leading to the Cultural Hall, the relationship between these two features and the movement and quantity of vehicles and pedestrians in this area." Describe the intended use, the liveliness, and the occupancy of the street by the project in that particular area. The East Charleston frontage will function as ceremonial pedestrian ’front door’. It is not intended to serve as a practical access for the majority of the projected vehicular traffic coming to the site. As a result of the traffic conditions along both East Charleston and San Antonio Roads pedestrian drop off has been discouraged. For this reason, no turnout is provided and drop-off or arrival along these edges is not expected to occur. For those pedestrians who may arrive from adjacent neighborhoods, or by Public Transportation, a gracious stair has been developed as an entry to the adjacent Cultural Court and Midrachov on Podium. All of this has been designed with the purpose of representing the goal of an open and welcoming character for the TKCJL. For those arriving at the Senior Residential along East Charleston, a Porte Cochere accessible only by a right turn in the Westbound direction has been designed with adequate stacking space, to minimize the chance of standing traffic at the public roadway. All cars entering the Porte Cochere will be valet parked. Multiple lanes and short term parking have been designed to facilitate efficient valet activity on the site. See Sketch 8a for a representative image of the Cultural Hall and entry stair, Sketch 8b for the Senior Entry and Sketch 8c for a plan diagram of the site. Phyllis 9. Cassel Define "special events "- when would overflow parking spaces be required? The applicant has defined a "special event" as one that occupies the 380-seat Cultural Hall at an expected full capacity. The EIR contemplates this definition by looking at the uses on site and then determining what the parking requirement would be if the cultural hall is used to capacity. The Transportation section of the EIR (Volume I, Section B, page 95) includes an analysis of special event parking requirements. The EIR analysis determined that during a special event, with the Cultural Hall fully occupied, it is anticipated that parking would be adequate except, perhaps, for weekday evenings. It is expected that special events would take place during weekend days. However, if a special event were to take place during weekdays, a shared parking agreement that would secure off-site parking spaces would be required to accommodate any overflow parking that might result. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to secure off-site parking for outdoor events, such as a festival or other public event, in addition to a special event that would draw more than 380 people. 10. Why Charleston/Arrastradero Corridor did not include the section on Charleston from San Antonio to Fabian? The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor study area coincides with the segment of the Charleston and Arastradero roads that is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a ’Residential Arterial’. The C/A corridor study focused on addressing concerns about travel safety, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists, school commute safety and residential quality of life. The segments of Charleston Road from Fabian to Middlefield and of Arastradero Road west of Foothill Expressway are classified as ’Arterials’. 11.Clarify how bicyclists would enter and circulate throughout the TKCJL garage and on to the podium level, Bicyclists will be invited to share the sidewalk adjacent to the Shared driveway from Fabian Way. Signage indicating options for secure parking will direct users to locations within the enclosed garage. These will be .accessible either via doorway adjacent to the vehicular entry or at the main elevator access to the podium level. In both locations, options for enclosed or open bicycle storage would be available. 12. Clarify wayfinding plan; The wayfinding plan would include signage that would direct pedestrians, automobiles, and service personnel to the various facilities and uses within the site. A signage plan has not yet been adopted, but all proposed signage would be reviewed by staff during the building permit process. The applicant has provided a traffic diagram that indicates how vehicular traffic would enter the site, circulate within the parking garage, and exit the site. The diagram is contained in Sketch 12 of this document. 13.Describe the parking space ratio differences between the BUILD and JSR senior housing types; 4 14. 15. There are three types of senior housing proposed on the 901 San Antonio Road site. The senior housing on the BUILD site would be apartments for independent living. Seniors living in this type of housing will generally be responsible for their own shopping and transportation to medical appointments and other daily activities. Congregate care provides housing between independent living and the health-related services of an assisted living facility. Congregate care facilities provide social activities, security, and non-health related services such as meals, housekeeping services, and transportation. Congregate care facilities typically assist residents with preparing meals, doing housework, and outside the facility shopping and health care appointments. Assisted living is a senior housing program that provides and/or arranges for daily meals, personal and other supportive .services, health care, and 24-hour oversight to persons residing in a group residential facility who need assistance with the activities of daily living, but do not need the skilled medical care provided in a nursing home. As described in the EIR, the calculated parking demand for the senior apartments (independent living) on the BUILD Site was based upon parking demand from a number of similar senior apartment facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. The rates for the proposed Congregate Care and Assisted Living were based on ITE rates for these types of senior residential facilities for group living. Fewer residents in these units would have their own vehicles due to the increased level of assistance needed. More parking may be required for assisted living as a result of both additional employees and possibly additional visitors. The Jewish Home portion of the CJL site, which includes the proposed Congregate Care and Assisted Living units, proposes to have valet parking. Valet parking can maximize the utilization of available parking on a site. Service driveway from Charleston Road- what size vehicles would use the driveway? How would they circulate in and out of the site? The maximum vehicle size accessing the Service Drive will be a WB-40 Semi- trailer, which is approximately 50-feet in length. Provision for straight in movement with a standard hammerhead turn-around into the loading dock and then Left or Right back out of the drive has been accommodated in the design. Describe auto and pedestrian circulation in-to, out-of and around the parking garage; The applicant has provided a traffic diagram that indicates how vehicular traffic would enter the site, circulate within the parking garage, and exit the site. The diagram is contained in Sketch 12 of this document. 16. Describe security plan; is the site open or is it a closed facility? A variety of scenarios have been considered as part of the design for the TKCJL security plan. Residents and visitors to the Senior Residence will be greeted both by valet upon arrival and reception within the Lobby prior to gaining access to the building. Access to the garage from East Charleston will only be available to valet attendants. Secure access to the buildings at areas other than the Lobby will limited to those with Key Card. Members of the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center will be issued key cards that will provide access to the enclosed secure garage as well as other limited areas on the site. Visitors in vehicles arriving at the OFJCC will first visit a security booth stationed within the Shared Drive. A temporary access card will grant approved visitors a one-time entry to the secure garage. During major events the OFJCC will increase the staffing of the secure entrance to the garage along the Shared Drive. An appropriate number of staff will facilitate efficient access to the garage while maintaining desired levels of security. Within and through the TKCJL Campus, pedestrian access will be open at all times with staff monitoring through the use of remote systems as well as regular physical movement throughout the campus. 17. On site retail: open to all (guests, employees, etc) or just seniors? Cafd? The on-site retail operations would be open and available to all users and visitors to the site. 18. What TDM measures for facility "users"? Look at what we did with YMCA. The applicant has committed to increase the trip reduction goal as described in the TDM plan from 15% to 20%. The applicant believes that additional trip reduction would be achieved by expanding the TDM program to facility users in addition to the residents of the Jewish Senior Residences. The additional section of the TDM plan to address this change is contained in Attachment G of the July 26, 2006 staff report. Lee Lippert 19. If TKCJL shuttle is discontinued would an in-lieu fee be paid? The State of California Department of Social Services, as part of the licensing requirements for senior housing, requires a shuttle service as an amenity for congregate care and assisted living units. Although the shuttle is not a traffic mitigation measure, the applicant will be proving the service not only to the residents of the Jewish Senior Residences, but also for the convenience for Bridge Housing senior residents on the adjacent parcel. The shuttle will operate multiple times a day and the JSR is certain there will be dependable availability for the BRIDGE seniors. Phyllis Cassel 20. Will shuttle be dependable for BRIDGE seniors? 21. Describe types of special events that would take place in the courtyard areas. How would noise be addressed during these events, such as a real festival? TKCJL has no plans for "special uses" in the courtyard, but would be willing to procure off-site parking if a festival were l~eld there and it was anticipated that the number of people would exceed 380 (the same number as the maximum occupancy within the Cultural Hall). TKCJL would also be willing to obtain a temporary use permit for such outdoor festivals if the anticipated number of people might exceed 380. Condition #9 of the Architectural Review Resolution would require that all amplified events within the courtyard shall cease no later than 10:00 P.M. seven days per week. All events shall meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance at all times. 22. BMRs- would the City b’e better off with more units rather than fees? a) The BRIDGE / BUILD BMR agreement is intended to result in 56 very low income senior rental apartments at no cost to the City’s affordable housing funds instead of the standard 15 percent, inclusionary units, which in this case would be 16 moderate income, ownership townhouse condos. By leveraging the financial value of the estimated cost to BUILD of complying with the standard BMR requirement, with available State and federal rental housing subsidies, Palo Alto should benefit with the development of many more affordable units (56 versus 16). The senior units planned by BRIDGE would be the first new, subsidized senior rentals built in the City since the completion of the Lytton Courtyard project in 1995, over ten years ago. For the BRIDGE & BUILD projects, the priority for the City (and for the applicants) was to take advantage of BRIDGE capability & experience in financing and developing very low income, subsidized rental housing to translate BUILD’s moderate income BMR requirement of 16 for-sale townhouses into a larger number of rental units on the site & to have those rental units be at the low or very low income level with long term affordability restrictions. BRIDGE is. committing to developing 56 units of very low income senior rental apartments, if the necessary tax credit and / or HUD subsidies and financing can be obtained. BUILD is committing to providing a large portion of the development costs of the senior rental housing with BUILD’s contribution equal to the estimated amount of a standard in-lieu BMR fee for their project. The BRIDGE / BUILD BMR agreement has two fall back plans in the unlikely case that BRIDGE cannot secure the subsidies needed to construct the senior rental project within a reasonable time period. The first plan requires BRIDGE to develop a minimum of 16 standard BMR, for-sale condos on the half acre site Bridge will control. The BMR condos must be comparable in size and type to the 16 BMRs that would otherwise have been provided by BUILD if a typical BMR agreement had been prepared. Because future construction costs, interest rates and the market cannot be predicted with certainty, it is possible that BRIDGE could not afford to develop this alternative ownership project and, only in that case, is Bridge required to pay BMR in-lieu fees to the City. Both staff and Bridge agreed that if both the senior rental project and the alternative, small for- sale condo project proved financially infeasible, that the BMR requirement would be satisfied by an in-lieu fee payment with the amount set by a formula agreed to at this time, rather than require Bridge to continue indefinitely for years into the future to construct affordable units on the land. b) CJL and JSR BMR A~reement: The BMR agreement for this project does not involve any in-lieu fees, but requires the provision of BMR units within the senior residences. Dan Garber 23.BMR Information- additional discussion on the adequacy of the BUILD alternatives by staff" See the response to Commissioner Cassel’s question about the BMR agreements for more detail on the aspects of the very low income senior rental project and the second alternative of at least 16 for-sale BMR condos on the Bridge half acre site. Staff believes that the relationship and expertise of BUILD and Bridge provides a unique opportunity to leverage the BMR requirement on a for-sale ownership project into a significantly larger number of deeply subsidized senior rental units without the City contributing the typical gap funding that would normally be needed by a non-profit developer such as Bridge. For example, even with large tax credit and State funding awards, the City needed to provide over $5 million in housing funds to make the Oak Court family project feasible. The fall back plans are not as satisfactory as the recommended senior rental housing plan and that is why they can only be untaken if the senior rental project has proven impossible for Bridge to finance even with repeated efforts over a number of years. If Bridge, being the largest and most productive of all the housing non-profits in the State, cannot secure financing, then one can be sure that it would be impossible for other affordable housing developers too. The first fall back plan results in no fewer BMR units than would otherwise have been provided originally by BUILD. It is likely that Bridge would choose to construct some additional market units on the half acre site and any market units would trigger additional BMR units at the then current required BMR rate. However, these ownership BMR units would not be constructed and available until years after the BUILD project is finished, which is less satisfactory than having them included up front within BUILD’s project. The last scenario, of an in-lieu BMR fee payment into the City’s Residential Fund, has been structured to allow Bridge to recoup their costs in trying to develop the alternative housing projects, but with a minimum fee payment guaranteed to the City. Thus, the City is sharing some of the downside risk with Bridge, which could result in lower BMR in-lieu fee revenue going to the City than the City would have received in the first place if we had taken BMR fees from BUILD at the first sale of their condo townhouses. If this scenario has to be used, the final amount of the BMR fees paid to the City depends on Bridge’s costs and the resale value of the half acre site. Staff accepted this structure, despite its possible drawbacks, because: 1) staff felt Bridge should have some protection from the financial risks it was assuming; 2) staff has solid confidence that Bridge will succeed with either the senior rental project or the for-sale condos; and 3) staff sees the fee payment scenario as being a remote possibility. 24. How do the projects support interaction with the neighborhood? The TKCJL Campus provides a broad range of opportunities including the fitness center, cultural programs, and activity centers that would open to the community. Membership in the JCC is open to the entire community and historically has been almost 50% non-Jewish. In addition to the programs provided by the JCC, an agreement between the JCC and the City would be adopted for joint use of the JCC facility fro City-sponsored program. The framework for the joint-use facility is described in the applicant’s Development Program statement, contained in Attachment F. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, July 26, 2006 REGULAR Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Aven ue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:lOpm Commissioners: Patrick Burt - Chair Karen Holman - V-Chair Lee I. Lippert Paula Sandas Phyllis Cassel Daniel Garber Annette Bialson Staff." Curtis Williams, Chief Planning/Transportation Official Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Amy French, Current Planning Manager Steven Turner, Senior Planner Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031, 06PLN-00050] 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295, 06PLN-00114] Chair Burt: At this time we would like to convene the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 26, 2006. Would the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Burt: At this time we provide the public with an opportunity to speak regarding items that are not on the agenda. Do we have a speaker? Ms. Sandy Sloan, Menlo Park: I understand that tonight is the last meeting for Commissioner Bialson and Commissioner Cassel. I would just like to say as a person who watches Palo Alto City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 1 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 meetings and comes to a lot of meetings that I very much have appreciated both of them as Planning Commissioners. I think they are both incredibly smart, incredibly wise, those are two different things, incredibly succinct in their comments and have provided great guidance for over eight years, a long time. Thirteen and nine so over 20 years together. So thank you very much for serving as Commissioners. Chair Burt: Thank you for those kind words. That is the only speaker on items not on the agenda. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Burt: Our first agenda item tonight is not the one that most people are here for but it probably will not take too long. So that is an Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. Don, would you like to introduce the item and explain what we have here? UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 2.Adoption of Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Policies and Procedures. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Sure and I will try to make it brief. At the last Retreat the Commission discussed changes to its procedural rules regarding quasi-judicial hearings and specifically there was a discussion on whether Planned Community Zoning applications should be subject to the same rules. The consensus of the Commission at the time was that there should be some revision to the procedural rules that encompass quasi-judicial proceedings particularly with regard ex part6 contacts. I have made some suggested changes. Commissioner Holman correctly pointed out that it is somewhat confusing because we talk about judicial proceedings and Planned Community Zoning is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. So the one suggestion I would make in addition to the redline comments are that on page Roman numeral four, page one, that we change under General Requirements we change item one to quasi-judicial and Planned Community Zoning proceedings defined and then remove the word ’quasi-judicial’ from that first sentence. Otherwise I think the redline comments are self- explanatory so I won’t go into detail unless Commissioners have questions. Chair Burt: Commissioners, questions or comments? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had a brief comment which is we had I wouldn’t even say an applicant but it was a citizen who had contacted a number of us regarding a zone change on a site. I felt very uncomfortable talking to that individual. I didn’t know how that would fit in to this. It was a number of months ago. I was wondering if there were any thoughts on that. Chair Burt: Well, as I understand it that would be a quasi-judicial item on a zone change, correct? Commissioner Lippert: But there is no application. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 2 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Excuse me. I see, there was not at that time an application before us. Mr. Larkin: A zone change is not quasi-judicial, a strict zone change. It is only because the Planned Community Zone has features that are not unlike a quasi-judicial proceeding that we discussed having those rules apply to those. The other thing, just to remind the Commission, is that members of the public do have a First Amendment right to address Commissioners as they see fit. The only issue is whether or not that becomes a two-way conversation. Chair Burt: I think what Commissioner Lippert was also getting at was what about those circumstances when there is not yet an application that has been submitted. Don, what is your understanding about how these procedures apply to that circumstance? Mr. Larkin: I would expect that if the item that they are discussing is something that would require an application for a permit that it would be a quasi-judicial determination that the rules would apply equally just because they are not at the stage where they have submitted their application yet doesn’t mean that -- the proceeding itself would still be a quasi-judicial proceeding once the application was submitted. Chair Burt: So as Commissioners consider this we may want to make sure that we are affirming that that is our interpretation and self-adopted rule as Don just stated it. I don’t think we went into that depth of discussion at our Retreat. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I think perhaps my memory faulty or not I think City Attorney did mention at our Retreat that something that would become a project but was not yet an application the same rules would apply. That language isn’t indicated here and I think it is a good topic that Commissioner Lippert has brought up. So perhaps we could do something about that. The other question I had raised with the City Attorney is we have this kind of funny thing with language. We have under the quasi-judicial and now Planned Community Zone proceeding defined we have redlined or preliminary review, we also have study sessions and prescreening. The City is kind of using those terms interchangeably. Maybe just so we catch the intention of our change here that we include study session and prescreening there as well. Mr. Larkin: The preliminary review is the same thing as the study session. We need to be more careful about what we call these applications when they come before you and use the right terminology because they are all under preliminary review under the code, the study session and the prescreening. Chair Burt: But, you have clarified that that is the intention of what is encompassed under preliminary review whether we want to parenthesize it whatever. When some new person comes along and reads this it would be good that it is unambiguous as far as what is being covered there. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 3 of 57 1 Mr. Larkin: I should just point out if you read the rules closely it doesn’t hinge on the fact that 2 there is an application pending. It says that we discourage the gathering of information outside 3 of a public hearing. There is no requirement that an application be filed for the rules to take 4 place because it says the gathering of information on a quasi-judicial project is what is 5 discouraged. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: I would still feel that even though literally what is here encompasses all the things that have just been discussed it would be more beneficial to be unambiguous about what is being covered there and include that in the language. Otherwise we are going to have new people who won’t understand that context and that background and all those things or even ourselves who pick it back up a year from now and try and reread it and try and remember exactly what the intent was. So I don’t know if other Commissioners feel that way but I would feel much more comfortable if that was spelled out so it is just clear. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I just want to say that I agree with you. The less ambiguous anything is I think the better off for those to come after us as well. Mr. Larkin: I should just say the only reason - because I had considered putting in prescreening and study sessions and the reason that I didn’t include it is that those things don’t exist under our code for Planned Community Developments. I am trying to discourage the use of terms that are not actual things that we do. So I didn’t want to create this in the document but if the Commissioners feel strongly that that needs to be in there I am happy to include it. Chair Burt: Especially given it is a policy it is not a statute. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had two other minor comments. One is disclosure of conflicts of interest. We have a number of Commissioners that if there is only one item on the agenda and they have a conflict of interest and are not participating they don’t show up but it is not disclosed as to what their conflict of interest is. I think that really needs tobe addressed here because we say that members that are present need to disclose that they have a conflict of interest well, why wouldn’t the members who are not here that have a conflict of interest when it is the only item on the agenda should have to disclose that in some way. So if that can be read into the record as to what that would be. Chair Burt: Don, is that something that could be incorporated into policy that the Commissioner should notify in writing Staff what the conflict of interest is or anything or is that not necessary? Mr. Larkin: I would need to give that some more thought. I don’t think that is certainly not necessary and it isn’t something that we have discussed so I haven’t given it any thought. Commissioner Lippert: That is just something for the future. Then the second thing I just want to mention and I don’t want to into a great amount of detail but if you go into Section 5, Special Meetings we don’t define joint meetings, which we do quite frequently now. Roman numeral five. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 4 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: We can address that the next time through. Unless you are prepared to give me some language I am not prepared to do it. I should just point out that the majority of joint meetings are going to be City Council Joint Meetings and those would be covered under the City Council’s procedural rules. Commissioner Lippert: Actually ARB who would govern in that or if we had it with Parks and Recreation in terms of open space. Chair Burt: Okay. So then Don is going to put that on the parking list for next update on this? It is a point well taken. Dan. Commissioner Garber: Roman numeral three, number six, items seven and nine, the products of these two appear to be .the same in that someone that doesn’t vote is it necessary to describe that the causes are different or how are these two things different? The first one being silence constitutes an affirmative vote and number nine is abstaining from vote. Mr. Larkin: That is right, somebody who when the Chair says abstain raises their hand they are .choosing not to cast a vote. Some who says nothing is choosing to cast an affirmative vote. Commissioner Garber: Why do we distinguish between the two? I am just curiousi Chair Burt: If I understand it the silence actually is an affirmative vote. The abstaining is a non- vote and the majority of the voters prevail. Is that correct, Don? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Just as a practical matter if the Chair calls the vote and says, "all in favor," and he hears aye and he is not going to hear abstain so he is going to assume that if he hears ayes and not nays that everybody voted in favor. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to make a motion? Karen. MOTION Vice-Chair Holman: I would move adoption of the Revised Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules dated July 20, 2006 with the changes already described by City Attorney under General Requirements that quasi-judicial and Planned Community Zone proceedings defined with the next sentence starting, "Proceedings," and under the copy with preliminary review parenthetically add "study session and prescreening." SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Chair Burt: Karen, any comments on your motion? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 5 of 57 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Vice-Chair Holman: Just that I support this and it has been the Commission’s practice for some 2 time to carry on this practice and that the purpose as stated here is that these rules are intended to 3 assure that Commission decision-making on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and 4 evidence known to all parties. We have had discussion at our Retreats that this one way where 5 we can be confident that all parties have all the same information so I am happy to make the motion. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Burt: Lee, any comments? Anyone else wish to comment on the motion? All right. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? So that passes unanimously and anybody I didn’t hear I take to have voted affirmatively. So that passes on a seven to zero vote. Thank you Don for those updates. Our next item is one of the two big ones tonight that are interrelated, 901 San Antonio Road. It is a request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, known by the acronym of BUILD, for a Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan, including the development of 103 units of for-sale town home residences, 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. So just to clarify the Final Environmental Impact Report is the same report covering both of the items two and three tonight. Commissioner Holman you have a statement? Vice-Chair Holman: I do. While I don’t have a financial conflict on this project one of the consultants that is well involved with this project is helping with another project that I am very, very involved with and so because of that I felt a personal and ethical conflict of interest so I have not been participating in this item. I wish you all well in your deliberations and once again wish Commissioners Bialson and Cassel well in their maybe retirement. Chair Burt: You are going to leave us with all the fun tonight, Karen. Commissioner Bialson and myself were absent from the last meeting so I think we want to comment on our preparedness to participate tonight. Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: Yes. I just want to say that I did read all the transcript of the minutes of June 28, 2006 and feel I am prepared to rule on this motion. Chair Burt: Likewise for myself and I think we have both participated in this project over the past two years or so, probably more in its various iterations. So we look forward to this meeting. All right. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Chair Burt? One recommendation. Curtis Williams is going to speak a little bit about the procedures tonight for your review, deliberation and questions. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 6 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Perhaps Staff would recommend that you would also read into the record the description for the second part of the project the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Project and then Staff will give a brief presentation on both projects. Chair Burt: Great, thank you. As I understand it that is because even though we may have certain discussions that we will try to break up between items two and three both of them will be discussed in the same broad discussion tonight. Okay, so item number three is also at 901 San Antonio Road. A request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life, also know by the acronym of TKCJL throughout here, for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning of a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed PC District development plan, which includes the development of an 134,000 square foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. I think that covers it. Curtis would you like to give us some guidance here? 901 San Antonio Road [06PLN-00031~ 06PLN-00050]: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) for Planning and Transportation Commission Review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district and of a proposed Planned Community (PC) district development plan, which includes the development of 103 units of for-sale town home style residences and 56 senior affordable residences, a parking garage and landscaping improvements. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the BUILD and Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) has been prepared. Zone District: GM. (contd. from June 28, 2006). 901 San Antonio Road [05PLN-00295~ 06PLN-00114|: Request by Steinberg Architects on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus of Jewish Life (TKCJL) for Planning and Transportation Commission review for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and of a proposed Planned Community district development plan; which includes the development of an 134,000 square-foot community center, including a cultural hall, community meeting rooms, adult activity space, preschool, after school care facilities, fitness center, administration and support areas and 193 senior residential living units. The project request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create senior housing condominium units, a Variance to exceed the 50-foot height limit, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a sculptural tower element to extend to approximately 96 City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 7 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 feet above grade and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development and TKCJL projects has been prepared. Zone District: GM. (contd. from June 28, 2006). Mr. Turner: Actually, I am going to go ahead and give just a brief Staff Report and then I will turn it over to Curtis. Chair Burt: Okay Steve, then you’re up. Mr. Turner: Staff is going to make the following recommendations and I will start with the BUILD project. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the project and make the following recommendations to the City Council. Number one, find that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is in Attachment B. Number two, grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is provided in attachment C. Number three, approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D. Number four, approve the proposed Below Market Rate housing plan for 56 senior apartment units. A draft of the BMR program letter is provided in Attachment E. And, approve a Tentative Map that would subdivide the existing four-acre site and create one multi-family residential lot of approximately one-half of an acre containing 56 multi-family residential units and multiple family residential lot containing 103 condominium town home style units. The Draft Record of Land Use Action for the approval of the Tentative Map is contained in Attachment F. That is the recommendation for the BUILD project. The recommendation for TKCJL is as follows. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the project and make the following recommendations to the Council. Number one, find that the FEIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. The CEQA resolution is in Attachment B. Number two, grant a zone change from the existing General Manufacturing District to a Planned Community District and grant a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The draft ordinance is in Attachment C. Number three, grant a Variance from the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.110C to allow portions of the proposed building to extend above 50 feet based upon the findings as listed in the draft ordinance in Attachment C, Section 4. Number four, approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the findings for a Design Enhancement Exception for height of the sculptural tower subject to the conditions of approval as provided in Attachment D. Number five, approve the Below Market Rate housing plan including a total of 24 assisted living and congregate care units with associated housing services provided by the Jewish senior residents available to low income seniors. A draft of the BMR program elements between the developer and the City is provided in the project description letter in Attachment F. Number six, approve a Tentative Map that would create one mixed use lot containing 193 senior congregate care and assisted living condominium units and a community center. The Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action is contained in Attachment E. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 8 of 57 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Commissioners, as you are aware the Commission reviewed the project at the June 28 Planning 3 and Transportation Commission meeting. At that meeting Staff recommended that the 4 Commission continue the item to allow the absent Commissioners from that meeting to 5 participate in the discussion. It was identified that July 26 would be the meeting where that could take place. At that June 28 meeting Commissioners heard from the Staff and the applicants who summarized the various aspects of the project. The Commission then opened the public hearing and heard testimony from members of the public. At the conclusion of the public testimony Commissioners asked questions of Staff and the applicant and directed Staff to prepare responses for tonight’s meeting. The Commission closed the public hearing and continued the project to tonight. In preparation for tonight’s meeting Staffprepared responses to the Commissioner’s questions. The questions and responses are contained in Section 1 of Attachment H and that is this bound copy here. This attachment also contains the meeting minutes from the June 28 meeting in Section 2 and all of the email received since that June meeting in Section 3. You will probably note that correction is needed on the cover. It says Public Correspondence as of June 22, 2006 and that should read July 22, 2006. In addition to the information that you received in your packet Staff has placed the following items at your places this evening. There is a small packet containing additional correspondences received since this packet for this meeting was delivered to you and it contains correspondence that was not included in the June Staff Report or in Attachment H. The applicant has also provided you with 115 letters of support contained in this document with the blue cover. Also at your places tonight is a replacement BUILD Attachment C which is the Planned Community ordinance. An uncorrected version of this ordinance was included in the Staff Report tonight. So the correct version is at your places and that version contains edits to clarify the public benefit and development schedule as well as minor clarifying edits to the conditions of approval. Finally, you also have a copy of the TKCJL Transportation Demand Management program. The Staff Report tonight contained an excerpt from that report that talks about an increase in the number of trip reduction the TDM program hopes to achieve. The entire TDM report is at your places and it is also back at the table behind us. There will be no formal presentation by the applicants tonight but both Staff and the applicants are able to answer your questions this evening. We also have Judith Wasserman from the Architectural Review Board here to answer your questions as well as Dennis Stmecker, the Transportation Consultant for the EIR and also Nora Monette from David Powers who helped us prepare the EIR. They are sitting over there and can answer your questions tonight. That concludes the Staff Report but I do want to hand it off to Curtis who can provide some assistance or suggestions tonight on how to review the project. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 9 of 57 1 Mr. Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Steven. What we 2 would suggest tonight is that you take the two items in order, that you ask questions and 3 comment about the BUILD project and then do the same subsequently about the TKCJL project 4 and then come back and take action on the BUILD project and then take action on the CJL 5 project. The reason why we sort of need it in that sequence and you can’t take action until the 6 end is because your first action on both items is to certify the EIR and both items are in the EIR. 7 So you really need to have fully discussed both of these items before you can take action. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: So just to be clear, after we have our discussion of the BUILD project and then the Center for Jewish Life we would first address the approval of the FEIR and then have perhaps the motions regarding the projects if we didn’t want to fold it all into one motion? Mr. C. Williams: I think that is probably a good idea since the FEIR covers both projects. That way you do that as the first action you would be taking anyway on the BUILD project and then subsequently when you act on the CJL you can indicate that you have already taken that first action there. Chair Burt: Then depending on how our discussion goes and whether there are any substantive amendments we may want to consider whether it would be best to include those amendments under a primary motion or address them under separate votes and have a primary motion to hit the big major items. That is something for us to consider on how we break up our actions. I neglected to make one announcement in the beginning. It is in our agenda but Item Number 4, 560 San Antonio Road will not be heard tonight. That item has been withdrawn in case anyone is here for that purpose or listening. NEW BUSINESS: 4. 560 San Antonio Road - Request for public hearing of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new 11,690 square foot multi-use private educational facility replacing an existing 20,920 square foot office building at 560 San Antonio Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone: Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). Chair Burt: I guess we are going to have to try to figure out how to get our arms around this big thing. It is one of the largest projects that we have seen in many years or are likely to see. So our first discussion would be around the BUILD project and who would like to begin with either questions or comments? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I would like either the Staffor the developer to explain so that I have it straight the BMR portion of what is happening on this site. Basically, overall I really don’t have very many questions or comments or concerns with this site. It meets all the other requirements but I am trying to understand and make sure I have that straight. Chair Burt: Steven, do you think it would be best to have the applicant respond? Ms. Tan, welcome. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 10 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Lydia Tan, BUILD: Good evening. I hope I have it straight too so let me take a stab at this. As you know, BUILD is a partnership between Cal--PERS and Bridge Housing Corporation and Bridge Housing Corporation is a nonprofit housing developer. Our main focus is to provide very affordable housing and very high quality. So when we started to have a conversation with the Staff about the BMR requirement our hope and really how the project was designed was to try and provide as much affordability as possible within the confines of the return requirements of Cal--PERS who is the main equity source of this project. So our proposal was to try to leverage the 15 units that are required on the town home side into a larger senior affordable project next door, which we are taking a look at as part of this project. So the 15 units were subject to a study in terms of trying to determine financially what the value of transferring those 15 units next door to the senior project was. It was a project that was commissioned by the City, your housing staff was involved and the number that came out as a value was about $7.3 million. So for the 103 units, 15 would have been required, the value of those 15 units was set at $7.3 million. What we have come to with Staff is that the BUILD side, the town home side, would transfer $7.3 million over to Bridge. Bridge would use the $7.3 million in part to develop the senior site. We would still have quite a bit of money still to go and raise to build the entire 56-unit project but that gives us a really good running start to try to make that project possible. There are additional things. We are very committed to making the 56 units work. Staff also I think is very supportive but Staff also in theirwisdom thought that if we weren’t able to pull all the funding together there needed to be some conclusion to the story on site. So we came up with two alternatives in the case that we could not make the affordable senior project work. The first alternative would be that within the envelope that is hopefully being approved tonight that we would build 30 to 32 condominium units of which the 15 would be affordable at the income levels that would have applied to the 103 unit town home development. There would be a few market rate condominium units that would be used to cost subsidize those affordable units onsitel We would use the $7.3 million to subsidize those units onsite and then those market rate units would also have their own BMR requirement as well that would be included in that project. The second alternative would be if after a maximum of six years wecould not make either the apartments or the condo project pencil, financially feasible, we would essentially liquidate all of our assets on that particular site and make an in lieu payment to the City. So that is everybody’s least favorite idea but it was really the only solution that we could all come to that made sense to try and come to conclusion on aproject. So we are crossing our fingers we will never have to talk about that after City Council hopefully looks at this project. Any questions? Chair Burt: Lee, do you have a question of Lydia? Commissioner Lippert: A question of Staff actually. Chair Burt: Okay. Maybe I could ask one of Lydia first. So what I hear is that you have a good confidence that this will happen. Can you give us some sense of where that confidence level is? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 11 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Tan: We have three possibly four altemative financing scenarios that we will be pursuing over the next several years. One would be to access HUD funding for the Section 202 program. That would provide a fairly significant amount funds that helps make up the gap and it also provides operating subsidy that would allow us to serve senior that are extremely low income. They would only pay 30 percent of their income on rent which is really exciting. We would couple that with low-income housing tax credits. So that is one scenario that we are looking at. We actually have an application into HUD right now and we will have to see how it goes. It is very, very competitive and generally the more often you apply the more likely you are to get it. So we know that we have a multi-year process there. There are also two forms of low-income housing tax credits that we also are looking at. The third is a supportive housing type program that is offered through the State of California that would allow us to serve both independent seniors and other seniors who have a couple of physical deficiencies that they would need help with. So all of them are funded fight now. They are all very competitive. Some are more powerful than others in terms closing our gap. We also have over the last couple of years been able to secure funding commitments from the housing trust fund of Santa Clara County, from EPA, from lenders for the community development, the Sobrato Foundation. So we have been slowly trying to work towards filling the gap. We are pretty confident that we can make it happen but there is always the outside chance that the stars won’t align for us and we have to go to the second alternative. Chair Burt: So when you describe it as an outside Chance - I am still trying to get a sense of this because frankly technically the two projects are separate but the community support and how we viewed everything has been contingent on really both halves of this happening. If one half didn’t happen then have we been looking at it in the same way that we would have if we had known it wasn’t going to happen. So you have been at this a long time and BUILD has done a lot of projects. Is this something that you are hopeful of, that you are highly confident in and I know you can’t put a number on it but I am still trying to get a better sense of your confidence level? Ms. Tan: I don’t think I could say highly confident I think I could say confident. It is more than hopeful. If it were only hopeful we wouldn’t be proposing it. Really, the tradeoff and I think Staff saw it as a tradeoff is do you provide 15 units moderate income housing or do you really try to stretch and get the 56 units of extremely low income housing? I think on balance we believe and I can’t speak for Staff but I think Staff also agrees it is worth the try. .Chair Butt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with you on that but I do have a question with regard to the second alternative, which we hope we never go to. That would be liquidating the asset which is the land and at that time paying what amount of money to the City? Ms. Tan: It would be whatever we have left and at no time would it be below $4.5 million. The reason it is lower than the $7.3 million is we will be incurring funds all along in good faith trying make the senior project happen. I am sorry I did not bring the accounting with me but we actually provided Staff with an accounting of what where we thought we would be if after six years we were unable to get funding together. There is actually about $4.0 million left but City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 12 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Bridge has made a commitment to come out ofp0cket an extra $500,000 to make sure that we hit the $4.5 million. It could be that the market is great and somebody will pay a lot of money for that land. Anything in surplus would go to the City. I think there is a limit based on $7.3 million plus some interest assigned to it but essentially everything would go back to the City. Commissioner Bialson: The six-year period of time is one that is perhaps alterable by you or by the City agreeing that you do not have an opportunity or will not have a chance to build this out as you wouldlike and the City can request that you liquidate the land earlier? Ms. Tan: We have four years by right and there is a two-year extension that the City could say no to if they believe that there is no chance of getting funding together. On our side we will try very hard for the first two years, we will fight very hard for six years but for the first three years the primary focus will be on the senior project because that is everybody’s primary goal. If after two years the funding doesn’t seem to be coming through then we have the option of converting to the condo project so that within a four year period one of the two would happen. If it doesn’t happen by four years it is really up to the City to give us the two-year extension if we all feel that there is a chance of still having something happen. Commissioner Bialson: Do you give the City accountings of what you are spending and how often do you do that? Ms. Tan: Yes. I don’t think we have talked about specifically how often but we are happy to do it as often as the City would be interested in it. Commissioner Bialson: Maybe I am misunderstanding but my understanding is we are dealing with a pot of $7.3 million and as we make effort to develop this project in the way you and we hope that it will be you are using and expending those funds for purposes of trying to move forward that project. As the funds are being deducted from the $7.3 million it seems like there should be a recording and reporting requirement to the City and some influence that the City could have over how those funds might be spent. Maybe you need trigger points of after $1.0 million is spent so that the amount is reduced to $6.3 million that there might be some different relationship between yourselves and the City with regard to approving any additional expenditure of funds or having at least a reporting requirement. I am just concerned that sometimes these projects get a life of their own and the developer with all best intentions just gets very committed to something that the City perhaps should be able to have input in with regard to the likelihood of its success especially if that City is bearing the burden of the costs. Essentially that sounds like what we are doing. We are to a certain extent the developer there. It is to our economic interest to have some say in how those funds are expended. I don’t know how you would work that out with the City but I do think that there has be some written agreement and trigger points at which the City has perhaps a little more influence in how the project goes forward. Ms. Tan: One of the requirements is that there is an Affordable Housing Agreement that negotiated and drafted before City Council sees this project, which I think is scheduled for September. So I think those comments can be incorporated but in response what I would say is we are happy to report. We have given the City Staff a budget as to how we think the dollars are City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 13 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 going to get spent. We are happy to stick to that budget. We can certainly work on a trigger. I think $1.0 million is too low. The other thing that you should understand is in this budget there is no staff time so for the six years Bridge will be expending its own stafftime in support of trying to get the project done. Given that and given our mission I would hope that you would feel like we are doing everything we can to try and make the project work. Commissioner Bialson: That is understood but I do think there are heightened levels of involvement that are called upon once certain amounts of money are spent and whether that is just one trigger point or some other mile post along the way I think that if you are going to set forth in a four year or a six year relationship you need some rules that will establish the leverage points shall we say. Thank you. Ms. Tan: Thank you. Chair Burt: I appreciate that you stated that you didn’t happen to bring the ledger of how the funds are anticipated to be spent. Can you just give us a little bit of a general sense of the categories? Are they for architectural design and grant application or what kinds of things? Ms. Tan: It is all those things. There is money in there to acquire the site from BUILD. There are dollars in there to pay for the architecture and the permits and the planning fees that we have been paying all along. There is money in there for funding applications. Every time we make a funding application we either have to update our rental phase one/phase two reports or we have to put together a marketing study so those sorts of things are in there. I am trying to recall what else but those are the big ones. What we were not planning on doing is spending a whole lot more money on architecture until we know we have a funding source in place. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense right now to spend more money fight now. Chair Burt: So a good portion of this funding is compensation for funds that BUILD has already expended and this is the agreement ..... Ms. Tan: Some of it. That’s correct. Chair Burt: Okay. Lee, you had questions for Staff?. Thank you, Lydia. Commissioner Lippert: In the Staff responses on page six, question 19 1 don’t know if my question has actually been answered adequately. I remember reading in the Staff Report that there was an out for the applicant in terms of not having to have the shuttle if they did not have the congregate care and assisted living units. Mr. Turner: So you are saying that if the Jewish senior residence portion of the project goes away that then they would not have a requirement for the shuttle? Commissioner Lippert: There is an out in there that they didn’t have to provide or if they didn’t have to provide the shuttle service. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 14 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Tumer: I think part of the response is saying that as a requirement of state licensing, perhaps the applicant can explain this a little better, that in order to provide those types of housing units that they need to provide a shuttle. A.shuttle is required in order to be licensed for those types of living units. So as long as they are a licensed facility they would be required to have that shuttle and then that shuttle would be used as part of their benefit for the senior houses on the adjacent site. Commissioner Lippert: Then it also says in here that it is not a traffic mitigation measure but a concern of the neighborhood is traffic and that the idea is that this shuttle would be used for say satellite parking to bring people to the site during events. Mr. Turner: The applicant could explain that. I believe the intent is really the shuttle only for the Jewish senior residential units not for providing transportation to and from the community center during those special event times. Commissioner Lippert: Does the applicant want to address that? Mr. Jim Baer, Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life: Hi, Jim Baer on behalf of the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life. The statement Steven Turner answered correctly. The statement that the shuttle being provided for the JSR was not included as a mitigation measure and by the way neither was the TDM program with its 20 percent target reduction for employees means that we didn’t ask for credit against trip generation as a result of the TDM or the shuttle being provided for JSR residents. That answers the first part of the question which is when it says it is not part of the mitigation doesn’t mean that we aren’t committing to provide those it means that it didn’t reduce trip count. We were assessed with the full trip count as if we weren’t providing a TDM or a shuttle. The second part of that question was also answered correctly which is the shuttle used by the JSR and then shared with Bridge Housing low income senior hasnothing to do with the special events shuttle that may be required if the campus can’t show proximity and adjacency of parking for special events and a shuttle is necessary. That would be an independent shuttle and if necessary more than one shuttle in order to bring people to the campus from offsite. This is just for the JSR onsite use of its residents and those of Bridge. Commissioner Lippert: I understand it. I don’t know if I like it. Chair Burt: Thank you. Next questions? Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel: You want comments? Chair Burt: I guess if we don’t have questions we can move right into comments. This is the easier half of the two. Commissioner Cassel: As I read this, my comments are that I like the Bridge project and I am not having problems with it. It meets the parking requirements, it meets the height limits, it provides middle/moderate-housing needs, which are hard to get. It is very hard to get middle City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 15 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27~ 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 income housing in this community. There are mechanisms for other things but middle-income housing is actually the hardest to get in that middle-income range and a little bit of high moderate. It provides low and very low-income housing. The units for the combined site is 40 units per acre and we tend to lose that because if they just look at that when they divided it out the units per acre is high on the affordable units but lower than you would have normally in a 40 units per acre on the other and I think we need to keep that in mind. Based on what happens in the future it needs to be noted that this was originally designed as one project and then it got divided out for reasons that have to happen which gives one site a higher density than the other but falls within that 40 units per acre. The BMR sometimes becomes an issue when you say you are not providing exactly the same units as you would for the market rate units but I think we are much better off with more very low-income senior units and that creates the balance that we want. In addition to that there will be some subsidy for people purchasing the condominium units. So basically I am satisfied with this project and I am satisfied with the explanation of the BMR program. Chair Burt: Who would like to comment next? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with all of Phyllis’ comments and except for the one point I have to make with regard to an alternative which I don’t think we ever find ourselves in, or hope we will never find ourselves in, I am in support of this project. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I will join Phyllis and Annette in supporting the project. I think it is an especially good job of bridging the gap between some of the residential uses that are on that side of the site and the rest of the project that is in there. I think it addresses a number of the uses that Phyllis has articulated quite capably. I think that the way the parking has been handled in particular with the housing along the street to help lessen the impact of that parking from the street works very well. I think is a summary of my comments. Thank you. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: One of the nice things about sitting down at this end is that everybody gets to comment first and all I have to say is I concur, I agree. I support this project as well. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I am pretty enthusiastic about the project the only concern that I have is with regard to the shuttle. Since we are viewing the Bridge project first if the Campus for Jewish Life didn’t move forward it is tied the potential senior housing element shuttle to the Campus for Jewish Life. So that is really my only concern. Chair Burt: I would support the comments made by my fellow Commissioners, The issue that we had discussed with the Bridge representative regarding the what if for some reason the funding were not able to be obtained for the proposed project I think is most of all a policy decision for the Council because it is a risk of sorts that the anticipated project would not occur City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 16 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 but I think it is one that everyone will understand the potentials going into it and I think the sense of the Commission is that we consider it a reasonable risk and presumably the Council will continue to feel the same way as we have throughout this process. This is not new news to us. So I guess that concludes our discussion of item number two. We will not yet be taking a motion on item number two. We will move into questions and comments on item number three and then we will return to vote on combined FEIR and then we will go into votes on the projects. We just have to remind ourselves because it is a more complicated process than normal. So item number three would Commissioners like to proceed with questions on item number three? Dan. Mr. Larkin: Actually this is where I wanted to speak up. Chair Burt: Okay, go ahead. Mr. Larkin: On number four of the recommendations, and the Commissioners can anticipate what I am going to say, the recommendation was to approve the Architectural Review Riesolution including findings for the DEE for .... and I would just make one revision to that. The Commission should strike the words ’finding for the DEE for’ and just have it ’approve the Architectural Review Resolution including the height of the sculptural tower’ but not the findings for the DEE. Chair Burt: That is because that is really not our purview, correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Chair Burt: Great, thank you. Everybody clear on that? Okay. Dan would you like to proceed? Commissioner Garber: Some questions for Staff. Could the Staff and/or the architect review perhaps with the help of these drawings on the wall here the height of the building? If you could simply walk down San Antonio and the Charleston street sides and show us the heights of the building relative to the existing 50-foot mark and then describe to us how the flood plane works to show us those three data points along each one? There may be a better drawing that you can put on the overhead. Mr. Rob Steinberg, Steinberg Architects: Good evening Chairman and Commissioners. I think if ! could just interpret your question if I might you would like to understand the heights of the buildings along the perimeter streets. You mentioned the flood plane, with your permission I would like to just adjust that and share with you’re the criteria that we feel have impacted the heights. If I could just explain that then I would be happy to give you the heights as we move around. Commissioner Garber: Of course. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 17 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Steinberg: The flood plane is an issue but much more significantly is the issue of the condition of the soils and the requirements that we have had to adhere to from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Those are simply that we on this particular site are not able to excavate below existing grade. So we have to accept existing grade as it is. Ordinarily on a site you would be permitted to excavate below grade and put your parking below grade and then be able to put habitable space up to 50 feet on top of that. In this case we are not able to do that so just as a frame of reference the depth of that parking structure that would ordinarily be below grade is approximately 12 feet. So what we are challenged with here is developing a site at a comparable site where you would be allowed 50 feet plus the 12 feet so it would really be close to 62 feet. That would be the combined total height of parking and housing that would normally be permitted. So as we move kind of keeping that 62 feet as a frame of reference we move along San Antonio and perhaps it might be easiest to use the model, we are about 41 feet. Can you see this building? Okay? So with my 62 feet frame of reference and then I should just add that in addition to the 50 feet you are also allowed an additional 15 feet for mechanical equipment. If you took the combination of that it would net you 77 feet. So with that in mind this building right here is 41 feet, it drops down to 26 feet, it steps up in this building to 55 feet, 55 feet with a small element internal which has mechanical up to 70 feet, 59 feet and a very small component that has mechanical that steps up to 75 feet at that edge. If we go along Charleston this building is the 59 feet that we talked about, it steps down to 40 feet, 55 feet, 36 feet and again steps up to the 55. So if you take a typical 50 foot building and you add the 12 feet and the total of 62 all of the buildings are below that height with the exception of when we step up in one place along the edge with mechanical and we are still below what would be permitted if you understand that we have 12 feet for that parking garage in question. Commissioner Garber: Thank you for the explanation and your methodology of how those numbers have been calculated. The backside of the site is where relative to the flood plane? And it goes uphill as we get to Charleston, is that correct? Mr. Steinberg: Yes, there is about three to four feet being higher along Charleston and the site is falling as it comes and it is about four feet lower at this corner. It is pretty imperceptible to the eye as you look at that. Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you. If you would you can stay there I have another question. The tower that is there, what actually is driving the height of that tower? Mr. Steinberg: permit me just to start and kind of talk about the tower in kind of a holistic way before I go right into the dimensional aspects of it. When you think about a tower and you think why would someone design or try to create a tower there are probably a couple of reasons that you might consider that might come to mind. Many times a tower deals with functional aspects. A tower Could be used for defense, for security. It is not in this particular case. Many times it is used for telling time, a clock, bells, a sense of awareness, and a sense of place. Many times a tower is an expression of optimism, of optimism for the future of what is to be. I would say thirdly a tower is frequently used as a sense of way finding. Many times on campuses or cities the Hoover Tower, the Campanile are used a frame of where am I and what is my orientation and City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 :Page 18 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 sense of location. That really is the sense here. This is in many ways a campus or a small community and it has a variety of different buildings and different - it is an intergenerational campus meant to accommodate a wide variety of people and ages and needs and meant as a sense of order and way-finding that tells people where they are in relationship to the center and the town square of the campus. Currently on the site there is a building that goes up to about 98 feet, it is 200 and some feet long, and we have taken and we would like to suggest that we take a much, much smaller footprint. A footprint something in the range of 10 or 12 feet square and we use that as a symbolic art object, an object of optimism, an object to help orient people around the site, and what we are proposing is that the height of that be tall enough so that from different parts of the campus one can see it. If you look at the drawings on the wall behind you there are two elements. There is a solid portion and then a little bit lighter portion shown on each of these drawings, which is also reflected on the model. The 65 feet on the drawing from many portions of the site would in fact not be visible. So what we have done is try to look at sight lines in the site and this is a section through the site. If you are standing here in order to see and to get that sense of way-finding from different parts of the site we are in the range of 90 feet or 95 feet in height in order to do that, That said we wanted to also be very sensitive to any impact to adjacent offsite uses. So what we are proposing is that we come up to the 65 feet which is per the code with a solid building form and that we have the flexibility of an additional 30 feet of a much more open, transparent expression that would be really in the form of artwork that would allow us to have that additional height so that people could see it from onsite. As our process, and I happy to share that with you tonight, going through this with the ARB we have gone around the site and we have done photo simulations. We have looked from the neighborhood over here. We have looked from the residential neighborhood over here. We have looked from the intersection at Charleston and San Antonio. I would be happy to share these images with you but I can tell you the impact is negligible. It is very hard to see from offsite. So that is the thinking of the tower. In addition to everything that I have said, as went through this process with the Architectural Review Board I think that they had thoughts and gave us input into the design of the tower and I could share that thought with you or we have a representative from the Board that might be able to share that perspective as well if you like. Commissioner Garber: Sure. I would be very interested to hear about that. Ms. Judith Wasserman, Chair, Architectural Review Board: Thank you. I am Judith Wasserman from the Architectural Review Board. I find myself to be hard-pressed to be more eloquent than Rob Steinberg so I won’t even try. He has covered the Hoover Tower and the Campanile and the graceful artwork that I was all prepared to talk about. We felt that this tower was important enough to actually condition it into our approval. We knew that there was controversy. We knew that there questions. We knew that it exceeded the official height limit of the City and we. felt that it was a significant enough part of the composition of this project in a sense of proportion, as a sense of a landmark, a punctuation, I think of it more of a spire than a tower because it has a graceful form to it that we felt it was really important to keep it in regardless of what the formalities of getting it would be and what kind of exceptions would have to be approved and whatnot. We felt it was a significant part of the composition of the project. City of Palo Alto July 26,2006 Page 19 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: Issues of way-finding and landmarks such as this are fairly common and do operate in my experience in much the way that you have described and do help anchor the way that one finds their way through the project, etc. Let me just ask you, not to be confrontational, but if the tower were half the size say how much of an impact would that have on the aesthetic functions that you have described? How impact would that have on your project? Mr. Steinberg: Well the project itself would still be in tact. You would still be able to get to a classroom. You would still have a campus. There would still be preschool. I think that the lost opportunity would be very, very significant. Because the impact of it is almost exclusively internal to the site I think it would be a real shame to have lost that opportunity from an architectural perspective. Would the facility be able to function? It would. Commissioner Garber: Let me just go through a couple of other examples and sort of draw out the conversation. Some of the other examples that were cited for instance Hoover Tower is a significantly larger object, 256-plus feet or something of that sort and exists in a much different scale of campus. Campanile also is significantly larger and exists in a much larger piazza. I am thinking at Northwestern University they have a clock tower that existg at the end of a street not exactly inside of a campus, which would be significantly smaller than this. I am guess it is about 30 or 40 feet high and clearly seen at its cross-axis as it is organized. The primary benefit of this is going to be either as you walk down from one of the two axes that it is in the lotus of. So once again I am going to ask the question in this scale for this size does it truly have a significant impact if it was not as tall? Mr. Steinberg: In my opinion, yes that would be a significant reduction in the impact of what it is trying to achieve. I say that because the concept or the plan is one of a sense of a medieval city where the idea is that the sense of journey and movement is as important as the arrival at the point of destination. For that reason there isn’t a formal axial geometry but in fact it. is a series of courtyards and outdoor rooms that have different proportions and different spaces that move underneath into another outdoor room. So if for example we were to take this element and cut it in half you would be able to see it from one outdoor room and possible from a second outdoor room but from the eight other outdoor rooms that make up part of the composition it would be neutered. Commissioner Garber: That is all from me for the moment. Thanks. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Let me go at this from a different point of view. Is there FAR or access to this tower element? When I say FAR is it a structure in which people can actually go into this and go up in the tower? Mr. Steinberg: The structure itself accommodates an elevator and a stair and incorporates mechanical exhaust from our parking structure. So it has three functional components to it. You cannot go up to the top of this because like Judith pointed out it really is more of a piece of City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 20 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 artwork than it is a building or a tower but it does service getting you from grade up to the podium and up to the second level to accommodate our accessibility issues. Commissioner Lippert: So the part that people would use is really accessory to the buildings and the rest of it is really artistic, correct? Mr. Steinberg: Yes. Commissioner Lippert: Judith, I am going to put you on the spot as a former member of the Art Commission. What determines a piece of art? You have been involved in the ARB and you have been involved in the Art Commission. What draws the distinction between something that is architectural and something that is artistic? Ms. Wasserman: Not too small a question is it? Commissioner Lippert: No it is a very big question. Ms. Wasserman: Well from the point of the Public Art Commission one of the salient determinants is whether it was designed by an artist or whether it was bought off the shelf as a catalog item. So I am expecting this piece of sculpture to have an artist design it. I was told that that was going to happen, yes? Mr. Steinberg: Well, I would like to define what an artist is and ..... Ms. Wasserman: I don’t think we are going to do that here tonight. Mr. Steinberg: Let me try it again. Let me just say that it is not something that is going to come off the shelf. It is going to be creative, as we identify a donor to be able to support this effort it will be something that will very custom and very unique and specialized to this particular moment. Commissioner Lippert: Let me ask you, this is a private development here, it is not subject to the Art Commission but the Art Commission does have criteria in terms of artist selection and how they go about doing that. Would you be following similar criteria in terms of looking at a number of artist’s portfolios in terms of awarding the commission? Would you then give the artist somewhat free-range in terms of creating this tower? Mr. Steinberg: I think that that is a very hard question for me to answer tonight because I don’t think anyone in this room has the full authority to make that decision. This is really dependent upon having a benefactor. I don’t think we could commit to a process or lock that in tonight. What I will say is my first choice is to not give this to someone else to come out and to do but to integrate very much into the history and the theme of everything else that is taking place but that is a decision that will made downstream. Commissioner Lippert: Where I am going with this is that there is a certain part of it, which has a functional aspect to it, which is really the elevator aspect to it. Then from that height on up is City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 21 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 more of an artistic aspect and I am trying to find some middle ground here. If we did go ahead and approve the full height on it there might conditions or criteria associated with it that does put it into the artistic realm to be assured that it is an artistic expression. Ms. Wasserman: We did condition it to come back for review. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I had one other question for Staff. Is there any height limitation for art in Palo Alto? Are there any criteria limiting the height of artistic pieces? Mr. Turner: I think that we could see those types of pieces perhaps as a structure that might be one way to take a look at it and structures are limited to specific heights depending upon the district. In this district 50 feet would be the maximum height. If it was not a structure but perhaps a statue I think that we could still want to meet the intent of the height rules even though it may not be defined as a structure. I think that we would probably apply ... Commissioner Lippert: You didn’t mean statue you meant sculpture, correct? Mr. Turner: Or a sculpture. Commissioner Lippert: I would like to point out that both myself and Amy French I think are probably the two professionals in the room that have gone to art school. Ms. Wasserman: I beg to differ. Chair Burt: Okay. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I think pretty much my question was answered. The last comment was that I think architects would consider themselves artists. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I beg to differ with my fellow Commissioners. I get a sense that the height limitation of 50 feet is being rather inappropriately applied to this tower because it does have the purposes that were so eloquently described. Having experienced projects of approximately this size or actually a little smaller it would have been quite an advantage to have sort of a place marker for reference so that one knew where one was. I think it makes the entire project look a little smaller or more inviting and more of a community to have something of that height because the buildings are the height they need to be because of constraints of the location. We can go back and forth on the discussion about whether it is or is not appropriate but I think the Architectural Review Board understand the importance of that for the entire project. We recognize this is a unique project and one where we are very much in favor of the objectives of it. I think this tower plays a very large part in trying to achieve those objectives and I am very much in support of it. Chair Burt: Let me take a little bit different angle on it. First I am comfortable with acknowledging the reasoning for the tower as a way-finding component, as providing a sense of City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 22 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 place, and as being an object of art. I think that it would achieve those things. The struggle that I have is that I think it falls outside of the policy framework that we have been operating under for years. The project itself has height variances that would be considered very significant. Over the last 15 or 20 years in this community these are probably the most significant height variances that have been allowed and they have been allowed because of the particular circumstances of the project site along with the aggregate benefits of the project itself and the value that the community places on the project itself. I can tell you if this were a normal commercial project I doubt very much that these height variances would have been granted. It is the special nature of this project that has caused those to have the support that they have. So my question to our ARB representative and Staff is that given that a structure like this can provide all of the benefits that Mr. Steinberg has articulated for a project in general where do we feel about these kinds of artistic components of this scale in other projects? Is this something that we now would say is an approved practice? I am not passing judgment on whether I would or would not support that sort of recommendation to change our policies to allow for something like that. I think that is a valid policy discussion that perhaps should occur. How does it fundamentally differ from if the developers of 800 High Street had an artistic component that enhanced their project and many of the same things that Mr. Steinberg has described and made it architecturally and artistically a better looking project and stood up 40 feet above its current height? How would we feel about that or any project in the City? Why couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to any project? Mr. Turner: Well, in looking at this project and in considering the exceptions that are being asked we do want to make sure that there are unique conditions and circumstances that apply generally to this site and this site alone. We do that so that we don’t create a precedent. If an applicant wanted to come in and suggest a new building with similar heights we would take a look at that and make a judgment on that proposal based upon the findings that we would have to make in order to grant it. So although you can see this as perhaps precedent setting for the neighborhood Staff really does try to do a good job in determining the unique conditions and making sure that we do not set a precedent for granting of variances. Mr. C. Williams: I would like to add to that that I think that theoretically anyone could ask for that and a Board could look at that and advise us on it. I think the reason why it is appealing in this circumstance is because while this is a privately owned project it has many, many public components to it. I think that distinguishes it from most other projects. It has shared recreation facilities, it has the cultural hall, which will be used for public events ten times a year or whatever the number is, it has accessibility to the public in many ways and the programs there. I think that is a big difference and it is part of the public benefit package that they are proposing, a large part of it is that public connection. So I think that we see that as being different. I don’t know ifARB sees that as being a distinction as well but that is certainly something that we see in this project that makes it possible and something to be considered that 800 High or many other projects would not have. There is sort of a reason to maybe call attention to that plaza area in the center of the development in that way. Ms. Wasserman: I think that is a really excellent question because this is the sort of thing that we should be facing all the time which is the desire to create something kind of new and exciting and see how it fits into the City and how it can enhance the urban fabric and the life of the citizens. The reason that we have a 50-foot height limit is not because a tall stick is a bad stick it City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 23 of 57 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 is because we don’t want a tall city with canyon-like streets and buildings looming over us. So if 2 you keep that in mind then this kind of spire has nothing to do with that at all. It is the absolute 3 reverse. It looms over nothing. People keep saying you are not going to be able to see it from 4 the surrounding area, to which I say, "oh, phoo, that is too bad." We should be able to see this 5 because it is going to be a great thing to have in our town. We shouldn’t be so fixated on the, I 6 don’t know exactly how to put it, the letter or the specifics that we lose sight of the big picture. 7 Yes, if there was some project had - there would be no reason for 800 High Street to have a 8 tower that would help them with way finding they are an internal project. But if there was 9 another project of similar scale that needed this sort of thing or to which it would be a benefit I 10 definitely think we should consider it. Do I think we are going to have Coit Towers all over Palo Alto? No, I don’t think it is going to happen. I think if we get one or more than this I will be really surprised. It is a unique situation. It is not a situation of if we let them do it everybody is going to do it. Nobody is going to want to do it. Why would you want a 10-foot square spire in the middle of your project? It is not getting you anything unless it really adds to the project. It is like let your FAR govern your height limit. Nobody is going to build a 100-foot building that big. They are going to build buildings that work. Chair Burt: I think those are great points. I would just clarify that the issue isn’t whether it is a 1 O-foot square spire but whether it would be a prominent artistically oriented architectural component that would exceed that. Paula and then Dan. Ms. Wasserman: A good thing, too. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I appreciated your comments earlier and since I am still in my freshman year here, I am not intimately familiar with all of our policies, I would certainly like to see a discussion of some kind of policy change if there need be one to accommodate something as interesting for the eye as this tower can be. I am having a lot of trouble - I guess I am not sure why it is so offensive when it is as tall as but not nearly as bulky as that unfortunate structure that currently exists on the site. I drove by today and that Sun building has boarded up windows. In my opinion it is blighted and that area is blighted. I just feel so - not being an architect but being an appreciator, I appreciate the element of the tower in this project. I appreciate the texture of this design that not everything is flat and one-sided. I know this isn’t my purview because I am not on the Architectural Review Board and that is not what this meeting is about but I certainly wanted to lend my support and make supportive comments about what I think is going to be a wonderful landmark for our community and what I think is going to be a catalyst for redevelopment and upgrading of that San Antonio corridor. I think that personally it will enhance my pride in my community to have something as new and interesting and as exciting as this. I think the tower is a component of that. I guess that is all I need to say about that. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I want to Second your comments, Judith. It is very well stated. The point I intended to make was that when we speak of the 50-foot height, limit we need to look at the purpose of that policy. The purpose of that policy does not apply in this situation City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 24 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 except if you have a terrible fear of setting precedent and have no faith in either Staff or any policy-makers that follow us that they would be able to distinguish this from an over 50 foot structure that would be inappropriate and offensive. So I have no problem whatsoever with the spire as you call it. I also want to point out that it is unfortunate that it will not be visible from other spaces because we have often talked in the past, it hasn’t come up recently, of gateways into our City. Of somehow marking the entrance to our City and San Antonio Road is not one of the best gateways we have. I think this spire is something that would add a lot to that area and to that entrance to our City. Chair Burt: I will just a response to that as I said before I think the arguments on behalf of the tower are persuasive and that this is will add benefit to the architectural aspects of the project. Having said that, I think it is beholden to the Commission and to the Staff and to the Council to be able to explain in a clear way, not just that we like this and it is a neat thing, but what are the reasons why we feel that what was perceived as a policy should not apply. I think we have to be able to make those arguments in a sound way and what it suggest is that if we are able to make those arguments in the case of a specific project then we probably need to look at the basis for that in the context of policy. I do not agree that questioning those things and holding ourselves accountable and the project developer accountable for an answer to the community for what perceptions there may have been about the context of that height limit shows a complete lack of faith or a fear of precedent or any of those things. That is not my point of view. So any characterization to that affect I would like to clarify that that’s not my reasoning. So, having said that, it sounds like we have addressed the tower issue in good depth. Who would like to move on to another issue? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I think about single family residences that are currently located in flood planes and that in those cases where houses need to be elevated up out of the flood plane we do make allowances for those houses to in fact have minor protrusions into the daylight plane and even in some cases exceed the height limit a little. So what I am thinking of here these are multi- family residences, the majority of the site is, and again it is the same sort of development where this does need to be an elevated building. So in general the whole plan I see us being able to allow for that whole element to be raised up out of the flood plane accordingly. In addition to that I think that not just the tower but the comer building where you have the public theater building there is a significant element there also that is asked for relief for height because it contains mechanical there. What it does it is create a distinction among all the other buildings in that area. I think a lot of us have been to Europe and we have observed villages and cities in Europe and if you notice there are certain elements that do peak up above all the other surrounding buildings there to alert you to their function and that they are there. So I think in some ways what Architect Steinberg here is in some ways a small village and those elements do need to identify themselves above the other elements of that small town. Chair Burt: Dan. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 25 of 57 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Commissioner Garber: I really don’t want to dominate the questions so if they want to kick me 2 under the table they are welcome to. Let’s go back to the cultural hall and focus on Charleston 3 here for a moment, which has been a focus of mine over the last several meetings that the project 4 has been before the Commission. Just a couple of questions before I have a question directly for 5 the architect and this is of Staff. This is a commercial area as opposed to a residential or a retail one. Perhaps Mr. Turner or Mr. Williams could succinctly describe some of the salient characteristics that differentiate a commercial from the other two. I am thinking specifically of how those projects address the street, what their criteria are. Are there a couple of salient things that would help us understand those differences. Mr. Turner: I think in this neighborhood in particular it is a neighborhood that has not seen a lot of development whereas other portions of Palo Alto have, This is a very unique area in Palo Alto where there are a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses. Within this area the design and architecture may be described as tilt-up buildings surrounded by parking, very little street trees, very little pedestrian activity, and a place where you really need to use your car to drive. Commissioner Garber: If I may interrupt you for a moment. However the areas that are in the City that are thought of as retail area such as California Avenue, Midtown, University, etc. have a very high level of street use because of the uses that are found along those streets. Residential has slightly less however it has a completely different sort of nature because it is residential. How would you describe the sort of street traffic treatments in a commercial area that would be different than those other ones? Mr. Turner: I think what you are saying then is how could we apply design characteristics to this site that would try to achieve some of the same results that are found in other commercial and retail areas? Commissioner Garber: If you like, sure. Mr. Turner: I think that there could be any number of ways. There could be a widening of a sidewalk, there could be additional street trees, there could be creating architecture that links both the private areas to the public areas. All of those would enhance an area. It may not turn into a retail-commercial area but it would start to bring these industrial areas closer to that. Commissioner Garber: So this site, which is introducing a _ of residential use but not in a traditional Palo Alto residential neighborhood, is sitting in a commercial area. Given just Charleston here are you expecting to see people along Charleston as you would in another commercial area where presumably not may people go. There are trucks and things of that sort. How is the Staff sort of reconciling or applying some values to that? Mr. Turner: Well, the opportunities are present in terms of the design to bring activity to the area. What I am thinking specifically along Charleston is the entry stairway from the public sidewalks up to the podium level and the cultural hall. There is also the Jewish senior residence porte-cochere where that would be a pick up and drop off area for the senior residences for the site. The opportunities for creating interaction in that area are there. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 26 of 57 1 2 Commissioner Garber: That is a perfect place to let me ask you a couple of different questions. 3 The drop off area is for the building that is all the way on the Fabian side of the street. If I am 4 recalling correctly either bus stops or shuttle stops are along Charleston as well or do those only 5 occur on the Fabian side? 6 7 Mr. Tumer: I believe that there is a VTA stop along Charleston. 8 9 Commissioner Garber: That would be, perhaps the architect could help us here, is that bus stop 10 in front of the car drop off or before it? 11 12 Mr. C. Williams: It is very close to that. 13 14 Commissioner Garber: Very close to which? 15 16 Mr. C. Williams: To the driveway in off Charleston. 17 18 Commissioner Garber: Can you use your pointer, please? 19 20 Mr. Steinberg: It currently is approximately in that area. 21 22 Commissioner Garber: All right. So let’s just hold those thoughts for a moment and then for the 23 architect the cultural hall we know is going to be used certainly presumably the 10 times that it 24 has the agreement with the City. I assume it would be used more frequently than those 10 times 25 throughout the year. 26 27 Mr. Steinberg: Yes. 28 29 Commissioner Garber: Presumably it is for larger events that are occurring on evenings and 30 weekends things of that sort as opposed to during the day. Is that a correct assumption? 31 32 Mr. Steinberg: Perhaps with your permission I should ask a representative from the campus to 33 share with you how the operations of that would take place. 34 35 Commissioner Garber: Sure. 36 37 Ms. Sandy Sloan: Your question is is the cultural hall going to be used more at night than in the 38 day? 39 40 Commissioner Garber: I am trying to get a better understanding 9fhow and when it will be 41 used. 42 43 Ms. Sloan: Well I think that it is anticipated that it would Probably be used more in the evening 44 and it is also anticipated that it would be used more often on the weekends, not Friday night but 45 Saturday night would probably be the most common. Alan Sokaloffwho is the Executive City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 27 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Director of the JCC is here. He might be able to be more specific. Would you like to be more specific, Alan? Mr. Alan Sokaloff, Executive Director, Jewish Community Center: Hi. It is somewhat of a simple answer. It will probably be used 100 percent of the time that we are open for some use. There are few meeting spaces in the City so I gather that there will be many other not-for-profit organizations that would like to use the space for their meetings. Some of them may be small, some of them may be large, and it will be used during the day and also at night for meetings. Commissioner Garber: Okay. What I am trying to get at is when or how the sidewalk or street is going to be used in front of Charleston. Mr. Steinberg: The whole exposure on Charleston has a number of opportunities and some challenges. There is a fair amount of vehicular traffic and concern about impacting or impeding traffic flows on the corner. So for that reason we have been discouraged from having vehicular access into the site anywhere near the corner of the site, having drop offs, having vehicular activity that could cause offsite congestion. So for that reasonwe have really moved and kept vehicles away from the corner intersection. Someone asked a little bit about or mentioned the idea of gateway and what the site will feel like as you come into the community. I will just step back a little bit as we go around the corner and share with you that right now as you move along Sun there is older vegetation that has sort of a soft edge but it is primarily parking and many of the tree have lived their natural life and are starting to thin out. What our proposal is is a very strong alley of trees, a double row of trees, which are staggered that bring you all the way down San Antonio. As you move from the freeway and move through San Antonio I think that feel of this band of green and this alley of trees will be very powerful. I think it will be very consistent with the values that we put on trees and vegetation here in Palo Alto. As you come to the corner there is again a little different alley of trees that really begin to form a softening of the corner at the intersection itself. We have worked very closely with the ARB and are actually proposing something a little bit different. Instead of having the sidewalk and people walking along the traffic what we are proposing is actually taking the sidewalk and doing more of a meandering walk through this alley of trees, again sort of being able to begin to soften that corner. What we wanted to do even though we couldn’t have vehicular access at this point is we wanted to make really a very grand public gesture of welcoming to the community. So we have a very wide stairway that is not just a single run up but it is a few steps that go to a wider landing, a few steps that go to a wider landing, and again so that that transition from the street moving up and the view up is very welcoming, very broad, very open. In fact if you look carefully at this drawing you will see that this part is the lobby to the cultural hall with the theater and the seating. This is a glass box it is all transparent. So at night you would be able to look up and see the people moving through, the activity as people are at intermission, during the day you would actually be able to see through that building. If you look very carefully you can see that not only have we taken these broad steps here we have actually carried them through the glass wall into the building. So what we are trying to do is make a very transparent, welcoming gesture in a grand civic way to the community. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 28 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Unfortunately we won’t have drop off and cars take the advantage of that but certainly anybody walking, taking public transportation, driving by would feel a very warm sense of arrival and welcome. We then go from that space because we are now moving from the busy intersection more to the mid-block where we are starting to move into the residential. So we are transitioning from the plaza to a very soft, more natural kind of landscaping than the more geometric, the more urban kind of landscaping in order to make a very soft separation and transition to the housing. At that point there would be a curb cut that would allow vehicles to come in underneath the porte-cochere where they would be picked up by a valet and then taken into the garage. So we see quite a number of different levels of activity both for someone passing through in a vehicle, someone at the pedestrian experience and someone arriving at the site. We have tried to address all of those in the presentation along Charleston. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have a question. People coming into the porte-cochere area that want to go up to the plaza and into your theater area but who are mobility limited how do they get there? Mr. Steinberg: People coming to this facility would be discouraged from using the residential entry. They would be encouraged to actually come not here but to come around the site and come in the main drop off and then there are several ways to get up to the plaza. There is elevator access right at the drop off so you could be dropped off and come right up to the plaza. You could come into the garage and there is a large opening in the garage with elevator access that brings you up to this part of the site or you could come to this part of the site and again there is elevator access with a large opening in the plaza that allows natural light and planting in the ground that would come up through the plaza that would give you both a sense of way-finding when you are in the garage and again a very graceful transition to go from the parking up to the podium level. Commissioner Cassel: So there is no way to into the porte-cochere area and come up and go directly to it. You either walk up or ..... Mr. Steinberg: If you were a resident of the senior housing you could. You could come in and you could go into your lobby, in your front door. You could come up one level and you could go internally through the building but that is a private residence and that is not being offered to anyone coming to the cultural hall. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Chair Burt: Lee and then Dan. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to follow up on one of Dan’s earlier questions. This is for the Executive Director of the facility. Alan, with regard to the cultural center facility you had indicated that it would be pretty much in operation the hours that the whole Jewish Community. Mr. R. Williams: Many of the hours that the facility would be open. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 29 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: So it could be leased out to say a corporation for their Board meeting or marketing purposes, correct? Mr. R. Williams: That possibility exists. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, and it could also be in operation for not just Jewish religious holidays but possibly other religious holidays if they needed a large space for worship as well? Mr. R. Williams: Yes, it could be. It depends on what else is going on at the campus and we would have to look at parking and everything else to be sure we could accommodate it. We understand that we have a responsibility to overload the campus at any point in time. So any time we are looking at any kind of a rental we also have to look at everything else that is going on on the campus. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Thank you. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I wanted to follow up on your description, Rob. What you have is a really wonderful pedestrian space on this podium and resolves itself in these very wide stairs, which beckon activity to occur on them. What concerns me is that people have some place to go to enjoy it that draws them there other than simply the opportunity to enjoy the architectural space. This gets to uses, etc. and comes back I think to some of the first.sets of conversations we had back in September in the preliminary review about getting other uses on the street level there. If I am recalling from our past meetings on the Charleston edge we are significantly one, above the flood plane; two, outside of the issues but we wouldn’t be going beneath the soil in any case, and even if they are small they would give reason for people to utilize the stair as well as opening up access for those that may want to from the residence more easily go from the residence to that area in the way that you have described through the sort of meandering paths that you said. I think all those things would give greater use and would create more enjoyment and greater activity along that street so that we could avoid perhaps the comment that was in this which stated that the stairs were intended to serve no practical access. I would hope that they wouldn’t be just symbolic but there could also be ways to use and integrate them with the actual life and street and see that activity so it really connects with the community. Thos are comments. Mr. Steinberg: If we had submitted and I am not sure of that particular phrase but that sounds a little odd to me. Perhaps we left a word out here but certainly any stairs that we are putting in are meant to serve very definitely a purpose. I neglected to share with you one other thing and that is the current thinking is this particular piece right here is being reserved at the moment for a day spa that would be open to the public, residents and anyone that wanted to use it. We have located it there so it would have good if you will sort of commercial visibility that people would know that there is retail opportunities, that there are reasons to come here. So we definitely see these stairs as playing a role so if we misstated it in some of the documentation’I apologize for that. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 30 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: I was just trying to make it meet your goals. Chair Burt: We are at nine o’clock. Should we go ahead and take a break at this time? Okay about a 10-minute break. Thank you. Who has next item, issues? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Well let me touch a difficult one. I think I have two difficult ones in two different areas. The first one is noise and it isn’t the noise coming from off the site on the site that is all being mitigated and handled with standard techniques and methods. Rather, we have people who are very concerned about amplified noise coming from the site and off the site to the offsite areas. We have talked about different ways of dealing with that. My first question is to Staff to see what the latest updated position on that is. Mr. Turner: As part of the Architectural Review Resolution there are conditions of approval and one of those conditions, condition number nine, specifically addresses amplified sound. Commissioner Cassel: Let me find that. Exactly where are you? This week’s report. Mr. Turner: Attachment D. Commissioner Cassel: In the Staff Report from this week. Mr. Turner: From this week. Commissioner Cassel: And it is in Attachment D? Mr. Turner: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: And then where are you? Mr. Turner: Page 10. Commissioner Cassel: This v.olume is the four Staff Reports. Okay, page 10. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Turner: So condition number nine on page 10 states that the condition relating to outdoor events with amplified sound limitations. Essentially what we are conditioning the project is that all amplified sound shall cease operations no later than ten o’clock in the evening seven days per week. Noise level shall not exceed the limits prescribed in the Noise Ordinance and if Staff receives substantial complaints about amplified sound these hours may be further restricted by the Director Planning or referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council for review. Commissioner Cassel: Then we received a report that was done as a supplement to the EIR I believe from Salter Associates that talked about the noise. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 31 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Turner: That’s right. In that noise report I believe the conclusions were that any amplified sound would be still consistent with the Noise Ordinance and that essentially would meet the Noise Ordinance up to 10:30 in the evenings and Staff has taken that under consideration and restricted that slightly further so that ten o’clock was the cutoff time. Mr. Larkin: If I can just add one of the recommendations that I would make if this was approved by the Commission would be that this condition get put into the PC Ordinance itself so that we can quantify those Noise Ordinance regulations. There actually isn’t a specific noise ordinance that applies to the outdoor plazas but the intent of the condition would be that the residential Noise Ordinance would apply. Commissioner Cassel: I know that amplified noise can be done well and not go offsite. I know that it can be done poorly and drive everyone nuts. If it is done right no one is going to hear it. If it is not done right it can really be annoying. Is there any way to measure this from offsite to see if people are hearing it and put that in the conditions? Mr. Turner: Well, part of the conditions also include regular communication between the nearest neighborhood, the Palo Verde Neighborhood and the JCC. What we have requested and they would most likely do this anyway is to trade contact information so if the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association hears from the residents that there is a problem with noise then the neighborhood association can contact the JCC and determine what happened on a particular night and is there a way to tone it down and what adjustments can be made in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again. So we feel that the neighborhood association is going to be very interested to make sure that there are not any noise impacts and if there are the City wants the neighborhood association and the JCC to work it out. Now certainly if there is excessive noise that does not meet the residential Noise Ordinance the City wants to be involved and make sure that those are corrected. Commissioner Cassel: Could we put in our PC a conditional use permit for amplified noise in general so that it could be withdrawn if it doesn’t comply? Mr. Larkin: We could craft language that would allow for the revocation of the right to have amplified noise in the courtyard and we could craft some language that would do that and put that into the PC ordinance. Commissioner Cassel: That would then allow the amplified music which when done well will not be heard but gives some leg to handle it if it doesn’t. Mr. Larkin: I won’t be able to do it on the spot but I think that is language that we can develop. Commissioner Cassel: I guess I am interested to see if other Commissioners would be so interested. Chair Burt: Lee. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 32 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to remind you that during the last hearing we had a lengthy discussion and we decided that the residents of the senior element are probably going to be the biggest critics in terms of the loudness of the amplified music. If anything they are going to have the most to say about it as the closest people living near the source. Commissioner Cassel: That is what we heard but that depends on the event that is happening perhaps. It is the neighbors beyond that that are extremely concerned and I guess I am aware that you can have enough knowledge of the subject to know that you can in fact have amplified music in this area and have it under control and have it function very well and not be heard beyond this particular kind of structure or buildings that they have. I am also aware that people doing a gig could care less and it is too late. So it needs some kind of balance I think in that we need some way to be able to have control. My concern is how do you say no if you have nothing to apply that. Chair Burt: While I recognize Commissioner Lippert’s point that the absolute exposure to the noise may be greatest to the seniors there as we have in many projects we recognize that if someone is acquiring a property or moving into a property with that as an understood condition that is different from a new exposure being imposed on someone who didn’t buy into that. It doesn’t mean we have an overwhelming problem necessarily but that is how I would make a distinction and I think we have in the past as well. Any other comments on that? Phyllis, could you repeat what you would be recommending? Commissioner Cassel: What I am suggesting is that we add to the language of the PC document a conditional use for amplified sound up until ten o’clock at night. The purpose of that is that if there are problems that don’t resolve when a neighborhood association or a group of neighbors calls who are having a problem then we have some way to have leverage to get that problem corrected. Chair Burt: So it gives Staff greater discretion to respond if there should be a problem, correct? Commissioner Cassel: As you know we have problems with the Noise Ordinance being enforced. Mr. C. Williams: I just wanted to add that we are fine with trying to craft some language like that as this moves along. I was just talking to Don and I think the language probably would not specifically be a conditional use permit but it would be an equivalent that allows us the same kind of enforcement potential. Chair Burt: So when we go to make motions you will have suggested language or is that at a later time? Mr: C. Williams: Well our suggested language would probably be that we include a condition in the PC Ordinance that provides for these restrictions on noise levels in an enforceable manner equivalent to a conditional use permit. Chair Burt: Okay. Lee. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 33 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: We did have one other situation that was very similar to this which was with regard to Antonio’s Nut House and the residents that lived immediately adjacent to that site. In that case what we had done is we had requested that on an annual basis I believe that in fact if there had been any complaints that it be brought before us. Maybe a similar sort of situation could be applied here where say the first four years of operation it be reviewed just on an annual basis to see that it is not creating a problem. Chair Burt: That might be a good approach. I would be a little hesitant to try to define the best approach tonight as opposed to something more along the lines of what Curtis suggested but when we get to that vote we will hear more precisely Staff’s language. Mr. C. Williams: I just want to add that I do have some concern with that because it sort of assumes that there is going to be a problem and I just as soon not equate them with Antonio’s Nut House as far as potential noise. I would rather go the other way. It is certainly up to the Commission but I would rather go the other way and assume there is not a problem but have an enforceable mechanism. If there does end up being a problem then maybe we go to something like that. Commissioner Cassel: And an enforceable ordinance of some sort usually comes here for appeal so we don’t have to do that since we are not having problems. We just want to give ourselves a little leverage. Chair Burt: Great. Anyone have next issues? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have another issue but I didn’t know if anyone else wanted to go first. The TDM program. Most of the TDM program is very good. In addition to the standard items in the TDM program many residents onsite will be participating and active in the events onsite, which will provide its own TDM program. I am concerned however, and this goes back to the shuttle question that Lee was talking about, I am concerned that trying to get employee use up for mass transit is going to be very difficult because this is the kind of site in which employees are not coming for the most part from nine to five or eight to four. They are coming on rotating shifts for all of the different uses because they are part-time and they are covering a recreation program from three to seven in the evening or because they are providing meals to people in the senior residence and they come at six o’clock and leave at 2:30 in afternoon. They come seven days a week so it is not where you have the majority of the people coming at the same time. There is a great deal of potential in doing something with people who are coming to use the JCC site in general. So my concern is that even though they have added in the fact that they will be doing some public education and some incentives for those people show are coming to use the site that it still doesn’t provide any assurance of good bus service or good shuttle service for in particular students who are coming from the schools to use the after school program at that time of day and people who need to get to the public transit that is available. Now it is possible that the 88 bus can cut over from Meadow which will then take it closer to the East Meadow Circle for both businesses and the new apartments and new homes that are there and then cross over to Fabian and come down Fabian to pick up people who are from the new Jewish high school that is City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 34 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 in that area, the businesses there, this site and then go back down Charleston towards where the 35 bus comes down and then down to the train station or something of that sort. The 88 goes down Charleston but crosses the 35 which gives you connection into more frequent buses. If that doesn’t happen then we really don’t have a good bus near this site. I would rather like to add a condition that some kind of shuttle service be added for these uses if the arrangements can’t be made to either help fund the shuttle service we have to provide that service or to convince the VTA to make that extra route. Even then there is some need to deal with the schools, This is kind of a long way around but I am kind of wondering how the rest of you are feeling about that portion of the TDM program. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I don’t want to get into - there is a fine line between micro managing the TDM program and actually making it work but would conditioning running the shuttle service for the employees of the senior housing down to the San Antonio Train Station during hours that those employees would be coming and going from work alleviate some of your concerns? Commissioner Cassel: I guess I was thinking in a broader sense of other people beyond employees. Employees in these kinds of situations work such erratic hours and some of them will be able to use public transit and some of them will because they are very low income many of them so they will use public transit but there are just so many more people involved and there is so much more potential. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I understand your concerns Phyllis and I don’t want to go into specifying how things are handled in the TDM program. I would ask Staff what their suggestion would be. How would they like to receive direction from us to make further inquiry and to try to craft some sort of TDM plan that they would find acceptable in addressing the concerns that Phyllis and I share? Mr: C. Williams: You might want to ask the applicant if they have any ideas about the ways they could that but I think we would probably suggest that if that is your inclination that we add to the requirements related to the TDM program that they incorporate a shuttle component of that and if you want to throw out some ideas as far it perhaps provide service to the train station and you might enumerate a couple different places but leave any of the details of that to Transportation Staff to work with the applicant on making that change to the TDM program. Chair Burt: Would the applicant’s representatives like to comment on this? Mr. Baer: Yes, we appreciate the advice Staff has given and would ask you the collective experience of those of you talking about transportation alternatives in a difficult comer of the City we really respect and recognize. To impose that as a condition when you ask in your two questions of the applicant and Staff last time looked at client programs and go to a 20 percent target we responded precisely to those asks. Council will have heard this issue that you are voicing tonight the costs are so large the ability to be predicting the effectiveness of different City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 35 of 57 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 elements of the program that if you said let’s make this a condition we would all be figuring out 2 how to negotiate so the Council would modify that condition rather than making clear your 3 concern and we have some time to work with Staff and look at our own analysis of what would 4 be the most effective ways to achieve the objective. We have heard you we just don’t want to be 5 in a circumstance where impromptu a set of conditions are issues that we know are extremely costly and complex and figure out how do we get the highest effectiveness out of what it is you are asking without tying ourselves to a shuttle cost that we can’t predict the success of. But we really hear you and understand the importance of employees and after school kinds of opportunities. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your comments, Jim. I agree we should not impose a condition that requires a shuttle. I think that may be a solution but I think that is something for you and Staff discuss and work on together. So I would see us crafting a motion that would include reference to this and directing to the extent we can that Staff seek some agreement with the applicant. Chair Burt: First, Curtis could you repeat what you were suggesting as possible language to address this issue? Mr. C. Williams: What I had suggested was essentially that the TDM program and I would modify this now but let say first what I said before which is that the TDM include a shuttle component that provides access to a variety of users and destination such as for schools and for train station and employees but leave that then for us to work with the applicant as to how that happens. I think it would probably be better to make that motion as separate from a condition and tell us that you would like us to work with them to address that issue of enhancing those kinds of access whether it is through a shuttle or some other means as part of that TDM program when it goes to Council. Chair Burt: Thank you. Dan. Commissioner Garber: If I am understanding Commissioner Cassel’s concern part of the TDM is the coordinated management of the various aspects of the program as it goes along. Perhaps the language you are talking about is simply writing in another criteria to be monitored such that if it becomes an issue there is a contingency or a way of addressing that as it goes forward. Chair Burt: So I am glad that we have a framework for that issue. I think we share that concern that that’s an area that needs to be strengthened and I think it goes back two years in the discussion of this. It is a comer of the City that is not well served by public transportation. We may also see that with the development of this project and others in that area that we will be able to get additional county bus service in that area as well. That would compliment whatever action is going on here. So I think Commissioner Cassel is correct the most likely way that we can reduce trips is by finding ways that local users of the facility will do something other than drive their cars there. So other than the shuttle the other big one is bicycle trips. There will be people who will live close enough that they will actually walk there but I think there is a greater City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 36 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 potential in bicycle trips. The project can’t do much on dealing with bicycle use outside their project although the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan should help facilitate bicycle travel to this destination. I did want to look a little more deeply at how the bicycles are addressed once they arrive at the vicinity of the campus and within the campus. Just one example that I noticed was that I think it is the driveway that goes in from Fabian the plan described sharing a sidewalk between bicycles and pedestrians and that runs contrary to our bicycle plan for roadways inthe public area. This is on private land but I would like to see that sort of thing readdressed. Now you are not going to have bikes running around throughout all these buildings once people arrive but could Staff and if the applicant would like to comment on it could both parties address a little bit more the, bicycle master plan for this development. Mr. Steinberg: The way that we would like to encourage bicycles to arrive at the site is really from Fabian. So the bicyclist would come in what we refer to as sort of our loop drive, the main entrance to the site, there are sidewalks on both sides of the entry drive that take you down to a plaza at the termination of that drive and there bike racks both in this location and bike racks in that location. There are elevators adjacent to both of those as well as a stair, a major stair, which would take you up to the podium. The policy is to discourage bicycles on top of the podium but you would arrive at the site, the main entrance, there would be multiple opportunities to store bikes in secure areas in the garage and then to come up. Chair Burt: So on that main entrance from Fabian your intention is to have bikes and pedestrians share the same sidewalk, is that correct? Mr. Steinberg: Yes it is. Chair Burt: Have you looked at the potential for segregating bikes and pedestrian in that key area? Mr. Steinberg: No we haven’t. It is certainly possible but there are a number of things going on within that space. We are trying to balance the needs of it. The policy that we have talked about is encouraging people as they arrive at the site to dismount and to walk their bikes and to share the sidewalk with pedestrians as you move along the site. If we wanted to separate bikes and pedestrians it is going to be at the expense of landscape along that entry drive. I think that there probably is a way that we could share that space and that is the direction that we have been going to date. Chair Burt: My sense is that your optimism on getting bicyclists to dismount on entrance is maybe a little wishful. Mr. Steinberg: Perhaps. Ms. Sloan: You can ride your bicycle on the street too. So I think in reality probably most people will ride their bicycle in the lane where the cars go and then cut over. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 37 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Okay. Does Staff have any comments on either the internal bicycle use, which are predominantly that big entry drive and the approaches from Fabian and elsewhere and how well the ease and the safety of bicyclist are promoted by the design? Mr. C. Williams: I will let Dennis make comments here in a second. I haven’t looked at this real extensively but I guess one comment I would have or question I would have is if somebody is coming on Charleston on a bicycle I sort of doubt that they are going to try to go all the around to Fabian to that entrance. I kind of wonder what happens if they turn in there at the Charleston entrance and how the applicants see that working. It seems like it would be useful to have access for cyclists coming in there because I think the reality is that they are going to. If they can’t get there straight from there somehow they are going to get up and be riding on the podium. So it looks like maybe there could be some more work done in terms of making that access work too. Chair Burr: We have our transportation consultant. Mr. Dennis Struecker, Korve Engineering: The best access for bikes to the site would be off Fabian that is where we have the class two bikeways. Curtis is correct that Charleston at least today would not be the best way to get there. As far as coming in off the Fabian entrance in terms of safety it is going to be a traffic driveway but it is not going to be a high-speed driveway. So Sandy is correct that the bicyclists in the absence of striped lanes would probably stay on the road and be there with the cars. Because of the low speed I don’t think it would be a big safety issue. To put bike lanes there you are talking four or five feet on each side of the road to have striped lanes there and that space has to come out of someplace and as the architect said it is probably going be the landscaping. ~So that is really the tradeoff that you are looking at. Chair Burt: Right and I appreciate it is a tradeoff. I fully anticipate that we will not only have adults who will be coming and some of the adults will be comfortable with sharing a lane with cars and some will be less so. More importantly we are going to have families arriving and parents will be coming with their young children on bikes and I Can tell you parents are paranoid about kids interacting with vehicles coming and going. I am not saying it can’t be done safely but I think it is something that has to be looked at. My first sense here is that we need to go further than we have to try to promote the bike safely. It is probably in the end going to be one of the most cost-effective ways to meet the TDM requirements. So just from that standpoint doing as much as we can to promote the bike trips is going to be a lot less expensive than paying for buses. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: In that subject if there is a way to come in if you are coming down Charleston, we are not going to have a whole lot of people coming north on Charleston but we will have some and if they are going into the theater area they would tend to want to and try to find a way to come in the porte-cochere and go into there or go in the valet entrance into there and park underneath the theater area. I would hope that there is some way to do that, it won’t be a large quantity, and some way to park a bicycle safely over there. I am not going to put that in the motion or anything I just think that knowing bicycles, knowing myself when I ride a bicycle I am not going to want to come all the way down, go all the way around and go all the way back. I am going to find some other way to do that if I have to get off and walk. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 38 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ’33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Maybe where we are headed on this one is similar to the shuttle issue. Maybe we can look for Staff to suggest language that would encourage improved addressing of these issues as opposed to us attempting at this point in time to come up with specific solutions. Mr. Steinberg. Mr. Steinberg: We are happy to explore that with Staff. One of the challenges that we have is a requirement for security and controlled entrances to that garage. So for that reason we have limited and have very controlled points of entry to the garage. So we are happy to explore this but there are a series of complications that go with opening different points of access that are uncontrolled to the garage. Perhaps that is something that we can deal with but right now entry from this area goes into a controlled and secured valet parking for the senior housing. There are a number of pieces that all have to respond and we are happy to continue to explore that idea. Commissioner Cassel: Your very limited access for bicycles is going to backfire someplace if you don’t find a better one. They are either going to carry them upstairs onto the patio or something or tie them to the trees or something. Mr. Steinberg: Okay. Chair Burt: Could you explain a little more when you were talking about the way in which the garage security entrance tied in with the issues that we were raising? I am not quite following the connection because when Commissioner Cassel for instance was talking about the entrance from east Charleston I think she was envisioning that they wouldn’t necessarily go to the garage. Commissioner Cassel: I did but I think it is not worth discussing here tonight. I think the point is that I think that needs some work on it. Chair Burt: Sounds good. Mr. Steinberg: Thank you. Chair Burt: Okay. I think .we will be hearing back from Staff when we go to make motions and they will have some language suggestions to address that. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I am sorry but I have a number of these. This is the last one I think. The parking situation as far as I can see is well parked for everyday activities that isn’t the question. The question that came up was event parking and my first question on that is we need to have not at this point in this ordinance but somewhere along the line a definition of what a special event is that is going to trigger it. What the numbers are going to be or how you are going to do that. If you leave it just at 380 when you fill that hall it will be easy to plan an event that doesn’t quite fill the hall. We need some number like 80 percent or 85 percent or something of the hall. That may not be the whole issue. The issue may be that other things are happening at the same time. So I don’t think you have a definition of it in this that I could find. Now it may be that I couldn’t find it there is a lot of data here. As you work along I think you need to come to an agreement of what a special event is and what special events are actually going to trigger parking offsite. That City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 39 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 can be a different number on a weekend, a much larger number on a weekend, there are 400 parking spaces. There may be a number for the weekend for big festivals and that kind of thing. Chair Burt: Curtis. Mr. C. Williams: Currently on page 13 of Attachment D with the project conditions is the requirement that shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking be provided for special events. We talked a little bit today in considering this because we were aware of this issue. Where it says for special events that we could be more specific there and say for events that involve more than say 350 or 380 is the number they have been using, but say 350 expected attendees at the cultural hall and/or outdoor events or something like that so that we are addressing anything that is happening outside the cultural hall. Now if that is happening in addition to the cultural hall being generally full or close to full then that is something that ought to also trigger that. It might be just an outdoor festival but if it were generating that kind of traffic then that also would cause the need for us to address this potential overflow parking issue. Commissioner Cassel: In my opinion this is only weekdays and you need a larger number for weekends. There isn’t a number for weekends you presume there is nothing but if is a very large event and that won’t happen very often it will need something on a weekend I would think. This place can hold a lot of people. Mr. C. Williams: That’s right. We can ask Dennis to look at what the number was on the weekends and how much additional .... Commissioner Cassel: They have about 400 parking spaces on a weekend. Mr. C. Williams: So if it is 200 then maybe the number instead of being 350 on the weekend is 500 or something like that. Commissioner Cassel: People coming from offsite because there are people onsite that are already parked. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: A question with regard to the special events. Who holds the responsibility for handling that? Would it be the people putting on the event or the facility itself?. The reason I ask this question is we are given as part of the public benefit 10 events a year for the City. So would the City then be responsible for taking care of the traffic elements associated with that or would the Campus for Jewish Life be responsible as the owner of the property? Mr. C. Williams: The owner would be responsible for providing us with documentation of how they are going address that concern and then for the operations that are involved in addressing that. The City is not going to provide for the parking monitoring or shuttling people back and City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 40 of 57 1 2 3 4 forth that is all the property owner’s job and then they work out with the operator of the special event. Or are you just talking about the City events? Commissioner Lippert: Not just City events. 5 6 Mr. C. Williams: Most City events I think clearly are the owner’s responsibility to take care of. 7 The City events I guess that might be a different issue if additional parking is required for that 8 but I think all of those details and Jim Baer can probably elaborate on this Some more as far as 9 City events will be encompassed in the agreement that will be drawn up with the Parks and 10 . Community Services Department. Chair Burt: Dan. 11 12 13 14 Commissioner Garber: In thinking about Some of the previous conversation let me just come 15 back to in the ordinance page nine, Permitted Use, there are three that are called out Continuing 16 Care, Retirement Community, Community Center Use, Parking Garage. Within the Community 17 Center Use are captured the spa I believe in there was also if I am recalling a community like 18 stop and shop sort of facility inside up on the podium. Is that correct? And that would be inside 19 as a part of those uses that would be in there, a small store of some sort. 20 21 Mr. Steinberg: Yes, there is a small gift shop. 22 23 Commissioner Garber: So that use is captured inside the community center use description. 24 25 Mr. Turner: There is. Part of the description of community center use is... 26 27 Commissioner Garber: Oh, retail and personal services. 28 29 Mr. Turner: That’s right eating and drinking services. 30 31 Commissioner Garber: So my question really for the other Commissioners is does it make sense 32 and perhaps it should be first asked of the Staff if it the ordinance can be used in this way, does it 33 make sense to give the owner flexibility to introduce other retail uses to create another use that 34 allows that to occur whether they utilize that or not? 35 36 Commissioner Cassel: What other use would you need? That is pretty broad. 37 38 Commissioner Garber: I am thinking about the opportunity of- well, here is the thing. What 39 this suggests is that all of this is sort of internal to the activity that occurs on the podium. WhatI 40 am trying to do is give them the latitude to bring activity down to the street. 41 42 Commissioner Cassel: You mean such as along the Fabian Way entrance where they are going 43 to have other community group activities or offices? 44 45 Commissioner Garber: It certainly could be or say that there are coffee shops or something of 46 that sort that are adjacent to the theater or the cultural hall but along Charleston for instance. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 41 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 They would obviously if they are on the street then they are not obviously serving just the residences they are also serving the more general community as well. Commissioner Cassel: Such as a mobile cart that sells coffee? Commissioner Garber: No I am think of a Starbuck’s that they can walk into. That is just an example. Commissioner Cassel: You just want to get permission in case they change that. Commissioner Garber: Right. I want to give them the opportunity because I think once again it extends the project into the community. Mr. Turner: Staff in establishing the permitted uses on the site did not specifically identify those areas on the development plan that would be used as community center use. You could assume that the continuing care retirement community would be in the areas where the residential units are located but that doesn’t necessarily mean that at the podium level of a residential building a small retail space or eating and drinking facility could be located technically in the residential building but it would still be a part of an allowed community center use. So we didn’t strictly define again where those uses could be located. It wouldn’t preclude a similar use to take place in the garage or at the perimeter of the site. Commissioner Garber: So the way that it is written would not preclude that from occurring? Mr. Turner: No. Commissioner Garber: They would not have to come back and apply for a change? Mr. Turner: No, we would see that as all permitted. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Mr. C. Williams: The only caveat being that it be within the square footage of use that we are talking about. If it were some addition of 5,000 square feet in addition to that then we would have to look at that and it would be an amendment at that point. Commissioner Garber: If it goes above 5,000 square feet? Mr. C. Williams: If it were a few hundred square feet it is probably something that at Staff level we could deal with but if it gets to be much more substantial then it affects parking requirements and those kinds of things so we have to look at it differently. But certainly within the square footage that is outlined here there is some flexibility to be able to locate that a little differently. Chair Burt: Annette. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 42 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Bialson: I am hoping that we are now at a point where we could consider making a motion. Are we there yet? I tmderstand you have finished your final comments. Chair Burt: Do we have any other major issues that people want to bring up? Okay. So I think we might want to just first do the motion on the FEIR and then projects or we could roll it all together. Commissioner Bialson: I am interested in the logistics so to speak of how we would roll this together. Whether the Staffwould like me to make a motion sort of tracking the language set forth in the recommendation in agenda item two and then agenda item three with the modifications that were suggested by Staff and another modification with regard to the noise condition. Then it sounded like you wanted a separate motion with respect to some of the other things we have talked about the TDM. Mr. Turner: I think perhaps your first motion should be on the environmental document and if you can find that per Staff’s recommendation that the impacts have been addressed adequately in the document and make a motion on that then that would cover both projects. Then you can start to make a motion on each individual project. Chair Burt: So the sequence as I understand it would be motion on the FEIR, then a motion to cover the BUILD development and then a motion to cover the Campus for Jewish Life and there might be a supplementary motion on item three. Mr. Turner: That is fine. That is appropriate. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Okay. So do you want me to proceed on that? I would like to propose a motion that finds the FEIR adequately addressing the environmental impacts of the proposed development plan per the requirements of CEQA and certify the FEIR. I know that the CEQA Resolution is provided as Attachment B to both agenda item two and agenda item three. I don’t need to speak to that motion I think we have addressed it already. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Burt: Okay. We have a motion to approve the FEIR on items number two and three by Commissioner Bialson and seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Any discussion? Then I would like to call the vote. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes by a vote of six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 43 of 57 1 Commissioner Bialson: Fine. Can we go on then to the next motion, which would be with 2 respect to agenda item two and I would be tracking the language? Do you want me to restate it 3 of the Staff recommendation? No, I don’t think you want me to. 4 5 Then I think with respect to that looking at these additional items that we have spoken about I 6 think the special event definition in terms of triggering the offsite parking, the additional work 7 regarding the bicycle access. 8 9 Mr. C. Williams: Excuse me, this is the item two the BUILD project. 10 ~ 11 Commissioner Bialson: All these are separate motions because they come after three as well, is 12 that correct? 13 14 Mr. C. Williams: They relate to item three the CJL project. 15 16 MOTION 17 18 Commissioner Bialson: So you want me to bring them into three. So ignore the rest of it. The 19 motion is with respect to proposing Staff’s recommendation with regard to all the items that are 20 set forth on the page of the Staff Report. 21 22 Chair Burt: So that would be recommendations two, three, four and five of the Staff Report on 23 agenda item number two. 24 25 Commissioner Bialson: That is correct. 26 27 Chair Burt: Okay, do we have a second? 28 29 SECOND 30 31 Commissioner Sandas: Second. 32 33 Chair Burt: Seconded by Commissioner Sandas with the motion by Commissioner Bialson. 34 Any comments? 35 36 Commissioner Bialson: No comments. 37 38 Commissioner Cassel: I made my comments earlier in that summary. 39 40 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) 41 42 Chair Burt: Anyone else have any comments to the motion? All right then we will take a vote. 43 All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes by a six to zero vote with 44 Commissioner Holman recused. 45 City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 44 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 So now we can move to item number three on the agenda, which is the Campus for Jewish Life. Commissioner Bialson would you like to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Yes I would. This motion would be with respect to Staff’s recommendations two, three, four, five and six however with regard to four we would be striking the words ’findings for the DEE’ in the first line of item number four, In addition the motion would include a condition being included in the ordinance, which would be regulating noise equivalent to what we have in the residential requirements, by some means equivalent to a conditional use permit, some sort of enforceable mechanism. Commissioner Cassel: I think that we want the noise to end at ten o’clock as it says in the ordinance. Commissioner Bialson: Excuse me? Commissioner Cassel: You referred to residential and we want this noise ordinance to be effective at ten o’clock. Commissioner Bialson: Correct, at ten o’clock. Commissioner Cassel: This is for amplified noise. Chair Burt: Do we have a second to the motion? SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Second. Chair Burt: Motion by Commissioner Bialson and seconded by Commissioner Sandas. If I might get a clarification from Staff the other I think three items will be addressed in a separate motion? Okay. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just need a clarification. With regard to the sound and the amplified noise cutoff at ten o’clock that doesn’t mean that the event needs to end at ten, the event could continue without amplified sound. Chair Burt: As long as you keep your voice down. Mr. C. Williams: I just wondered is there a reason why we wouldn’t have the other motions as part of this? Commissioner Bialson: You asked us to make separate motions with regard to... City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 45 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: Oh, as far as directing- because two of them weren’t actually changing conditions they were directing us to work with them to make the changes. So should those be separate motions? Chair Burt: The third one was the trigger. Commissioner Bialson: It is the definition of special event or some other indicator being used to determine when offsite parking would be required. That seems-to me to be part of the ordinance unless I am reading it incorrectly. Chair Burt: Curtis, is there langu~age change based on our discussion that would differ from what is in the previous proposed ordinance? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think what I had tried to suggest and I will be a little more specific is that condition number 21 on page 13 says shared parking agreements to accommodate overflow parking onto adjacent facilities for special events when required by conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures which right now is for weekday events. I would say that for special events we would put in parenthesis events in the cultural hall or outside with anticipated attendance of 350 persons or more. So the combination thereof or either/or would trigger that requirement. I did talk to Dennis briefly it still doesn’t look like it would be necessary for weekend events. So I think we just have to see how that went but it looks like there are hundreds more spaces available on the weekends. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so what you are saying is the motion should include reference with respect to that change. Mr. C. Williams: Right, I think we can do that right now. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, so I would make my motion include that so we would have the StafFs recommendation as modified with respect to item number four and in addition we would deal with the regulation of the noise as set forth by yourself just now. Okay, that’s the motion. Chair Burt: Does the seconder also accept the modified motion? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Chair Burt: Okay. Does the maker of the motion wish to comment on the motion? Commissioner Bialson: No. Chair Butt: The seconder? Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I had one other question and it is just a clarification and maybe the applicant can address this. When it talks about the public benefit and the use of the cultural hall it mentions that the facility is closed on holidays, which is obvious, but do Saturdays count as holidays? City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 46 of 57 1 2 Mr. Baer: No, Saturdays don’t so Saturdays would be allowed for use by the City. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. 5 6 Chair Burt: Dan and then Phyllis. 7 8 Commissioner Garber: Having not done this before I would like to propose an alternative 9 motion and that is to proceed with the motion as has currently been iterated but excluding item 10 number four which is the tower with the intent to take that as a separate conversation and motion. 11 12 Commissioner Bialson: No, I would like to have the tower included in this motion. I think that 13 would speak more succinctly to Council and the community. 14 15 Chair Burt: I would like to hear from .... 16 17 Mr. Larkin: Before it can be discussed since it was offered as a substitute motion we would need 18 a second. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: I will second. 21 22 Commissioner Cassel: We are not working with a substitute motion. 23 24 Chair Burt: Yes, Commissioner Garber would you like to speak to your substitute motion? 25 26 Commissioner Garber: The reason I have offered the substitute motion is I am struggling with 27 the tower and am struggling with how to evaluate it. In one hand I do not feel constrained at all 28 by the 50-foot demarcation that exists within Palo Alto for its height. I find that it has relatively 29 little impact outside of the project itself so for it to have the height that it does is therefore 30 acceptable. However it does not add anything to the community outside of the walls of the 31 project and it does not operate as a way finding or it doesn’t operate in the symbolic and the 32 functional way outside of the project itself. So then therefore why does it need to be any higher 33 than any of the other buildings that are there? I wanted to have some further discussion to see if 34 I can discern from that discussion a way to evaluate what its height should be. 35 36 Chair Burt: Lee, do you have any comments on your second? 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: I have similar issues to Commissioner Garber. I am not in any way 39 looking to exclude the tower or make it something that is not approvable here. I actually am 40 seconding it in anticipation that we actually emphasize the importance of the tower. From that 41 my line of questioning looks at it more as an element of artistic expression rather than a building 42 element in this case. So I think our purview in terms of looking at it from a zoning and use point 43 of view somewhat limited and I would like to put more emphasis on the artistic or the decorative 44 element that it represents. 45 46 Chair Burt: Annette. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 47 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the reason for the substitute motion and the desire to emphasize the desirability of the tower, which is what I am taking from your conversations. I think the Architectural Review Board also did that by calling out and conditioning their approval on the existence of the tower. I do think that we all see the reason for the tower. Not strictly as an element of artistic impact. I do think it serves a purpose for the individuals within the community that we are creating here. I am not an architect such as the maker of the substitute motion and the seconder but having lived in communities somewhat akin to this and traveled quite a bit I see it as a necessity and not just as an artistic element. I see it as an important architectural element. I think it is part and parcel of the project. I will go along however the Commission wants to present this to Council but it seems to me by taking the Staff’s recommendation and moving that forward with a strong support showing by us is just as good but I will go along whatever the Commission calls for. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Well, the tower is just one part of many pieces and presents the conflicts that I think Pat mentioned in terms of we put a 50-foot height limit in for a reason and yet when we did it we forgot our art and our architecture and our enjoyment of other spires in other places. I have missed them. If someone puts up a religious institution it can’t put up a spire or a piece of architecture or a dome or anything that goes over that 50-foot limit and we have lost something in that beauty that we enjoy elsewhere. So I was going to support the tower. I think there are a lot of other very important pieces to this project that we need to deal with. When this is up it is not going to be seen from very far away. I look at the tree near our house, two houses down, I have been watching it and it has to be at least 75 feet tall, it is a redwood and may be 100 feet tall and you can’t see it from Middlefield Road. We are only one deep block in and you just can’t see it from that far away. It is pretty. A little height done well in the right spots is lovely. We just don’t want massive buildings that tall. Chair Burt: I suspect the thinking behind the maker of the motion has a nuance in his reasoning for the motion that he would like to share with us: Well, the rationale that I think you are getting at is something that is I think different from what I have been hearing from the other Commissioners as far as where you are coming from on this. So why don’t you share a little more? Commissioner Garber: Let me ask a question of Staff. Is it important that the height is defined given that part of the conditioning of the ARB is to review it at a later date? Mr. Turner: The conditions that have been presented to the Commission tonight call for a specific height of a tower. I’d say a solid portion that is not to exceed 65 feet and an artistic light sculptural element is not to exceed 30 additional feet. The Commission can adjust that if they so choose and make a different recommendation of that condition to Council. Mr. C. Williams: I would add that I would have a little bit of concern that the environmental review has looked at a tower of 96 feet and so if it is a few feet more than that that would be one thing but if it were much more than that it might trigger further environmental review. That City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 48 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 might be part of the option there that it could be in that vicinity but if it came in higher than that then there might be some kind of addendum to the environmental report. Mr. Larkin: To add to what Curtis said, the Commission is going to be making recommendations to Council on an ordinance and the ordinance is not going to include vague language about the height. The ordinance is going to identify the height. So to answer the specific question ’height to be determined later’ probably wouldn’t work. Commissioner Garber: Is 96 then a maximum or does it have to be exactly 96 feet? Okay, let’s call the question. Chair Burt: Paula and then I would like to. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I have a question for our attorney as a point of clarification. I am wondering if this particular motion doesn’t pass then what? Mr. Larkin: Then we go back to the original motion. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. Chair Burt: So the objective of the maker and the objective of the seconder are somewhat different and they are both intriguing. I think that if we were at liberty to look at what we think would be the most engaging architectural approach without consideration for the sentiments of the surrounding neighborhood whether we would agree with them or not then I would lean with Commissioner Garber. But I think we are already in a realm where we may think this is great and not everybody is going to agree with us. So architecturally I think in an abstract manner I think Commissioner Garber’s points are sound. From a pragmatic standpoint of balancing what we might think is a best project with the acceptance of the surrounding community I think I would lean toward keeping it essentially as the architect has proposed. The other proposal is to have an even more deliberate artistic process focus on this. It doesn’t fall within the purview of our Arts Commission in that it is on private property. We certainly have many examples today where we have careful architecture and we have examples where the architecture is an art form in itself. I think that over the last two years we have seen enough indications that the architect and the developers of the project are very committed to the architecture being an essential part of what this new community is about that I would be willing to defer to that. If I were to have my druthers I would say that something along the lines of Chartres Cathedral that you only allow them to add ten feet per decade and allow the evolution of the tower to change as our thinking changes about our view of the world. But I don’t think I would get a second to that one. Yes, Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have one other comment which is with regard to this being the Campus for Jewish Life and one element that has not been discussed here is the fact that this is in some ways or it could be construed as being used as a place of worship in which case the Supreme Court has already ruled on having limited ability to regulate things like spires in this case. So I just bring that other element into it. I don’t know whether this tower does represent a religious element or not but it could very well be. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 page 49 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: I think I would defer to our City Attorney if that were an issue. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I understand I think the separate reasons for the seconder and the maker of the substitute motion but I would really ask the Commission to speak with a clear single voice. I will not be supporting the substitute motion because I want to go back to the original motion and just move that forward so it is clear that we support what is going to hopefully be a very good addition to this city. Chair Burt: Any other comments? So we will be voting on the substitute motion, which is to exclude the tower from the motion. All those in favor? (aye) We have one in favor. All those opposed? (nays) So we have Commissioners Cassel, Bialson, Sandas, Lippert and Burt opposed. So that substitute motion fails one to five. Now we will return to the main motion. So do we have any other comments on the principle motion? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Well I know we have done an awful lot of discussing on this but I always find it helpful if we summarize some of the main issues just a little bit so that when it goes to Council they have a chance to do that. Chair Burt: And you won’t be including those two things that we plan on adding? Commissioner Cassel: No. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioner Cassel: Basically the TDM program does a lot and has a lot to offer there I mentioned that before. They have been very cooperative with this. The noise issue we have addressed. The height issue we should summarize that this is a unique situation and we always need to emphasize that when we do a variance or a PC when we are doing something different. It is unique because it combines both the flood plane portion of it and problems with the contaminated soil, which doesn’t allow us to depress the parking at all. Normally we would depress that parking somewhat and gain that difference. The public benefits we have not mentioned because they are very interesting and very good. The City has access to the community center, it has a community center in itself that is a benefit to the community, it is giving exceptional BMR support in addition to the units that it is providing in this special environment it is also providing service support for those BMR tenants and that is unusual. I think we have some of that in the city but it is very little and it is very unusual in general and a great benefit to the members of that community who will gain that benefit. Then there will be discounted membership to the residents both of BUILD and of this community into the community center. I think that provides good public benefit for the total community. We have been talking about the tower and I think we have said enough on that. I think that covers most of the basic issues. Chair Burt: Thank you. Paula. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 50 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Sandas: I just wanted to provide one more wrap up statement of my own because I believe that Palo Alto is fortunate to have the opportunity to change the use of the site that Sun ispresently deteriorating on and have BUILD and the Campus for Jewish Life projects. In addition to the public benefits that Phyllis outlined that are provided at the CJL through the BUILD project Palo Alto will also benefit from additional housing for middle and low-income people allowing for greater diversity in our community. One of the things that concerns me a lot about Palo Alto is that we do work very hard to build low income housing and I am grateful for that but at the same time the rest of the housing prices are kind of out of sight. So we are really squeezing out middle income. So I am glad to see that there is also an opportunity here for middle-income people. Finally, I think Palo Alto will also benefit by the renewal of a rather large, unattractive, blighted parcel with an imaginative and unusual campus. I think we are really lucky to have this not only as resource for our community but as a showpiece and a gateway into Palo Alto that we haven’t had for a long, long time. I am really proud of it and I look forward to the day when we cut the ribbon and get to go in for the first time. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I voted against the substitute motion because I think this does need to go forward with the strongest voice possible not that it diminishes anything that my colleague, Commissioner Garber, had to say or myself. I still believe that this tower element is very important in terms of an artistic expression. However, what is probably more significant than this is that Palo Alto has a presence and when you get to the southern most comer of our city it lacks definition. What this project brings to our community is to define a corner of our community ,and does it in a very powerful way. You drive through our city and it is really hard pressed to say what building defines Palo Alto. What piece of architecture defines it? In variably people point to this building or they point to another one of the mid-rise buildings in the city. In some ways what the tower element does is it becomes another one of those elements and it defines another point or another comer of our city. It does it in an architectural way, it does it in a very modest and it also does it with defining a new village or community or area within our city. So my hat is offto you Rob Steinberg. Your group did a marvelous job. Hats offto the people behind the Campus for Jewish Life I think you have done a great job. I think that this is going to be really an exemplary project. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I just want to thank the discussion with the architect this evening. It has been extremely helpful for me to understand in greater detail some of the important parts of the project that I have been most concerned about. Having worked for the company that provided Sun Microsystems the real estate and facilities services for this site for the latter half of the 1990s I have intimate knowledge of just how difficult this site is to actually deal with. To second Commissioner Sandas’ comments the willingness of the applicant to take on these issues and come up with a bold plan to overcome them is one in a million. The more likely path for this piece of property was going to be for it to remain essentially as we see it today for many years to come because of the unwillingness of many people to take on these issues. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 51 of 57 1 The two issues that I have been primarily focused on are how to connect the project, which is 14 2 feet in the air with the community around it. I think we have spent a great deal of time and I am 3 satisfied that that connection will support the community not only that is on the site but that is 4 immediately adjacent will become also recognized as Commissioner Lippert has mentioned a 5 landmark within the community. The other issues the concern of mine of this creating a 6 precedent isn’t that it would create a bad precedent in fact just the opposite that it create the right 7 one and just architecturally which the ARB has taken great pain~ to define in rather expletive 8 terms has more to do with use in our purview. This does suggest how this comer of Palo Alto 9 should be used and developed. So I support the project wholeheartedly including the tower and 10 will lend my vote to the motion. Thank you. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Well, I would just like to endorse the comments of my fellow Commissioners. I think they have captured all the essential points and I am glad that the record really includes the rationale and those things that we thought are important. I would like to add my appreciation to both the Staff and the ARB for their extensive contributions throughout this project. It really is in a tree sense a planned community. We have had a long discussion about whether PCs are appropriate or not appropriate and we have reduced the use of PCs in Palo Alto and in most circumstances that is probably been a correct approach and tried to have zoning address many of the issues that previously PCs addressed. This is a really good example where you could never do something like this or approach it without a PC. So it is an interesting illustration we won’t have many if any projects on this scale in the future but aside from the scale the elements that have gone into the PC planning process exhibit that there are still cases where that is the right planning tool. So I just wanted to add that for the record. I want to thank everyone involved. We still are going to have one small additional motion on top of this primary one. I haven’t forgotten to call the question. Thank you all very much. Annette, were you wanting to say something more before we vote? Commissioner Bialson: Just that it is obvious that I am very enthusiastic about this project and I do endorse the comments of my fellow Commissioners and especially yours with respect to the PC. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Burt: Okay. So at this time we would like to call the vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. So we have one additional motion to entertain. Commissioner Bialson. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: This motion is with respect to certain additional items that Staff has indicated that they feel would be an appropriate direction to them to discuss further with the developer. Those two items are with respect to the TDM program to be modified to address the City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 52 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 concerns that were raised by Commissioners and while we commented on shuttles there was some discussion with regard to working out a new arrangement with VTA and I can’t come up with anything else. It is just that there be some discussion with regard to enhancing the TDM program. In addition we wanted to have bicycle access to the project improved and additional thought given to dealing with some of the problems that we can anticipate which were described by Commissioners. Chair Burt: Before we entertain a second perhaps we would like to have Curtis restate the language that would be incorporated in the motion and then seconder be endorsing that particular language. Does that seem reasonable? Commissioner Bialson: Yes. Mr. C. Williams: I will give that a shot. The first part is to direct Staffto work with the applicant to enhance the TDM program to improve access to train station and for after school facilities and for employees. We weren’t using the word ’shuttle’ specifically but just expand the TDM andit would probably say something like expand TDM including but not limited to those particular items to evaluate those. Then the second one would be to work with the applicant to evaluate ways to enhance bicycle access including but not limited to access from Charleston and improve safe access from Fabian Avenue entrance. Commissioner Bialson: Yes, that does incorporate the thrust of the motion. Chair Burt: Do we have a second? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second. Chair Burt: Motion made by Commissioner Bialson including the language stated by Mr. Williams and seconded by Commissioner Cassel. Annette, would you like to speak to your motion? ~ Commissioner Bialson: No, I think we had a very good discussion about both items earlier and I feel no need for a discussion at this point. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I agree I think that Curtis picked up the details that I was concerned about with the public transit. There is not just necessarily a train but buses may or may not work. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 53 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Lee, Commissioner Lippert: Before we vote I just wanted to thank both Annette and Phyllis. I think this is a fitting way for you to finish your terms here on the Commission. It was a pleasure to work with you all these years. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman recused) Chair Burt: We will have a moment after finish this item to address any comments from Commission Members so we can go into further detail at that time on that. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Okay. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously six to zero with Commissioner Holman recused. So that completes are items number two and three and once again we would like to thank everyone involved. We look forward to your successful and speeding progress on this project. Thank you all very much. Item number four was withdrawn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Burt: We have no minutes to approve tonight. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. Chair Burt: Any Reports From Officials prior to entertaining comments from officials? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I had City Council this month soit has been a busy month. We had a mixed-use project on E1 Camino that was near Oregon and E1 Camino that passed. I didn’t even get a chance to open my mouth. That passed just right away they didn’t even hardly discuss it. No problems. We had a conditional use appeal that came to us on Miranda for a cell tower that went through on Consent Calendar. Again it was not pulled off and there were no questions about it. The discussed the Municipal Service site for the auto mall and I think they were disappointed with the results that came to them that it was going to be complicated and difficult. They asked the Staff to go back and look again and see if there were any other alternatives. I think that is the best way to summarize it. They spent all evening doing that. Then they went on to the PTOD and they took testimony but decided to delay that until this Monday night. That only passed by a five to four vote. They used option B. They withdrew the Fry’s site from the option. Those people who were opposing this really didn’t feel we should have spent the time doing it, which was a little strange since we did it at the request of the City Council. I think the request to do that was prior to the current composition of the City Council. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 54 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Phyllis, could you clarify request to do what? The PTOD in general or the Fry’s site inclusion? Commissioner Cassel: No the PTOD in general. It only passed by a five to four vote. Chair Burt: My understanding was some of the Council Members who opposed it opposed it because the Fry’s was not being included by other Council Members. Commissioner Cassel: I didn’t get that sense. Mr. C. Williams: I don’t want to speak for Council Members but I believe that is true. Two of the Council Members voted to keep Fry’s in and then voted against the ordinance. I believe they did that because Fry’s was removed and they felt that it weakened the effect of the ordinance. Commissioner Cassel: Be that as it may it has passed. It is an ordinance. It does not include the Fry’s site. They will give Staff the job to go back and look at that issue. They very much want Fry’s there. They very much want it as a retail space. They very much want this specific to Fry’s. Now we aren’t allowed to do that on this Board and they recognize that you can’t keep Fry’s, you can’t demand that Fry’s stay, nor that the ordinance cannot be that specific but they want it tailored to make that possible. So we will see where that goes. They may come back at Fry’s with this or some other way and perhaps a PC would work. They were very concerned about additional housing and of course it is zoned as a housing site. So you will see that again in some other form. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question. By excluding the Fry’s site from the PTOD doesn’t that in fact say the opposite which is that the Fry’s site needs to continue on the amortization that it is on so that in 2019 it has to be housing? Commissioner Cassel: Well, yes except that they expect the Staffto come back with some other proposal. They do not expect this to wait until then. They made it very clear they want Fry’s. Chair Burt: As I understood it the sentiment of the majority of the Council was that they wanted to make sure that what was done at the Fry’s site was most likely to achieve the intended outcome. They want to take action to try to make sure that we do what is possible to retain Fry’s as a long-term occupant and revenue source for the City. They want to make sure that whatever action is done is the most likely one to achieve that outcome and they weren’t sure that inclusion in the PTOD was the most likely to do so. So they just wanted a more targeted reconsideration of what to do with the Fry’s site. I don’t think that they felt that they had an answer at this time they are turning to Staff and probably ourselves to do a more thorough consideration of the ramifications of different alternatives. Mr. C. Williams: I think that is a very good characterization of it. It was not let’s not do PTOD here and just sit back and relax. It was let’s not do PTOD because we want to be more aggressive than PTOD. Some of them made comments this might be a good step but it is not good enough and we want to be sure that we are looking at a commercial development potential City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 55 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 out there so we need to look at other ways to zone the site to achieve that. So it is our charge to come back to you and to them with addressing that for that site specifically. Commissioner Cassel: The owner of the property, the owner of Fry’s, was not there to be able to comment because the public session had been closed and they had not further commented some of the Council Members had discussed it. That is about all I think we can do tonight or we will get into discussion and our attorney will object. Chair Burt: So Lee as long as it doesn’t go into discussion of the topic. Commissioner Lippert: No. The other question I had is it is not only the Fry’s site that they took out but the adjacent properties to Fry’s so that we don’t have the contiguous basis by which to bring Fry’s back into it, correct? Mr. C. Williams: They excluded the R-1 lots along Olive Avenue, they excluded basically everything south of Olive Avenue which meant the R-1 lots, Fry’s and then the three or four GM lots that are south if you continue along Olive Avenue across Park that are south of that. So all of that is excluded from it. It is basically pretty much everything that is outside the 2,000-foot circle. So we are back pretty much to the 2,000 foot. Commissioner Lippert: The more things change the more they stay the same. Chair Burt: When I listened to their discussion on the MSC site as a possible automotive site my sense of where Council was coming from was similar to the Fry’.s. They still are very strongly interested in achieving an outcome of creating an improved area for automotive dealers and the fiscal impacts of relocating the MSC were such that that alternative was far less attractive than they had hoped. They have given Staff once again a strong request to look at all possibilities again and that may come back to us. Maybe we can come up with some incentives of some sort. Okay, any other Reports From Officials? COMMISSION MEMBER Q UES TIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chair Burt: Now we are in our comment period. Any comments from officials? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I just want to say that I have very much enjoyed my tenure of nine years plus on the Commission and I appreciate working closely with Phyllis. She has been a great inspiration to me and it has been wonderful to have her be there to lead us through many difficult times, many discussions of the Comp Plan and discussions of zoning ordinance changes. I will miss having all of you here but I am concerned about extending the meeting and having Staff continue to sit here listening to us. This is the last time you get to hear me but you get to hear others. So I ask you all to please take that into consideration. Chair Burt: Phyllis. City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 56 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: I also have really appreciated working on the Planning Commission. It has been a lot of fun for me. There have been of course days when I gnashed my teeth but many more days in which I have had a lot of fun preparing material and learning about what is going on and then being able to go out into the community and people will say what is that or what is this? And I can say well, that took us a bit of work to get to that. Did you see this piece of art over here? We reviewed art projects before Art Commission did. A lot of different material and it has been a lot of fun to know so much about the City and to participate and to have that honor to do that for 13 years. So thank you Pat forbeing President this year and thanks to Karen for that and thank all of you for having a chance to get to know you better and to the Staff for the good work and Zariah for the behind the scenes work. It has been nice. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I just want to know who is going to kick me under the table when you guys leave? Chair Burt: We will seek volunteers. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I will stay over here. I wanted to thank both Annette and Phyllis for being an inspiration. I am still cutting my teeth and you both have inspired me quite a bit and given me things to learn. Too bad I can’t work with you longer. I wish I could. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I said my comments before. It is too late. Chair Burt: Well I would just like to reiterate the comments of my fellow Commissioners and thank you for the contributions you’ve had and your great knowledge, your Commitment and your affinity for the community. It has been a great deal of sacrifice of your personaltime for contributing to what you believe in and for the betterment of the community. You have been very effective advocates for those things you have believed in and helped fulfill. I think certainly the greatest milestones are the Comprehensive Plan approval and the near completion of the ZOU are going to be long standing impacts that you will be able to look back on and as you see things happen over the years you certainly will know that they are the outcome of those very fundamental and far reaching aspects of your work. I think you should and will feel great gratification as you continue to enjoy our community. So thank you very much for your service and we don’t have a sheet with all the whereas’s and I think we are saved from that but thank you all very much. On that note we will adjourn. NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting at 7:00 PM on August 23, 2006. ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM City of Palo Alto July 26, 2006 Page 57 of 57