HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 337-05Attachment C to this report, submitted by the applicant, and in plans provided to
Council.
The. project would include the demolition of five existing commercial buildings
totaling 41,654 square feet of floor area. The 7,440 square foot restaurant,
formerly Scott's Seafood, has been vacant since March 1, 2002. The four office
buildings, totaling 32,840 square feet, have been vacant since October 1, 2000.
The project and potential impacts are summarized in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) provided as Attachment Q.
The current project meets the zoning standards of the LM(D)(3) zoning district
and parking regulations, set forth in the attached table (Attachment C to this
report.) Staff, the ARB, and the Commission have determined the project to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies as set forth in Attachment D to
this report.
The draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) contains findings for approval of
the Site and Design Review application, as reviewed by the ARB and the
Commission, and draft Architectural Review findings for Council consideration.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
The Commission reviewed the current application at its June 29, 2005 meeting.
The Commission recommended that the Council approve the application and the
mitigated negative declaration, adding conditions to supplement staff-
recommended conditions. The action of the Commission is included in the RLUA.
Meeting minutes reflecting the Commission discussion are found in Attachment L,
and the Commission staff report is included as Attachment N. The Commission
discussed the following:
• The Commission viewed the proposed Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program favorably. The approved motion included a condition that the
proposed TOM measures be added to the conditions of approval. This has
been added to the Record of Land Use Action (Condition #23).
• The Commission commented favorably on the "Baylands Interpretive Garden"
proposed along East Bayshore Road and at the intersection with Embarcadero
Road and Watson Court. Though not specifically addressing the proposed
architecture of the building, the Commission did state that the design of the site
and the landscape plan would further the objectives of the Baylands Master
Plan. Expressing some concern that plants indigenous to the Baylands habitat
were being concentrated in the "Baylands Interpretive Garden" and not
reflected throughout the remainder of the site, the Commission requested that
CMR: 337:05 Page 2 of6
the ARB, during its review of the project, evaluate the possibility of increasing
the humber of native or Baylands compatible plants into the remaining balance
of the site's landscaping.
• Some Commissioners thought that the height of the building would visually
appear taller viewed from off-site due to the requirement to raise the elevation
of the site by approximately six feet to lift the building above the flood plain.
The Commission also commented on the height, lateral extent, and apparent
excessiveness of the mechanical screening and that this would add to the height
of the building. The Commission recommended that the applicant install
~'story poles" to visually represent the height of the proposed building prior to
ARB review .. The Commission also requested that the ARB, during their
review of the project, attempt to minimize the height and lateral extent of the
proposed mechanical screening.
• The Commission discussed the proposed project's potential effects on traffic
and questioned staff on the findings of the project's Transportation Impact
Analysis submitted by the applicant. The Commission also expressed concern
that vehicles exiting the site and turning right directly onto East Bayshore Road
would be in conflict with traffic heading east on East Bayshore Road. The
approved motion included a condition of approval that vehicular egress from
the East Bayshore Road driveway be eliminated. This has been added to the
Record of Land Use Action (Condition #8).
Architectural Review Board
The ARB reviewed the application during a special meeting on July 13,2005. The
ARB recommended the Council approve the mitigated negative declaration and
site and design application and added additional conditions to supplement staff
and the Commission's recommended conditions. The action of the ARB is
included in the RLUA. Meeting minutes reflecting the ARB discussion are found
in Attachment K, and the ARB staff report is included as Attachment M.
During the meeting, the ARB discussed the proposed project's sustainability
measures, parking lot landscaping, differentiating the building'S entrance from the
rest of the building, design of the windows, height of the mechanical screening,
and details of the columns of the first story.
The approved motion included a condition of approval that the following items
return to the ARB Subcommittee for further review prior to the issuance of a
building permit:
• The design of a landscaped parking lot island in the areas where there are
double-loaded parking aisles.
CMR: 337:05 Page 3 of6
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2005-08
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 2300 EAST BAY SHORE ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN.REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 05PLN-00166
(HOOVER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT)
.On INSERT DATE the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design
Review. application for a new office building in the Limited
Industrial/ Research Park Site Combining zone district, making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council")
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. Hoover Associates, on behalf of Richard Peery, property
owner, has requested the City's approval for the construction of a
new two-story of'fice building on approximately 5.66 acres within
the Limited Industrial/Research Park Site Combining zone district.
The 77,956 square foot project includes new landscaping, surface
parking and related site improvements ("The Project").
B. The site is comprised of two parcels that would be
merged into a single parcel. The site is designated on the
Comprehensive plan land use map as Research/Office Park and is
located within the Limited Industrial/ Research Park Site Combining
zoning district.
The existing buildings (41,654 square feet of floor area)
would be demolished and replaced with a single, 77,956 square-foot
two-story office building including 4,023 square feet of exempt
floor area set aside for on-site employee amenities. The first
floor area would be 38,358 square feet, and the second floor area
would be 39,598 square feet. The design is an L-shaped building
surrounded by vehicular circulation and parking spaces, with two
plaza areas, one at each end of the building lobby. The proposed
building is two stories, to reach 30'-6" in height as measured from
the roof and 32'-6" as measured from the parapet. The proposed
materials include pre-cast concrete panels and columns, vision
glass, and metal roofing. Driveways are proposed from both Watson
Court and East Bayshore Road. The existing driveway on East
Bayshore Road closest to Watson Court would be eliminated and the
two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned.
1
The preliminary landscape plan indicates 134 new trees are
inc I uding 24 " box Redwood, Sou thern Live Oak, Pear,
Pistache, and Raywood Ash. Fifteen-gallon size trees
Western Redbud and Purple Leaf Plum. The existing,
proposed
Chinese
include
Eucalyptus and Casuarina trees along Embarcadero Road, the
property line of the adjacent commercial site and Cal
property to the southwest would be retained.
mature
common
Trans
An extensive variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, and
perennials, including a selection of native species, would be
planted on site. Lawn area for employee recreation purposes would
be located at both ends of the building.
The edge of the site along East Bayshore Road and at the
intersection with Embarcadero Road and Watson Court will feature a
"Bayland Interpretive Garden". This area will feature long grasses
and native plants designed to attract wildlife, along with
pedestrian amenities such as benches and interpretive signage.
C. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been
prepared for the proposed project. The TIA included the projects
impact on current traffic volumes as well as the projected traffic
volumes for 2008, the estimated year the project is to be completed
and ready for occupancy. Vehicle trips associated with the full
occupancy of the existing land uses were subtracted from the trips
generated by the proposed project. This TIA used this credit for
existing land uses to estimate the total trip generation and net
new trip generation for the proposed project. The TIA determined
that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
traffic. The TIA concluded:
• The proposed project would generate 308 fewer daily trips than
full occupancy of the current land uses on the site;
• The proposed Transportation Demand Management Program and
onsite employee amenity areas (recreation areas, workout
rooms, lounges, and employee cafeterias) could reduce critical
p.m. peak hour vehicle trips by 8 to 20 percent;
• There are no significant traffic· impacts proj ected for the
year 2008;
• Sufficient gaps in traffic exist for both project generated
traffic and existing vehicles to safely exit Watson Court
during p.m. peak hour conditions.
D. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the
Proj ect on June 29, 2005. The Commission's recommendations are
contained in CMR: 337:05 and the attachments to it.
- 2 -
E. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) reviewed the project at its meetings of July 13, 2005.
The ARB recommended approval of the project.
SECTION 2 .. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined
that the project is subject to environmental review under
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or
Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment
was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the
implementation of mitigation measures, the project would have a
less than significant impact on the environment. The Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review
beginning June 15 through July 5, 2005. The Environmental Impact
Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: [Insert
Number] .
SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project, as conditioned, will be constructed. and operated in a
manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The
project proposal will be compatible with existing nearby office
uses and the proposed design of the . building as well as the
extensive amount of landscaping will not detract from the natural
character of the site. The siting of the proposed improvements
would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring I
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same
and adjacent areas, the proposed design and related improvements
are generally consistent with the existing structures on East
Bayshore Road, and the construction of all improvements will be
governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the
Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety
and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The proposed building would be raised above the flood zone
elevation. The new building would be conditioned to incorporate
- 3 -
sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy
needs and increase the recycled content of the building. The
project would not create significant environmental impacts on the
environment as indicated by the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for this project.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of
the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan.
SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
PQtential uses of adj oining or nearby sites. The design is
consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The project would 1) maintain the scale and
character of the City and avoid land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to their size and scale; 2) maintain the East
Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse
business and light industrial districts; 3) promote high quality,
creative design and site 'planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces; 4) strengthen the
identity of important community gateways and; 5) encourage new
businesses tnat meet the City's business and economic goals to
locate in Palo Alto.
2. The design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site. The proposed office building would be
similar in height to other two story buildings in the adjacent
area. The proposed landscaping contains species of plants likely
to be found in the Baylands. The openness provided by the
substantial setback of the building from the street and the
proposed use of pre-cast concrete representing the shoreline and
both green and clear glass and muted colors reminiscent of the
water and the plants found in the Baylands natural environment.
The "Baylands Interpretive Areas" proposed for both street
intersections would include waving grasses and native plants to.
attract wildlife.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the
project in that the project will be used as an office building.
5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale
and character in areas between different designated land uses. The
proj ect' is to be used as an office building and the uses of the
adjacent buildings are predominantly office buildings. The
project would be located on an approximately 5.6 acre lot with
generous setbacks from the public right of way. Shorter two story
-4-
buildings are located on neighboring lots however; it is
appropriate to have increased building height at road
intersections. The proposed projects setbacks and landscaping would
promote a harmonious transition relative to scale and mitigate the
height differences of neighboring buildings.
6. The design is compatible with approved improvements
both on and off the site. The proposed building would be reviewed
by· the Department of Public Works for compatibility with all
existing improvements prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. 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. The entrance to the building would be clearly defined,
and the outdoor lawn areas, patio, the two Baylands interpretive
areas near the street intersections and the other site landscaping
would be a desirable amenity for both visitors and occupants of the
building.
8. The amount and arrangement of open space are
appropriate to' the design and the function of the structures. The
si te is approximately 5.6 acres. The proposed· building lot
coverage of 16% is below the maximum of 30% resulting in 83% of the
site used for parking and landscaping.
10. Access to the property and circulation .thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The
site would be readily accessible by both East Bayhore and
Embarcadero Roads. A bike/pedestrian trail is located adjacent to
the southern portion of the site. This trail passes over the
Bayshore Freeway and connects to East Bayshore Road providing site
access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project. A condition of project approval is
that prior to issuance of a building permit, a tree survey is to be
submitted by a certified arborist. The scope of this report is to
include the trees on site and those on adjacent parcels, including
the Caltrans off ramp landscape area. The report is to recommend
those trees, which are suitable for preservation and/or relocation.
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are an appropriate expression of
the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and
neighboring structures, and existing landscape elements and
functions.
13. The landscap~ 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
- 5 -
wi th the various buildings on the· site. Natural features are
appropriately preserved and integrated with the proj ect.
Approximately 14% of the site is landscaped and two Bayland
interpretive areas containing features found in the Baylands are to
be located at both street intersections.
14. 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. The
project landscape designer consulted with the City's Planning
Arborist in the selection of native shrubs and grasses and plant
and tree species most appropriate for the site given its proximity
to the Baylands.
15. The design is energy efficient and incorporates
renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to:
(A) Exterior energy design elements. Some of the sustainability
measures incorporated into the design of the building would
include dual paned Low E vision glazing, "Energy Star" high
reflective roofing, an energy saving HVAC system, bioswales,
drought tolerant landscaping, and water efficient irrigation
and plumbing fixtures. The roof structure will be engineered
to support the weight of possible future voltaic cells.
(B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems. Not
applicable at this time, the project is a shell building; a
future tenant would install lighting and climatic controls.
(C) Building siting and landscape elements. The project would
include 16,365 square feet of landscaping, and increase of
4.35% over the minimum of 10% required by the City. The'
additional landscaping could reduce the "heat island" effect
caused by asphalt parking lots. The siting of the building
would add an incremental energy cost of $700 per year in
comparison to a building rotated 90 degrees clockwise from the
proposed location.
16. The design is consistent and compatible with the
purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a),
which is to:
(1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
(2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the
city;
(3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements;
(4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas; and
-6-
(5) Promote .visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality
and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of
each other.
Finding #4 is not applicable to this proj ect as there in no
"unified design character" in the Baylands.
Finding #9 is not applicable as the project is being constructed as
a "shell building" and future tenants would construct ancillary
functions.
SECTION 5. SITE AND DESIGN APPROVAL GRANTED.
Site and Design Approval is granted. by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application
05PLN-00166, subject to the conditions of approval in Section Ten
of the Record.
SECTION 6. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL GRANTED.
Architectural Review Approval
Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code
application 05PLN-00166, subject to the
Section Eight of the Record.
is granted by the City
Section 18.76.020 (c) for
conditions of approval in
SECTION 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMANCE
It has been determined that the project is in conformance
with the following policies of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City.
Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their
size and scale.
The proposed 182-foot setback from East Bayshore Road and 197 feet
from Embarcadero Road far exceed the minimum twenty-foot setback
requirement. These generous setbacks as well as the proposed
landscaping would provide a visual buffer from public right of ways
and would help to reduce the perceived sense of size and scale of
the proposed building. The project would not exceed the maximum
allowable floor area ratio or maximum allowable site coverage.
Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in
a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and
reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
The project is
Plan and the
development of
Watson Court.
providing a comprehensive Transportation Management
dedication of land to the City to enable the
a bicycle path from the Highway 101 bike overpass to
-7-
Program L-43: Modify existing zoning regulations and
create incentives for employers to provide employee services in
their existing buildings -for example, office support services,
restaurants, convenience stores, public gathering places and child
care facilities -to reduce the need for employees to drive to
these services.
The project would provide 4,023 square feet of employee dedicated
to employee amenities such as a gym, showers, and an employee
lunchroom. Providing these on site could reduce the need for
employees to leave the building to seek out these services thereby
reducing vehicle trips.
Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore Road/Bayshore
Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts.
The site is zoned LM(D) (3) Limited Industrial Site Combining Zone
District. The most recent land uses on the site were a restaurant
and offices. The proj ect is being constructed as a "shell
building" and future tenants have not been identified. The
LM(D) (3) district uses that could occupy the building could include
manufacturing, medical, professional, and general business offices.
Other uses could include private schools, research and development,
warehouse/distribution, and financial services.
PolicY.L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and
site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and
public spaces.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different land uses. The project would be located
on an approximately 5.6 acre lot with generous setbacks from the
public right-of-way. The proposed project would be approximately
33 feet tall and would be taller than other two-story buildings in
the vicinity however; it is appropriate to have increased building
height ·at road intersections. The proposed projects setbacks and
landscaping would promote a harmonious transition relative to scale
and mitigate the height differences of neighboring buildings.
Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage that is
attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility
needs with aesthetic needs.
Project signage would be made of wood, which is a material that is
compatible with and found widely throughout the Baylands.
Policy [;-71: Strengthen the identity of important
community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway
101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Cal train stations;
- 8 -
entries to commercial districts, and Embarcadero Road at EI Camino
Real.
The intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road has
been identified as a gateway to the Baylands. Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-46 includes the statement that new buildings and
landscaping should reflect the area's location near the Baylands.
The "Baylands Interpretive Areas" proposed for both street
intersections would include waving grasses, native plants to
attract wildlife, and meandering pathways. The proposed colors of
the building would be muted and the exterior building materials
would weather well.
Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural
facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are
compatible with the character and identify of the surrounding
neighborhood.
A stone sculpture would be located in the "Baylands Interpretive
Garden" near the intersection of East Bayshore and Embarcadero
Roads.
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 .
. The project would dedicate land to the City to enable the City to
develop a bicycle path from the Highway 101 bike overpass to Watson
Court.
Policy T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting,
bicycle parking, street trees and interpretive stations along
bicycle and pedestrian paths, and in City parks, to encourage
walking and cyclingcand to enhance the feeling of safety.
The project would provide interpretive gardens, pedestrian paths
within the interpretive gardens, benches, information signage and
lighting that could encourage walking and cycling.
Policy B-9: Encourage new businesses that meet the
City's business economic goals to locate in Palo Alto.
The project site includes older buildings with existing tenant
improvements and an architectural style that might not be
attractive as leasing opportunities for new businesses. The
proposed two-story building would be built as a "shell" building
and its excellent location adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway could
be attractive features to lure new businesses to Palo Alto.
- 9 -
SECTION 10. Conditions of Approval
Planning Division
** Mitigation Measure for Environmental Impact
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANNCE
1. The applicant shall revise the plans to identify the make and
model of the proposed bike racks and lockers.
2. The 4,023 square feet of exempt floor area shall be set aside
for employee amenities such as a gym, showers, and an employee
lunchroom and shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted
for building permit.
3. The applicant shall submit a salvage and recycling plan for
the buildings and paving to be removed from the site as per
PAMC 5.24. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division prior to building permit issuance.
4. A Tree Survey prepared by a certified arborist including the
trees on site and those on adjacent parcels, including the
Caltrans off ramp landscape area. The tree survey shall be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual,
Section 6.20-6.25, and recommend those trees, which are
suitable for preservation and/or relocation. The project
applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Arborist to
minimize the number of existing trees to be removed as part of
the proj ect. Specifically, there are several London Plane
Trees, which are good candidates for relocation.
5. A Tree Protection Report per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical
Manual 6.30 and 2.00 shall be submitted for trees to be
retained and protected.
6. *** The application for a demolition permit shall require the
developer to avoid the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy
vegetation during the April 1 through June 31 bird nesting
period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree
removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys
shall be required. If it is not feasible to'avoid the nesting
period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a
qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to
the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation,
or buildings, or grading or other construction acti vi ty.
Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the
survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not
started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be
required. The area surveyed shall include all construction
sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas
within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be
cleared or as otherwise determined by the wildlife biologist.
In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to
be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of
construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be
-11 -
7.
8 .
9 •
10.
11.
12.
13.
postponed for at least two weeks or until the wildlife
biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the
nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second
nesting attempts.
*** In the event of discovery of archaeological resources on
the site, work at the place of discovery shall be halted
immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate
the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified
archaeologist will perform an archaeological reconnaissance
and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological
resources. In the event of discovery of human remains on the
site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be
notified immediately who will determine if the remains are
those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and
mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code,
Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
The project shall include the construction of a channelizing
island at the northerly project driveway off of East Bayshore
Road. This is to prevent motorists exiting the project site
from making a left-turn onto East Bayshore Road.
Theproj ect shall financially contribute towards the newly
installed signals at the intersection of San Antonio Road/NB
US 101 off-ramp. The project's proportionate share is 0.62% of
the total cost incurred by the City of Palo Alto for
signalizing this intersection.
The project shall contribute financially towards the
employment of a traffic adaptive signal at the intersection of
East Bayshore Road/Embarcadero Road. This is on the City's
work program as part of the signal upgrade along the
Embarcadero Corridor. The project's proportionate share is
1.68% of the cost to be incurred by the City for improving
operational conditions at the East
Bayshore/Embarcadero intersection.
The project shall contribute financially towards the
employment of a traffic adaptive signal at the intersection of
Charleston Road/San Antonio Road. The City plans this work as
part of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor improvements. The
project's proportionate share is 0.20% of the cost to be
incurred by the City for employing signal adaptive at this
intersection.
The project shall contribute financially towards signal timing
improvements at the intersection of San Antonio Road/East
Bayshore Road. The project's proportionate share is 0.39% of
the cost for signal re-timing. The proj ect will contribute
financially towards the provision of an additional lane on the
westbound approach of the intersection of San Antonio Road/NB
US 101 off-ramp. The project's proportionate share is 0.43%
of the cost associated with this improvement.
In addition, should the Citywide Traffic Impact fee becomes in
effect before building permits are obtained, the 2300 East
Bayshore general office will be subject to this fee.
-12 -
14. Parking area landscape islands with trees shall consider the
underground utility easement, and be located to enable
consistent shade coverage but planted on each side of the
easement.
15. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received May 11, 2005,
except as modified to incorporate these conditions.
16. Development Impact Fees totaling $629,763.29 shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
17. The following controls shall be implemented for the duration
of project construction to minimize dust related construction
impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least
twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall
be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas
at the construction site shall be swept and watered
daily.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
18. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9 .10
(Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction to the hours of
eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday -Friday, nine a.m. and six
p.m. on Saturday, and prohibiting construction on Sunday and
Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to
less than significant levels.
19. All provisions and recommendations contained in the
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by United Soil Engineering
and dated July 2000 shall be incorporated into the project.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be
submitted by the project geologist stating satisfaction that
the project is in substantial conformance with the recommended
geotechnical. measures contained in the report.
20. Prior to the application for a demolition permit, the
applicant shall test for ACM's and provide for standard safety
protocols and best management practices in doing removal of
any hazardous materials. Required protocols are set forth in
the California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)
regulations and the California Health and Safety Code. ACM's
and lead paint containing materials shall be handled only by
trained construction workers and disposed of in a manner
prescribed by State Law.
21. The applicant shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances
survey for the site prior to application for a demolition
permi t to determine the historic use of the site. If the
results of the Phase I survey indicate the potential presence
of hazardous substances, the developer shall conduct a phase
II survey to test soil samples at the site and shall comply
-13-
with City standards for subsequent cleanup and removal of
hazardous substances, as necessary.
22. Future tenants of the building shall designate a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Coordinator to
administer:
• The operation of a "guaranteed ride home" program;
• The institution of TDM promotional programs to encourage
employees to utilize alternative transportation;
• The coordination of a Carpool/Vanpool program;
• The Development of Alternative/Flexible Work Schedules;
• The promotion of Alternative Work Schedule Programs such as
flextime, staggered work hours, compressed workweeks,
telecommuting, and satellite work locations.
23. The project shall dedicate land for a bicycle path connecting
the existing bike path to Watson Court. ThE:! Transportation
Division shall review and approve the dedication prior to
issuance of a building permit.
24. The driveway on East Bayshore Road shall designed to allow
only vehicle ingress into the site.
25. The following items shall return to the Architectural Review
Board Subcommittee prior tO,submittal for a building permit:
• The design of a landscaped parking lot island in the areas
where there are double-loaded parking aisles.
• The design of the westerly end of the wooden fence along
Embarcadero Road with a requirement that it return at a
right angle toward the parking lot by approximately 16-
feet.
• Details of the roof screening. The height of the screening
is to be no taller than nine feet, and is encouraged to be
shorter where possible. Presentation of the screening
details shall include renderings reflecting the screens and
the types of equipment to be screened.
• Details of increasing the parapet height on either side of
the front entrance by a maximum of three feet to
differentiate it from the remainder of the building.
• Details of the first floor columns with a requirement they
are inboard of the soffit and not at the edge.
• Details of the windows below the roof returns. The windows
are to be eliminated or decreased in size.
• Details of the wood signage proposed to be located in the
"Baylands Interpretive Garden." This signage is to be
compatible with the Baylands Design Guidelines.
• Details of the sustainability program including an
evaluation of the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
certified wood products and a LEED checklist.
26. A report shall be provided to the ARB one year after securing
a certificate of occupancy regarding the effectiveness and
success of the sustainability program.
-14 -
Building Division
BEFORE SUBMITTAL FOR, BUILDING PERMIT
27. Because the main entrance to the proposed building is to be
located on Watson Court, the current 2450 Watson Court address
is more appropriate than the 2300 E. Bayshore address
indicated on the Planning application.
28. 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 spe'cific seismic hazards and provides
recommendations for their mitigation. Additionally, the
report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the
building designs.
29. 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 associated with the proposed
project.
30. Designs 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.
31. The location of the building's electrical service shall
require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and
shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or
enclosure accessible directly from the exterior.
32. A separate grading permit shall be required for the importing
and elevation of the building site as shown on the plans.
33. The plans submitted with the permit application for ,the shell
building shall include the complete design for disabled access
and exiting for the entire site, bui.lding entrances. Disabled
access features within the unimproved offices spaces may be
deferred to future tenant improvement permits.
34. The plans submitted with the building permit application for
the shell building shall include the construction of stair and
exit enclosures serving each floor of the building.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS
35. The two lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel
map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to
permit issuance.
36. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the
existing buildings on the site. Removal of the existing
buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be
-15 -
completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new
building.
Fire Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS
37. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1996 Edition,
(PAMC15.04.160). Fire Sprinkler system installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau,
(PAMC15.04.083). NOTE: Building plans will not be approved
unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
38. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant
shall be provided in the interior of the building in an
approved location, (98CBC904.3 .2) . Fire Alarm system
installations or modifications require separate submittal to
the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083)
39. Underground fire supply system installations or modifications
require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau
(PAMC15.04.083), Public Works Department and the Utilities
Department. NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld
until Utilities Department and Public Works Department
requirements have been met.
40. An approved, adequate water supply and additional fire
hydrants, as needed, shall be provided in accordance with
Appendices III-A and IIIB of the 1998 California Fire Code
(98CFC903) NOTE: Hydrants shall be provided on-site at
intervals not exceeding 300 feet, spacing to commence at the
nearest street hydrant. The nearest street hydrant and the
existing on site hydrant shall be upgraded to the current
standard, Clow Rich Model 76.
41. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with
13'6" vertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (65,000
lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside) requirements of fire
truck. Road shall be all weather, and shall extend to within
150 feet of hose reach of any point on the first-floor
exterior of all buildings on-site. (98CFC902.2.2)
42. Elevator car 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)
Public Works Engineering
GENERAL
43. The applicant may use a parcel map to resolve the abandonment
of certain existing easements, the creation of new required
easements, and removal of interior lot line(s).
-16 -
Alternatively,the applicant may use separate documents to
accomplish these requirements.
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
44. Any removal or relocation of existing street trees in the
public right-of.,...way, or any excavation wi thin. 10 feet of
existing street trees, or any planting of new street trees
requires the approval of Public Works arborist prior to ARB
approval.
45. The project occurs next to a State Highway 101 exit ramp. The
developer shall provide notice to CalTrans of the project
scope and shall obtain any required approvals or permits.
46. The project is located in Flood Zone AE8. The applicant is
required to meet wi th PWE prior to ARB approval to veri fy
general conformance with the City's and FEMA's flood zone
regulations and construction standards.
47. The applicant is required to meet with PWE prior to ARB
approval to present 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
municipal storm drain system. In order to address storm water
quality impacts, the plan shall identify the permanent best
management practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required
for the proj ect (see C. 3 & SWPPP comments below). The
elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage
plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans.
Note that the municipal storm drain system serving the site is
unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The
applicant should attempt to minimize the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site and should interrupt the path of directly
connected impervious surface areas by having parking areas and
roof downspouts drain to landscaped areas and employing other
practices that allow opportunities for the filtering,
infiltratiort and detention of storm runoff. The landscape
architect should specify appropriate native plants that
minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and
other storm water pollutants.
48. This project is required to meet the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(Section 16.11) and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board's revised C.3 provision for storm water
regulations that apply to land development projects that
create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface.
These regulations require that the project incorporate a set
of permanent site design measures, source controls, and
treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality.
The applicant will be required to calculate, develop and
incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention
measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such
as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than
-17 -
mechanical measures that require long-term maintenance) to
treat a specified percentage of site runoff prior to final ARB
approval. The applicant must designate a party to maintain the
control measures for the life of the improvements and enter
into a maintenance agreement with the City prior to PWE
acceptance of the project.
49. All existing and proposed public utility and access easements
shall be shown on all map and plan submittals. The City of
Palo Alto owns the overhead utility lines that cross this
parcel. The City block books carry a note that says,
"Easements for facilities acquired from PG&E on February 27,
1979, were assigned to the City of Palo Alto (E347 O.R. 466-
471) . For information concerning same see City Clerks
contracts file No. '3919. II The applicant shall contact the
City electric utility to obtain requirements for this project.
Dedication of new utility easements to accommodate any
relocation of utility lines shall be included within a parcel
map, if one is prepared for this project.
INCLUDE IN SUBMITTAL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT
50. A Grading & Excavation Permit, issued by the Building
Inspection Division, will be required if there will be more
than 100 cubic yards of cut and/or fill outside of the
building footprint. The grading plan shall include a table of
the cut and fill quantities outside of the building footprint.
51. The plans must show the base flood elevation (BFE) on all
applicable elevations, sections and details, and include the
Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for
Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area forms, which are
available from Public Works at the Development Center or on
Public Works website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/floodzones/welcome.html. Note that an
interim Elevation Certificate is required at the completion of
the floor framing to ensure that the finished floor is above
the BFE.
52. 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 PWE.
53. All plans shall adhere to North American Datum 1983 State
Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 for
vertical survey controls throughout the design process.
54. The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of
land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply
with the State of California's General Permit for Storm Water
-18 -
dewatering system can then be installed, but must be inspected
by the Public Works' .inspector prior to corrunencing dewatering.
Once the excavation has been dewatered, work on the project
can recorrunence. In order to expedite this process, a
dewatering plan can be included in the building permit plan.
set if the applicant chooses. In this case, PWE will review
and approve the dewatering plan as part of the building permit
review. Dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works
website.
58. Show all street trees to remain in the public right-of-way
(ROW) . Street (and site) trees require protection during
construction.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
59. For all work to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility
lateral work, the plans must clearly indicate the work and
include notes that the work must be done per City standards.
Also, note that any contractor performing work in the right-
of-way must obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public
Street from PWE at the Development Center prior to starting
this work.
60. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing, at
a minimum: construction schedule, noticing of affected
properties, demolition, recycling of demolished materials,
contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, materials
delivery, materials storage, pedestrian protection, traffic
control, crane lifts, concrete pours, work hours, noise
control, dust control, construction storm water pollution
prevention measures, job trailer, and contractors' contact
names. 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 PWE. Note that if the demolition of the
existing buildings occurs prior to issuance of a building
permit, than the developer will be required to prepare a
demolition logistics plan and obtain an encroachment permit or
Permit for Construction in the Public Street for this
activity.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SIGN-OFF
61. At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide
digital as-built plans of all improvements constructed in the
public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an
interest. All files should be delivered in AutoCad . dwg
format. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will
need to accompany the files. This is .called a Metadata file
-20-
and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used,
the source of the data, the company name and contact
information, along with the technician who prepared them.
62. The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permi t or
temporary lease from PWE for private structures or other
features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement, or
on property in which the City holds an interest.
63. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to
Bay" 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.
64. All sidewalks, curb & gutter bordering the project shall be
repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public
Works' standards at the conclusion of construction so that
these facilities will conform to existing grades and
infrastructure and be without cracks or broken sections. Also,
any abandoned driveways along the perimeter of the site shall
be removed and replaced with curb & gutter. Also, a
wheelchair ramp will be required at the street crosswalk at
the southwest corner of the intersection of Embarcadero Road
and East Bayshore Road.
65. The Public Works' inspector's sign-off of the building permit
at the completion of the project is contingent upon the above
being completed and upon inspection and acceptance of all off-
site/right-of-way improvements, including street striping and
signage, as well as on-site grading, drainage and permanent
SWPPP measures. Also, the maintenance agreement for the
permanent SWPPP measures must be recorded. Also, the FEMA
Elevation Certificate must be completed and approved.
Public Works Water Quality Control Plant
66. On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper
granule containing asphalt shingles and copper gutters shall
not be permitted for use on ay residential, commercial, or
industrial building for which a building permit is required.
Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper
ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing and gutters on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be pre-patinated
at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the
defini tion of "historic" shall be limited to structures
designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the
current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural
Resources Report and Inventory.
-21 -
Utilities Engineering -Electrical
67 . The Applicant 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
applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-
800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
68. 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 10 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
69. 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.
70. Industrial· and large commercial 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.
71. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
72. This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering
Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be
shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities
Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule
& Regulations #3 & #16.
73. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing
padmoun t equipmen t (i . e . trans formers, swi tches , and
interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities
Easement for facilities installed on private property as
required by the City.
74. 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.
utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. Location of the
electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and
-22-
approved by the Architectural Review Board and utilities
Department.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors
and other required equipment according to the National
Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities
Rule, & Regulation #18.
79. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary
distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric
Utili ty. Addi tional fees may be assessed for the
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities.
80. 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.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. .
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
81. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility
Engineering Department service requirements noted during
plan review.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
82. 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.
83. 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
-23 -
marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated
with white paint. The customer or contractor shall remove all
USA markings when construction is complete.
84. 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
V2-inch size conduits are permitted. The City at the
customer's expense will construct all off-site substructure
work. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the
Applicant, the Applicant may construct all or part of the off-
site substructure work. Utilities Rule & regulation #16.
85. 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.
86. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be
installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the
Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule &
Regulation #16.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and
approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the
Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities
Rule & regulation #18.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
90. 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
91. The applicant shall secure a Public utilities Easement for
facilities installed on private property for City use.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16.
92. All required inspections have been completed and approved by
both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical
-24-
underground Inspector.
93. All fees must be paid.
94. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to
be signed by the City and applicant.
95. Load calculations based on National Electrical Code must be
submitted.
96. Extension of existing distribution lines or relocation of
utilities (if feasible and required) will be at developer's
expense. Developer must schedule a meeting with uti Ii ties
Engineering Department (650-566-4516/4535) and obtain all the
engineering details prior to submitting plans to the Building
Department. Developer must also visit the project site and get
acquainted with project conditions.
97. The proposed project may require space and Public Utility
Easements (P.U.E.) on your property for installing pad mounted
transformer/electric equipment and associated substructure.
The City does not permit installing pad mounted transformer in
the basement, garage or in any other inaccessible locations.
Any exceptions must be reviewed and approved in writing by the
utilities Electrical Engineering Manager.
98. A minimum of 3 feet of radial clearance between the
transformer pad and any other structure shall be provided. In
addition, a minimum of 8 feet' clearance shall be maintained
from the front side of the transformer pad for operational
need. All measurements are taken from the pad.
99. No planting of trees or any other landscaping within the
existing public utility easements.
100. These are only preliminary comments and should not be
construed as final review or approval for the project.
utilities Engineering will provide detailed comments as well
as cost estimate when plans are submitted to the Building
Department for review and approval. The City recommends
customers/developers to contact Utilities Engineering (650-
566-4533/4516) and obtain Utilities Standards and Requirements
prior to finalizing plans.
Utilities Marketing
101. Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading
Permit, the utilities Marketing Services division of the
utilities Department shall approve all common area
landscaping. For projects with more than 1500 square feet of
landscaped area, a water budget shall be assigned to the
proj ect and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be
required. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. Please contact
Kim Brown in the utility Marketing Services Department at 650-
329-2417 for questions.
-25-
Utilities Water, Gas & Wastewater
102. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility
services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of
vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed·within 10
working days after receipt of request ~ The building'
inspection division will issue the demolition permit after all
utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
reII\oved.
103. The applicant shall not plant trees over the existing utility
easements and utility mains.
104. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application -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.).
105. 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.
·106. 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.
107. 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.
108. 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 water 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.
-26-
109. 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.
110. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC,
or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense.
111. 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.
112. Each place of business shall have its own water and gas meter
shown on the plans.
113. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be
installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account a no other water
service will be billed on the account. 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.
114. Each lot shall have all its own separate utility services.
115. 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 utili ties. cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the meter and the
assembly.
116. 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 17i 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
-27-
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.
117. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City
of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction
of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of
council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further
force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.82.080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Hoover Associated titled 2300 East
BayshoreRoad", dated July 6, 2005.
-28 -.
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance
2300 East Bayshore Road [05PLN-OO 166]:
Table 1: Project on combined parcels in relation to LM(D)(3) zoning
Feature LM (D)(3) Proposed Project ConformancelIssue
Regulation
Minimum Site 1 Acre Combined site is 5.66 acres Conforms
Area or 246,442.4 s.f.
Min. Site Width 100 Feet 280 Feet on E. Bayshore Conforms
Road
Min. Site Depth 150 Feet 560 feet Conforms
Front Setback 20 Feet 182 feet to E. Bayshore Road Conforms
Interior Side Yards 20 Feet 140 feet to adjacent Conforms
commercial parcel
Street Side Yard 20 Feet 197 feet to Embarcadero . Conforms
Rear Setback 20 Feet 74 feet to Bayshore freeway Conforms
Floor Area Ratio .3:1 on LM 3 73,932 sq.ft. building is the Conforms
site maximum FAR. Proposed
building is 73,932 sq. ft. not
including 4,023 of exempt
floor area dedicated to on-
site employee amenities.
Site Coverage 30% 15.5% Conforms
Building Height 35 Feet 33'6" to parapet, 41 '6" to top Conforms
of roof screen
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (OFF STREET PARKING)
Parking Spaces Requiredl Allowed Proposed ConformancelIssue
Parking spaces 1 space for each 300 244 plus any increase Conforms
I required for non-sq.ft.ofnon-exempt in the number of
exempt floor area gross floor area (244 parking spaces as
spaces for 73,932 recommended by the
sq.ft.) ARB
Accessible Parking 7 accessible parking 8 spaces including 1 Conforms
stalls for 301-400 van accessible space
provided parking
spaces - 1 to be van
allocated
Bicycle Parking 10% of provided auto 24 lockers and 8 rack Exceeds requirement
parking = 30 spaces, spaces. All spaces by two locker spaces
18 spaces as lockers, provided at the front
12 rack spaces and rear entrance.
Landscaping 10 percent oftotal 16,365 square feet of Exceeds requirement
parking facility area landscaping is by 4,963 square feet.
(114,020/.10=11,402) proposed (14.35%)
ATTACHMENTD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE
Policy L-5: Maintain. the scale and
character of the City. A void land uses that
are overwhelming and unacceptable due
their size and scale.
Policy L-42: Encourage Employment
Districts to develop m a way that
encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle
travel and reduces the number of auto trips
for daily errands.
Policy L-43: Modify existing zonmg
regulations and create incentives for
employers to provide employee services in
their existing buildings -for example,
office support servIces, restaurants,
convenience stores, public gathering places
and child care facilities -to reduce the
need for employees to drive to these
servIces.
Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore
Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse
business and light industrial districts.
2300 East 8ayshore Road
The proposed 182-foot setback from East
Bayshore Road and 197 feet from
Embarcadero Road far exceed the
minimum twenty-foot setback requirement.
These generous setbacks as well as the
proposed landscaping would provide a
visual buffer from public right of ways and
would help to reduce the perceived sense of
size and scale of the proposed building.
The project would 110texceed the
maximum allowable floor area ratio or
maximum allowable site coverage.
The project is providing a comprehensive
Transportation Management Plan and the
dedication of land to the City to enable the
development of a bicycle path from the
Highway 101 bike overpass to Watson
Court.
The project would provide 4,023 square
feet of employee dedicated to employee
amenities such as a gym, showers, and an
employee lunchroom. Providing these on
site could reduce the need for employees to
leave the building to seek out these services
thereby reducing vehicle trips.
The site IS zoned LM(D)(3) Limited
Industrial Site Combining Zone District.
The most recent land uses on the site were
a restaurant and offices. The project is
being constructed as a "shell building" and
future tenants have not been identified.
The LM(D)(3) district uses that could
occupy the building could include
manufacturing, medical, professional, and
general business offices. Other uses could
include private schools, research and
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public
spaces.
Policy L-50: Policy L-50: Encourage
high quality signage that is attractive,
appropriate for the location and balances
visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of
important community gateways, including
the entrances to the City at Highway 101,
El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the
Caltrain stations; entries to commercial
districts, and Embarcadero Road at EI
Camino Real.
Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public
art and cultural facilities throughout Palo
Alto. Ensure that such projects are
compatible with the character and identify
of the surrounding neighborhood.
2300 East Bayshore Road
development, warehouse/distribution, and
financial services.
The design promotes harmonious
transitions in scale and character in areas
between different land uses. The project
would be located on an approximately 5.6
acre lot with generous setbacks from the
public right-of-way. The proposed project
would be approximately 33 feet tall and
would be taller than other two-story
buildings in the viCinity however; it is
appropriate to have increased building
height at road intersections. The proposed
projects setbacks and landscaping would
promote a harmonious. transition relative to
scale and mitigate the height differences of
neighboring buildings.
Project signage would be made of wood,
which is a material that is compatible with
and found widely throughout the Baylands.
The intersection of Embarcadero Road and
East Bayshore Road has been identified as
a gateway to the Baylands. Comprehensive
Plan Policy L-46 includes the statement
that new buildings and landscaping should
reflect the area's location near the
Baylands. The "Baylands Interpretive
Areas" proposed for both street
intersections would include waving grasses,
native plants to attract wildlife, and
meandering pathways. The proposed
colors of the building would be muted and
the exterior building materials would
weather well.
A stone sculpture would be located in the
"Baylands Interpretive Garden" near the
intersection of East Bayshore and
Embarcadero Roads.
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 B-9: Encourage new businesses that
meet the City's business economic goals to
locate in Palo Alto.
2300 East 8ayshore Road
The project would dedicate land to the City
to enable the City to develop a bicycle path
from the Highway 101 bike overpass to
Watson Court.
The project site includes older buildings
with existing tenant improvements and an
architectural style that might not be
attractive as leasing opportunities for new
businesses. The proposed two-story
building would be built as a "shell"
building and its excellent location adjacent
to the Bayshore Freeway could be attractive
features to lure new businesses to Palo
Alto.
Chris Riordan
May 11,2005
Page 2 of6
LM(D)(3) Zone, consistent with zoning designations for other East Embarcadero
Road properties. We were granted the zone change to LM(D)(3) on March 31,2003.
Under the LM(D)(3) Zone, an application was submitted for site and design review
that resulted in public hearings before the P&TC on December 17, 2003, the ARB on
January 15, 2004 and April 1, 2004, and the City Council on October 18, 2004 and
November 8, 2004.
Since 2000, we have received extensive positive direction from Staff, Boards and
Commissions with respect to the development of an office building at 2300
Embarcadero. We have been consistently assured that we are legally able to develop
a two-story office .building of 73,932 square feet under the LM(D)(3) Zone. We also
carry forward elements from our previous plans that were reviewed as important
positive features. At the same time, we have been urged to reassess Project
characteristics to: (i) enhance Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore as a Palo Alto
Gateway; (ii) improve compatibility of the site, landscaping and building design with
the Baylands; (iii) manage transportation demands; and (iv) sponsor sustainable
design features.
On December 17, 2003, the P&TC (after a lengthy discussion) recommended that the
City Council approve the 2300 East Bayshore Project by a vote of 5-1-0-0. The P&TC
recommended that the Applicant consider: (i) implementing a Transportation
Demand Management Program; (ii) providing a bicycle path connection to Watson
. Court from the City's bicycle path that overpasses Highway 101 near Embarcadero;
and (iii) evaluating landscape features and parking layout for the Project.
At the November 8, 2004 City Council Hearing, the Project was directed to improve
the site and building to improve: (i) sustainable features of the building; (ii)
transportation programs and planning; (iii) site characteristics that would enhance
the compatibility of the site with the Baylands; (iv) site and building features that
would serve as a "gateway" East Embarcadero and the Baylands; and (v) building
design characteristics, as recommended by the ARB.
This Project now satisfies, and far exceeds, the direCtions previously given by the
P&TC, ARB and City Council to the Project Applicant.
2. Gateway To East Embarcadero & The Baylands
2300 East Bayshore is a cornerstone location adjacent to the Highway 101 off-ramp
and intersection with Embarcadero Road. Because of Highway 101, the Project is
approached from different' locations by vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, and we
aim to create a Gateway experience for each of these modes of access to the Project.
a. Vehicular Gateway Along Embarcadero Road. The Project site has greatest
. visibility for vehicles at that point where the Highway 101 off-ramp straightens.
There is no sidewalk along Embarcadero adjacent to the Project. To enhance the
Embarcadero vehicular access as a Gateway experience, we have introduced two
Chris Riordan
May 11,2005
Page 3 of6
featUres: First, we have incorporated a low, exposed pole and wooden wall at the
perimeter of our property, defining a visual backdrop for Embarcadero. Second,
we will install an Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Gateway sign designed in
cooperation with the City Staff identifying important Baylands' features, such as
the Marsh, the Wetlands and the Athletic Center. No other site provides this .
opportunity for information signage made of materials suitable for the Baylands.
b. Pedestrian Gateway Along East Bayshore and Watson Court. Pedestrians access
the Project site from East Bayshore and Watson Court. To enhance the pedestrian
experience, we have expanded the extent and character of the interpretive gardens.
The previous plan limited interpretive gardens to the two corners of East
Bayshore, at Embarcadero and Watson. First, we have expanded the gardens to
cover the entire site area adjacent to the sidewalk from East Embarcadero, across
the entire East Bayshore frontage road, to the terminus of the property on Watson
Court. Second, we will install three wooden benches, with wooden craftsman-style
light poles beside each bench to create resting spots for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Third, the driveways between the sidewalk and landscaped areas will be treated
with a scored and stamped colored concrete to match the brown-toned sidewalks
that will be installed around the building.
c. Bicycle Gateway Extending the Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge to Watson. The City·
has requested a bicycle connection to Watson Court from the concrete and fenced
bicycle path that crosses over Highway 101, near Embarcadero. The City cannot
. demand a connecting easement in conjunction with review of the Project.
Nevertheless, the Applicant has committed to dedicate a fee interest in a sufficient
portion of this property to enable the City to build a compatible bicycle connection
to Watson Court. The Applicant will also provide a wood sign (to be developed in
conjunction with City Staff), providing information and directions about the
bicycle and pedestrian paths. .
By providing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle features, and corner signage, 2300
East Bayshore becomes an exemplary "Gateway" project for the Baylands.
3. Compatibility With The Baylands Master Plan
The Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 1978 and Amended in1988, specifically
identifies "Private Lands" as remaining in Commercial/ Office Uses. The Plan
states ... "Recognize and maintain the relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero Road
Corridor in the northw.est, and the remaining recreation-oriented three-quarters .... "
Development of the proposed office building is consistent with the LM(D)(3) Zone,
the Comprehensive Plan designation as Light Industrial and the Baylands Master
Plan for Commercialj Office Use of Private Lands.
Most of the buildings along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore were developed as
lower rent administrative offices. With few exceptions, the buildings are unattractive
concrete buildings. The site and building at 2300 East Bayshore will capture the
Chris Riordan
May 11,2005
Page4of6
opportunity to be a cornerstone site, setting standards for Baylands' buildings of the
future.
a. SigIiage. In addition to the corner sign, the Project will provide a predominantly
wooden monument sign at the East Bayshore entry to the property. These sign
will exemplify Baylands' design compatibility.
b. Public Art.· A stone sculpture will be integrated with the interpretive garden at
the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore.
c. Upgraded Trash Area. The trash and recycling area that may be visible to
bicyclists will be upgraded with natural materials of concrete and wooden access
doors. .
d. Sidewalk and Drive Entry Treatment. The brown-toned new sidewalks and
patterned concrete driveway entries bring forward materials and colors
compatible with the Baylands.
e. Benches and Light Poles. The wooden benches and wooden craftsman-style light
poles along the sidewalk areas will enhance the Baylands experience.
f. Embarcadero Pole Wall. The new wooden wall running along Embarcadero
Road will be designed specifically to capture a quality of Baylands' compatibility.
g. Modern Building Design. During its December 16,2004 and April 19, 2005 ARB
hearings, the revised Project has received enthusiastic support. The/modem
building has reduced height and mass -it breaks the building into a more refined
pedestrian scale with high-quality metals, pre-cast materials and glazing that
exemplifies true, contemporary architecture that is compatible with the Baylands.
The Project, as now designed, will be the first building a long East Embarcadero and
East Bayshore, and will proudly support the Bay lands.
4. Transportation Accomplishments
The following transportation management efforts will be undertaken by the
Applicant.
a. Trip-Reducing Employee Amenities. City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan policies encourage employers in the LM Zone Districts to
provide on-site recreation and food service facilities in order to reduce the
number of vehicular trips per employee. The building has been modified to
provide a dedicated recreation/lounge area, with showers, to accommodate.
bicycle riders and jogger / athletes, since some employees arrive before A.M. Peak
Hours or depart after P.M. Peak Hours. The project will also provide on-site
dining/lounge areas to reduce mid-day vehicular trips.
Chris Riordan
May 11.2005
Page 5 of 6
b. Transportation Demand Management Program. We have submitted a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. Among the
features we incorporate are carpool/vanpool programs, shuttle and public
transportation coordination, flextime and telecommuting programs and an
employer-appointed TDM Coordinator. Our goal would be to achieve significant
trip reduction using a combination of TDM Programs.
c. Support Baylands and Embarcadero Shuttle and Bicycle Programs. We will
support (with literature, signage and employee participation) important
programs sponsored by the City.
d. Dedicate Bicycle Path Connection to Watson Court. This Projectwill serve as a
transportation model for future developers in the Baylands and Embarcadero
areas of Palo Alto.
We have committed to dedicate to the City a bicycle path connection to Watson
Court from the existing bicycle path and overpass.
5. Sustainable Design Characteristics
a. Sustainability Features. A schedule of extensive LEED sustainability
characteristics is included with the Project submittal.
b. Green Consultant. The Applicant will retain a certified "Green 1/ consultant to
review plans and specifications for the proposed building. As with other
Applicants, we cannot commit to the type of sustainable features that we will
adopt as a result of such consulting, but we will be well advised with current
sustainable design opportunities presented for our consideration.
c. Photovoltaic Cells. The Applicant will install rooftop photovoltaic solar cell
panels to serve the site lighting plan and other common areas. A 12.5 kv panel
will be the largest solar cell installation in Palo Alto for any office project, other
than for the non-profit Foundation for Global Community.
Our implementation of sustainable design characteristics will serve an important
leadership role for the City to work with other developers of office and R&D
building projects.
6. Project Description
The Project includes a two-story office building of approximately 77,956 square feet
with 4,023 square feet of exempt employee amenity area, located on a 5.66 acre site at
the intersection of Highway 101 and Embarcadero Road. Main access is from the
Watson Court cul-de-sac, off East Bayshore Road, and leads to perimeter surface
parking for about 244 cars. The site is bound on the western edge by the northbound
Freeway ramp and dense Eucalyptus tress on the Caltrans property.
1. Previous Actions By The Planning & Transportation Commission
"
2300 East Bayshore is not new to the P&TC that has taken action with respect to
the development of 2300 East Bayshore on three previous occasions.
1. September 4,2002 P&TC voted 7-0 to recommend denial of a PC Zone that
would allow construction of an office building of 110,000 square feet. At the
same hearing, P&TC voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a zone change to
LM(D)(3).
2. January 29,2003 P&TC voted 7-0 to recommend both approval of a zone
change to LM(D)(3) and approval of a negative declaration. P&TC approved the
zone change anticipating development of an office building of the size as now
proposed. .
3. December 17, 2003 P&TC voted 5-1-0-0 to recommend both Site and
Design approval of an office building of 73,933 square feet and approval of a
mitigated negative declaration for the project. The P&TC requested that the
project consider: (i) a Transportation Demand Management plan; (ii) a Watson
Court pedestrian and bicycle connection to the existing Highway 101 path near
Embarcadero; (iii) landscape improvements that would enhance the Baylands
entry; and (iv) further analysis of the parking and landscape reserve areas.
As described in this letter and the "Leadership Binder", the project embraces the
concerns previously expressed by the P& TC.
2. Development Of An Office Project Has Been Endorsed Since 2001 .
The lengthy administrative review record for 2300 East Bayshore resolves with
certainty that an office/research & development building is the appropriate land
use consistent with Zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master
Plan. Since the first public hearing in December 2001 and for each of the
subsequent dozen public hearings, the ARB, the P&TC and the City Council
have approved development of an office project as the appropriate land use for
this site.
3. The Office Project Has Been Determined To Have No Significant Impacts
Since 2001, the P& TC and the City Council have made determinations based on
CEQA review by Staff and extensive materials provided that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration given that an office project of the size as proposed has no significant
environmental impacts. Since 2004, the applicant has provided
extensive updated traffic analyses demonstrating no project impacts. Staff,
again, proposes that P&TC recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration as was done in December 2003 by P&TC for a project of the same
size and with the same inSignificant level of impact.
4. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan
Attached to this letter, and not as part of the Leadership Binder, are detailed
findings ·for determining compliance of the proposed project with the Baylands
Master· Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in the Leadership
Binder at Section A, the Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 1978 and amended
in 1988 specifically identifies various land uses including areas labeled "Private
Lands". When describing existing land uses, interim and land uses and
forecasted land uses, the Private Lands are reserved as offices, research and
development, automotive sales and services and other commercial uses. The
Baylands Master Plan specifically states: "Recognize. and maintain the
relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor in the northwest
and three remaining recreation-oriented three-quarters."
Affirmation of the Baylands Master Plan that continued office building use
at 2300 East Bayshore as among the "Private Lands" along the urbanized
Embarcadero Road corridor" may be the most important feature of the
Baylands Master Plan to acknowledge when reviewing the application for
2300 East Bayshore.
5. Description Of Project Enhancements
This Section 5 describes the contents of the Leadership Binder and focuses on
project features that respond to December 17, 2003 P&TC conditions.
Section A of the Leadership Binder provides excerpts from the Baylands
Master Plan that require preservation of commercial and office uses at 2300 East
Bayshore. There are also photographs of the baylands and recreation-oriented
features along with photographs of the many poor quality, existing buildings in
the area east of Highway 101.
Section B of the Leadership Binder presents renderings that demonstrate how
2300 East Bayshore has been designed to serve asa "Gateway" to the
Baylands.
(1) The vehicular gateway from Embarcadero Road has been enhanced
to provide a wooden architectural fence rather than the unattractive
chain link fencing installed by CalTrans, In conjunction with the City,
wooden directional and information signage will be installed at or near
the corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road.
(2) The pedestrian gateway along Watson Court and East Bayshore
Road has been enhanced by extending interpretive gardens to the full
length of these frontages, with paths, benches, colored concrete,
decorative drive entries, pedestrian lighting and native plant species.
(3) The bicycle gateway has been created by dedication of land thereby
enabling the City to develop a connection between Watson Court and
I ~ •
-•••. -•.•••.•• _______ L __ . __ ._ •••.••. --.-------.-.--····r . "".-------------------------------_._--------:,""---... : -:--------------.----------------------'I
,,
_ LALDERBAUGH
•• ASS 0 C I. AT E S
• . Landscape Architecture/Planning
102 Persian Drive, Suite 202
Sunnyvale, California 94089-1517
(408) 745-7380 FAX 745-7308
California Lic. Nos, 2013 & 2415
July '15, 2003
PROJECT: PEERY-ARRILLAGA OFFICE PROJECT
2300 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, California
ATTACHMENT H
1. STATEMENT OF AESTHETIC AND FUNCTIONAL VISION AND DESCRIPTION
OF LANDSCAPE AT MATURITY:
As indicated on our Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheet PL-1,
the intent of the landscape design is to provide an attractive
planting palette that creates a pleasant working environment
·for the future tenants and identifies this development as a
IIGateway Project" for the Palo Alto Baylands. Adjacent to the
corner of Embarcadero and East Bayshore we are proposing
meandering linear bands of native grasses that define the edges
of a dry stream feature of washedriverstone,:fieldstone
boulders and native wetland shrubs. This simulated Baylands
waterscape/landscape continues along the north-east face of the
building and visually leads the observer to the main' entry plaza
at the terminus of Watson Court. Lawn recreation areas embrace
the northerly and southerly ends of the proposed building and
provides inviting access to the employee patios located adjacent
to the building in these areas. The proposed entry plazas, drop-
off area, and employee patios will be enhanced with sand-blast
finish concrete, earth-tone integral color and a 3'x 3' troweled
scoring pattern. Integral to the entry plazas are raised planters
with seasonal flowering color, spacious entry stairs, and
handicap accessible walkways. Adjacent to each entry plaza are
bike lockers per Palo Alto standards and appropriately screened
with a landscape buffer.
2 .. STATEMENT RELATED TO PLANTING AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS:
Along the 101 Bayshore off-ramp and within the Cal-Trans right-
of-way along Embarcadero Road there are fifty-five existing
mature Eucalyptus trees that provide a visual buffer and will
serve as a backdrop for the proposed shrub and tree screen
planting intended to mitigate views of the parking areas. Planting
for this landscape buffer would include native Oaks, flowering
Plums, Ceanothus, Rhamnus, Photinia, Pittosporum, Fremontia, and
Salvia. Along the north-east and north-west site parameters we
will introduce native Oaks and London Plane trees into the site
to emphasize the Gateway planting and bring the eXisting London
Plane street trees on-site as an entry theme tree. Redwood trees
are employed as vertical accent trees along the curved facade of
the building, as a focal point grove at the corner of East Baysho_~
and Watson Court, and as a visual buffer adjacent to the existing
bicycle ramp along the southerly property line. Flowering accent
trees, ornamental shrubs, perennials and seasonal color will
enhance the entry plazas and building foundation planting.
".
fp
F EHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 29, 2005
To: Dick Peery, Peery & Arrillaga
Jason Peery, Peery & Arrillaga
Jim Saer, Premier Properties Management
From: Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates
Subject: Elements for 2300 East Bayshore Project
Travel Demand Management Plan -Final
RS05-2072
This memorandum responds to your request for a Travel Demand Management (TOM) Plan for the
proposed 2300 East Sayshore Office Project in Palo Alto, California. The Proposed Project is comprised
of 78,356 square feet, with 4,424 square feet reserved for recreation areas, workout rooms, lounges,
cafeterias and showers attached to the workout facility.
This TDM Plan memorandum includes the following elements:
• Recommended measures for the 2300 East Sayshore Office Project
• Effectiveness of TDM measures
Recommended Measures for the 2300 East 8ayshore Office Project
Our recommendations for TDM measures at the 2300 East Sayshore Office Project are based on the
following assumptions:
• Employees will arrive and depart during traditional commute hours
• Employees will likely use transit if convenient and available
• There is a bicycle / pedestrian path connecting the project site with the Embarcadero Road multi-
modal bridge
• There is 4,424 square feet reserved for recreation areas, workout rooms, lounges, cafeterias and
showers on site
• There is limited transit service to the site or public transportation
Based on these Fehr & Peers can recommend the following measures for use in a TOM plan.
Operate a Guaranteed Ride Home Program: Concerns about occasional disruptions such as
unexpected overtime requests, illness of a child or relative, and other emergency situations can otten
dissuade an employee from chOOSing an alternative transportation mode. This Guaranteed Ride Home
could be provided through several methods including rental car reimbursement, prepaid taxi vouchers,
and providing the use of the shuttle bus in an emergency situation.
255 N. Market Street # 200, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Mr. Dick Peery
April 29, 2005
Page 2
tp
F EHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Identify a TDM Coordinator: Most TDM programs include the designation of a TOM coordinator. This
coordinator can have a variety of roles including providing information on available transit options,
arranging carpools, dispensing transit passes or Commuter Checks, and overseeing the operation of the
Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Institute Promotional Programs: Implement educational and promotional programs involving all
employees with these efforts supervised by the TOM coordinator.
Promotional programs refer to employer-sponsored initiatives, which educate employees about the
availability of alternative modes and the benefits of these modes. Promotional programs might include:
• Guaranteed Ride Home
• TOM Coordinator
• Flyers, Posters, and Newsletter Articles
• Commuter Information Center
• Guide to Transit Services
• Transportation Fairs
• Transit FieldTrip
CarpooWanpool Programs: Coordinate carpools and vanpools among employees and provide
preferential parking for carpool and vanpool participants. A carpool is two to six people sharing a ride in
an automobile. The most common carpool approach is rotating automobile use among carpoolers with
no exchange of money. Another method is a carpool group using one car and sharing commuter
expenses. Either way, the driver of the carpool has the vehicle available for personal or company use
during the workday. Carpooling reduces the cost of commuting and provides a stress-free ride to and
from work for non-drivers.
The main impediment to carpooling program is convincing employees to carpool and arranging carpools.
Incentives to carpool can be provided through allocating preferential parking or by discounting the cost of
parking for carpoolers. These measures are discussed further in subsequent sections. Arranging
carpools, which entail matching riders with similar home locations, can either be done by an employer
formally or through regional agencies such as Rides for Bay Area Commuters. This non-profit agency
maintains lists of persons interested in a carpool.
Vanpools operate like a mini-transit service, with an organized route, schedule and passenger fare
charges. Vanpools typically are comprised of 7 to 15 people. Fares depend on the commute distance, the
total number of riders, the type of van, company-provided equipment, and incentives and subsidies.
Vanpools can be set up by individual employees or by the employer
Depending on the actual arrangement, the employer may choose to partially or fully subsidize the
vanpool. Rides for Bay Area Commuters will also provide assistance in establishing and operating a
vanpool.
Alternative/Flexible Work Schedule: Based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, implementation of the recommended TOM Program would result in a reduction of vehicle trips
during the traditional morning and evening commute periods. In addition, by providing an on-site
cafeteria, workout rooms and showers, the opportunity to:
255 N. Market Street # 200, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
•
Mr. Dick Peery
April 29, 2005
Page 3
a) Bicycle or walk to work;
b) Take transit I shuttle to work;
c) Remain on-site during lunchtime; and
11>
F EH R & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
d) Leave the project site by automobile before or after the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Alternative work schedule programs include the following measures:
• Flextime-Workers report within varying windows rather than set times
• Staggered Work Hours-Employees arrive in shifts rather than all arriving at once
• Compressed Work Week-Employees have the option of working four-day weeks or longer house.
For example, the City of Palo Alto allows its employees to work 9 days over a two-week period
with an alternating day off during the week.
• Telecommuting-Employees may choose to work at home one or more days a week
• Satellite Work Locations-Employees may work at a satellite office closer to their residence with
phone and computer access.
Please note that flexible work hours and locations are not suited for all profession and employment
locations.
Effectiveness of TOM Measures
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published a review of information regarding the
effectiveness of TDM measures in the Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice. This
review concluded the following:
• Support measures, such as transportation coordinators, flexible work hours, and other
promotional activities had no measurable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters.
But it has been shown to reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation by providing
opportunities to arrive earlier than a.m. peak and depart later than p.m. peak hours (5 to 15
percent reduction)
• Transportation services, such as vanpools, guaranteed ride-home programs, and shuttle buses
had a noticeable impact on number of vehicles used by commuters (8 percent reduction)
• Economic incentives including transit subsidies and transportation allowances also had a
significant impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters (16 percent reduction)
This study also concluded that combining transportation services and economic incentives generated the
most significant reduction in the number of commuter vehicles (24 percent). Based on this information, it
would be beneficial to include a variety of measures including both transportation services and economic
incentives.
The proposed TDM Plan would reduce the reliance on the single occupant vehicle and improve traffic
operations in the area.
If you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information, please feel free to contact me at
(925) 284-3200.
255 N. Market Street # 200, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Attachment K
1 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING
2 Draft Verbatim Minutes
3 July 13, 2005
4 8:00 a.m.
5
6
7 2300 East Bayshore Road & 2450 Watson Court [05PLN·00166]: Request for Site
8 and Design Review of a new 77,956 square-foot office building, including 4,023 square·
9 feet of exempt floor area, with at~grade parking and related site improvements located
10 on a 5.66 acre site. Applicant: Hoover Associates along with Jim Baer of Premier
11 Properties on behalf of Richard Peery. Environmental Assessment: An Initial study has
12 been completed and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in
13 accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone
14 district: LM (D)(3).
15
16 Chair Judith Wassermann: Chris, would you like to introduce this project?
17
18 Mr. Chris Riordan, Associate Planner: Good morning Board Member Wassermann and
19 fellow board members. The ARB preliminarily reviewed the design of the proposed
20. landscaping and site planning on December 16, 2004, and the design of the proposed
21 building on April 19, 2005. During those meetings the ARB commented favorably on
22 proposed design, making the statements that the project was an improved effort to
23 achieve the goals of the project, serving as a gateway building to the Baylands and
24 meeting the objectives of the Baylands Master Plan.
25
26 After the ARB's preliminary meetings, the applicant submitted a formal Site and Design
27 Application which was reviewed by the Panning and Transportation Commission on
28 June 29,2005. Planning Commission did not specifically comment on the architecture
29 of the project but did comment favorably on the project's site design and stated that the
30 project would meet the objectives of the bmp. The discussion of the Planning
31 Commission focused on the following issues:
32 1. Building height -the Planning Commission commented that the requirement to
33 raise the elevation of the site so as to lift the building out of the flood plane would
34 cause the building to appear taller than the actual height of the proposed building
35 as viewed from offsite. Planning Commission also commented that the
36 equipment screening to be installed on the roof appeared excessive and that the
37 screening would cause the building to appear visually taller. The Commission
38 approved a motion recommending that the applicant install story poles prior to
39 ARB's review of the project and that the ARB attempt to minimize the height and
40 the extent of this mechanical screening
41 2. Transportation -the Planning Commission did comment on the project's TDM
42 measures and looked favorably on them. The Commission was concerned that
43 the automobiles exiting the parking lot and turning right onto East Bayshore Road
44 would be in conflict with traffic he,ading east on East Bayshore Road. The
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1 Commission approved a motion adding a conditional approval that the vehicular
2 egress from the East 8ayshore Road driveway be eliminated.
3 3. Landscaping -Planning Commission did comment favorably on the Baylands
4 interpretive garden alongEast Bayshore Road. The cm did comment that the
5 native landscaping should not just be limited to the interpretive garden and
6 approved a motion recommending that the ARB and the applicant evaluate
7 options of increasing the amount of native or Baylands-compatible plants into the
8 balance of the site's landscaping.
9 In summary, staff does recommend that the ARB discuss the issues raised by the
10 Planning Commission during the recent review of the project and forward the Site
11 Design Application for a new office building at 2300 East Bayshore Road and a
12 mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council with a recommendation for approval.
13 I misspoke a moment ago. It was the exiting of the parking lot on East Bayshore Road
14 that the Commission did not want the project to have. That's it.
15 Board Member Wassermann: So they're okay with ingress but not egress?
16 Mr. Riordan: It's the egress. I think I said ingress. It's the egress from the parking lot
17 onto East Bayshore Road that they wanted eliminated.
18 Speaker: the unsignalized egress.
19 Board Member David Solnick: This is the same one that they asked for last time.
20 Mr. Riordan: I believe it was; that's right.
21 Board Member Wassermann: Okay. Let's have the applicant's ten-minute presentation,
22 please. .
23 . Mr. Lee Ashby, Hoover Associates: I would like to not necessarily summarize all of the
24 project, but what I would like to do is we had a study session earlier, and we have gone
25 back from the study session and revised certain things, changed certain things in
26 response to that. And what I'd like to do is go through a list of those items at this time.
27 We have some renderings in front of you that give you an idea of where we are and
28 what we're doing on it and what we've changed.
29 Pointing out certain items on the columns, one of the things we've done is eliminate the
30 horizontal break. Previously at the study session we had a recess. It was about three
31 feet above the ground. We've now eliminated that.
32 We have increased the size and extent of the vertical reveals, and that is in your
33 package. We have emphasized -the primary size of the reveals, as you can see from
34 your diagram in your booklet, is % of an inch, but we have emphasized the horizontals
35 at 2-1/2 inches. You'll see the locations both on the drawings and in the blow-up detail.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 The third thing is that we have given you a detail of the top of the balconies, and there
2 we have a metal pipe rail that is shown that is a cap for that balcony. Again, that's
3 shown in both the drawings and also we have color blow-up details in your manual on
4 that.
5 The next item is the standing seam roof. We have come back to you with a roof that is
6 a green color. A sample is before you. I'll hold that up a little closer in just a moment.
7 We have some actual samples of all of the building materials here including precast
8 concrete windows, spandrels. But the green color now is for the roofs, gutters, and also
9 the mullions for the windows.
10 The window system, as you will see there, basically comprises spandrel glass, a sample
11 which is shown there, and our vision glass which is a Solex product. And again, a
12 sample is shown there.
13 There are two different colors of precast concrete that are shown. One is occurring as
14 the major color, that's the lighter color that you'll see there on the table. The other one
15 . is the darker color which we're using just as an accent at the base of the panels -not at
16 the columns but only at the base of the panels.
17 Board Member Wassermann: Could you come and point to those so we know which
18 ones. They're pretty close.
19 Mr. Ashby: This is the lighter and mainstay color of the project that you see all the way
20 through. The darker panel is just at the base of the panels only as you can see down· in
21 here. So that's the only place it occurs -and again, nothing on the column.
22 Some of the other things that we have done in response to your comments -we have
23 modified the roof, and you will see that in your roof plan. In the plan I think there was a
24 comment about the end of the roof. On the two ends of the building the roof was
25 looking a little complicated and lots of ins and outs and so on. I think, David, that was a
26 comment that you had brought up. We have since simplified that and we think it works
27 fine.
28 Another thing that we have done is in our section we've added a mechanical screen on
29 the building and as was said earlier, there's a desire to minimize that area and we're
30 trying to do that as much as practical. We have two things that occur there. One is that
31 we have the mechanical equipment itself and the other is that we have the solar
32 installation as well, so we want to make sure that we don't get caught short in terms of
33 size. But what you see there in the roof plan we think will work fine from our
34 calculations right now. The roof screen is a metal roof screen, a sample of which I have
35 here. This is a Centria product. It is done in a horizontal profile.
36 The other color that I have in here is the color of the plaster soffit that is occurring at the
37 bottom of the second floor.
38 I think everyone's clear on the height of the building, but let me just review it so we
39 know because it seems like it comes up a few times. One is that the base finished floor
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 level is placed at nine feet on this project. That is basically 12 inches above the flood
2 plane. So that's what sets that. To give you an example of the existing buildings that
3 are out there right now on the sight, they're now about 4-1/2 feet elevation. So we're
4 adding about 4-1/2 feet to the fill that is out there. Also, one of the requests from the
5 previous meeting was to show you a section. There is a site section in your plan there
6 that goes all the way through from Watson Court to the parking on the Emb~rcadero
7 side of the building.
8 Board Member Wassermann: Do you know what page that is?
9 Mr. Ashby: I believe it's 3.2, A-3.2. Upper right-hand corner there's a site section
10 through the entrance plaza. I might mention one other thing that we did change as a
11 result of our last meeting. I think it was pointed out that our driveway in front of the
12 building was a little steeper. I think it was pointed out that it was 8%, so we reworked
13 those grades there and we're at 3% now and it looks like it works fine.
14 So from that elevation, from that nine-foot finished floor, we are 30'6"to the roof plane,
15 and then our parapet goes up typically another 2-1/2 feet above that. And then there's
16 a little bit of extra on the ends there. On the two ends of the building there's a slight bit
17 more only in those locations. I think it's clear on our mechanical screen height, but if
18 there's any questions I can·address those.
19 We appreciate your comments from the previous meeting and we've given them a good
20 look at and study, and we think those are improvements to the project. If there's any
21 questions we can follow on. Thank you.
22 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. We will have questions for you. In
23 fact, we have them now. Drew, would you like to start.'
24 Board Member Drew Maran: Lee, is the nine-foot grade changed from the last time that
25 we saw this project?
26 Mr. Ashby: No, it's not, Drew. It's never changed. It's really one that's sort of dictated
27 by engineering. It's not really discretionary grade because it's determined by flood
28 planes ..
29 Board Member Maran: It's driven by the FEMA requirement that you be so many feet
30 above a certain flood plane. A question for staff -This is a project that we've seen once
31 before, is that right? In other words, what I'm asking is the preliminary review or the
32 study session we had last time was the first time we've seen this project as to define it
33 as not a continuation from a project that we saw in 2004 and in 2001, is that right?
34 Mr. Ashby: Well, you have seen it preliminarily twice for one time they came in to review
35 the architecture, another time to review the site planning, because from the previous
36 project the ARB had commented on certain aspects that they thought favorably in terms
37 of the site layout, and the applicant's wish was to get some more of ARB's comments
38 about the specifics of those issues that the ARB thought positively on before moving
39 forward with the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 Board Member Maran: Let me see if I can be more direct in the question. In 2004 we
2 recommended denial of this project. Is this the same project, or are we approaching
3 this as a new project?
4 Mr. Ashby: This would be an entirely new project. It was -as the staff report mentions -
5 itwas denied by council, so the applicant did modify the project and it's now a new
6 project, and the previous project -it's not a continuation of that one. That was your
7 question.
8 Board Member Maran: That is my question. Thanks. Lee, on the renderings that we
9 have that were in the binder, there's a roof color that's sort of brown, and I'm a little
10 color blind so excuse me if it's not. Is that what's now represented as green on the
11 larger boards?
12 Mr. Ashby: Do you have the latest binder?
13 Board Member Wassermann: Where did you get those?
14 Board MemberMaran: These are in the binder.
15 Board Member Wassermann: Where in the binder?
16 Board Member Maran: I believe it's section C-2. Is this just a color reproduction
11 problem?
18 Board Member Maran: It doesn't matter. The renderings that are on the board are more
19 accurate than these, is that right, Lee? We're looking for those renderings and not
20 these?
21 Mr. Ashby: Yes. These renderings should be in your book. I don't know which book
22 you have. If you need a copy of another book, I have one here.
23 Board Member Maran: It's okay; I think I've got the idea now.
24 Mr. Ashby: When we came to the study session, Drew, we had those drawings and we
25 presented and we've since gone beyond that.
26 Board Member Maran: Again a question for staff. This is noted as a request for site and
27 design review. Is this any different than any other review that we would normally do on
28 a building like this?
29 Mr. Riordan: It's no different in terms of any other type of review for a building. Since it
30 is a Site and Design Review, the ARB is recommending to Council. So Council will be
31 the final arbiter, the decision-making body for the project. But your review process and
32 the way you run this hearing is no different.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1 Board Member Maran: A couple of quick questions, Lee, on the sustainability checklist if
2 you're able to speak to these. Do you know who the green consultant's gong to be on
3 this project yet?
4 Mr. Ashby: Yes. We have 'met with the Green Machine -trying to remember his name -
5 but that's the group that we have, and we've met with them previously on this project
6 and as we get into further details we'll meet with them further.
7 Board Member Maran: On the sustainability leadership list, Attachment E, there's just a
8 long list of voluntary components which look pretty exciting and aggressive. Do you
9 know, where it says "certified lumber and wood products will be specified where
10 feasible," do you know if that can be modified to FSE certified? This is Attachment E
11 which is part of the staff report.
12 Mr. Ashby: Drew, I don't know the answer to that one. I think thatthis would most likely
13 involve the interiors of the project, and I can't really speak to that right at this point. With
14 respecHo the major part of the building, the shell and the exterior and the so on, there
15 really is very little, if any, wood thatwe have incorporated.
16 Board Member Maran: Is it common in a building like this where the Tis are going to be
17 the responsibility of the companies leasing the space that the building owner and
18 developer present a list of requirements around the Tis such as FSE certified materials
19 or nontoxic materials? Are there typically a list of things that are restrictions or
20 requirements for Tis within a building like this?
21 Mr. Ashby: I'd say generally no, Drew, there haven't been.
22 Board Member Maran: A mechanical system is determined by you during construction,
23 right? It's not something that's optional or variable by the tenant, is it?
24 Mr. Ashby: That's correct, the major mechanical system. There may be some
25 enhancements, there may be some changes that are made in that process, but
26 generally that's correct.
27 Board Member Maran: Thanks; I'm going to turn it over to the rest of the Board.
28 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you, Drew. David, can you ask your questions,
29 please.
30 Board Member David Solnick: One is sort of a question for staff and you. There's 4,000
31 extra square feet for amenities, but there's no amenities shown. How does that work?
32 Mr. Riordan: There is addition approval in the vertical ??? section that states that those
33 amenities need to be shown on the plans submitted for the building permit. So staff, in
34 their review of the building permit, will ensure that those amenities are provided when
35 the Tis come through. .
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 there. We had initially suggested.;... I think I had initially suggested raising that -well
2 differentiating that parapet there at the entry and I think the suggestion was to raise it
3 and then I think Judith suggested lowering it which I also thought was a better idea, but
4 the point being in some way to differentiate it so that it was different from the parapet of
5 the rest of the building. In the write-up it indicated that you decided not to raise it,
6 although I think the suggestion actually was to lower it, the final suggestion. So the
7 question is, did you consider lowering it or did you consider any other alternatives to
8 differentiate it from the rest of the building?
9 Mr. Ashby: The answer is yes, we looked at raising it, we looked at lowering it, and we
10 looked at a whole number of schemes in terms of the entrance and changing the
11 entrance. And let me tell you what we did do in terms of the way. In terms of the
12 massing we couldn't make it work right with respect to lowering it or raising it at that
13 particular location. If it were here, we could raise that pretty easily and it not be an
14 issue, but it was very awkward at the intersections and corners to be able to do that.
15 What we did do -and I think this was one of the items that may have been requested, I
16 don't recall -but we actually show a direct on elevation of the entry itself, and that's
17 contained with your elevations. And what we did is we changed the column spacing,
18 that was one thing, and took these two columns and put them closer together to kind of
19 break the rhythm of just the endless columns at similar spacing so that there's a change
20 here. And then in addition to that what we've done is change the mullions at the face, at
21 the glass line, so we'll see that there's a really thick portion of mullion that's both at the
22 jamb and also at the head that defines basically the door and the actual entry in there.
23 So those are the changes that we made to it. But we did go around the block several
24 times on this entrance and the same thing on the rear.
25 Board Member Solnick: Did you consider adding a second green roof?
26 Mr. Ashby: Yes, we did.
27 Board Member Solnick: ,A smaller one of course.
28 Mr. Ashby: We had a smaller roof for example that we tried that just came out. we tried
29 this as doing this all glass. We even tried, it almost looked like a dormer that comes out
30 or a little port [incoherent[ that comes out away from that main one-story roof. So as I
31 say, we just weren't very successful in finding something else that was better. We've
32 grown very comfortable with it in terms of the way it works. We think it's actually nice to
33 have the one-story roof there. It brings the scale down arid it brings the roofs down and
34 we could put you in touch with it a little bit more because it's different to the rest of the
35 building. And the rest of the building does have recesses and areas df shadow.
36 Board Member Solnick: Did you try raising the masses to each side -raising the
37 parapet?
38 Mr. Ashby: I don't remember that we raised those.
39 Board Member Solnick: That might have the same effect as lowering it, giving more
40 flexibility, because you can only lower a parapet so much of course before it's gone.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1 Another question on the elevation. One of the comments last time was the roofs ending
2 in the middle of windows, and I see that hasn't changed.
3 Mr. Ashby: we weren't sure in the end -that comment came up in the elevations more,
4 and we weren't sure that you were aware that that wasn't all in the same plane as the
5 elevations. We remember the comment. But we did go back and look at that situation,
6 how you would take the window and pull it completely under the overhang, or
7 completely outside the overhang. We looked at the fenestration and we couldn't find
8 how we could manage that and how we could do that without having windows where we
9 wouldn't need windows, or how we would not have windows where we would need
10 windows. It was just awkward to do that. We think that the detail will manage. itself very
11 well. Those situations are set back quite a ways from the face. You can see it
12 occurring back here, back away from the face of that. And moving the window this way,
13 we couldn't get it completely to the corner, we couldn't get it completely underneath.
14 Board Member Solnick: You couldn't get it underneath because ...
15 Mr. Ashby: Well, then we had no window void here on the outside where we needed a
16 window, that was the problem.
17 Board Member Solnick: What about no window?
18 Mr. Ashby: We also wanted to express this as a kind of solid element in here that was
19 very different from the glass curtain wall and the store front.
20 Board Member Solnick: That's actually why it just occurred to me, maybe eliminate the
21 window and an extension of that would actually accentuate what you just said.
22 Mr. Ashby: Right. So by moving it inboard and close to the window, then it looks like the
23 store front's wrapping around and so on. It just seemed like it was better. But most of
24 the decision not to do that was really based more on a practical aspect that the windows
25 weren't where we needed them and where we wanted them, and it was kind of a
26 functional thing.
27 Board Member Sol nick: Is it possible to make it smaller?
28 Mr. Ashby: It is. It's possible, sure.
29 Board Member Solnick: Just take it off from up by the roof. This is the one oddity.
30 That's all my questions.
31 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. I have a few questions of my own.
32 Have you selected your mechanical equipment? Do you know what size it actually is,
33 because you said your mechanical screen was nine feet tall. That seems like a very tall
34 mechanical screen. That's a story high.
35 Mr. Ashby: Typically what we do, Judith, is try to make our mechanical screen high
36 enough to just cover it. And one of the things, the projects that we've worked on, a
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1 number of them, we're always just like a half an inch away, just a little above. So it is
2 . possible that it could get a little bit lower than that, but we won't know that until quite a
3 ways down the road when a lot of engineering is done. And it's not going to be huge.
4 Our experience is that those things do tend to be around nine feet, something like that.
5 Board Member Wassermann Really; as tall as a one-story building.
6 Mr. Ashby: They get very large because they're big pieces of equipment. It's not like
7 the little packaged units that sit so high and so on. They're pretty beastie things.
8 Board Member Wassermann: Bigger than a breadbox. Where on the roof are your
9 photovoltaics -very impressive shall I say -array of photovoltaics going?
10 Mr. Ashby: Our photovoltaics are going to be behind the mechanical screen.
11 Board Member Wassermann: So you have equipment behind one of them and panels
12 behind the other?
13 Mr. Ashby: I don't know that. There may be panels and panels, it may be split amongst
14 the three locations that we show on there. /
15 Board Member Wassermann: So you're thinking that the PV panels will be screened as
16 well.
17 Mr. Ashby: Yes, we don't want those to be ...
18 Board Member Wassermann: I was just wondering'if you thought about using your
19 panels as a screen.
20 Mr. Ashby: You can, but our preference is not to do that. You just have a lot better
21 architectural control if you don't try to make it do too many things.
22 Board Member Wassermann: And if they're behind the nine-foot screen, are they going
23 to be shaded by the screen?
24 Mr. Ashby: Well, we have to be careful in terms of where we locate those with respect to
25 those. That's a good point. We can't have shadows on them.
26 Board Member Wassermann: it's a big array. How many panels is it, do you know just
27 offhand?
28 Mr. Ashby: We had some information on there. Our preliminary information is that the
29 panels are going to cover an area of about 1500, 2000 square feet of panel.
30 Board Member Wassermann: I'm going to jump around a little bit because there are a
31 . bunch of little things that I had. It said that in the staff report or the listing of
32 requirements somewhere that you had a certain number of parking spaces that we
33 required. And then it said that you were code compliant on the number of spaces you
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1 Mr. Ashby: We would not like to make that only right in. We would definitely like to have
2 right out, and we would like to have your help on that as well.
3 Board Member Wassermann: I was curious about that because when I went out there
4 looking for story poles, I also drove around the old Scotts building and tried to find them
5 and stuff. It didn't seem to me that if you were going -call it south for all intents and
6 purposes -towards San Antonio road, which is why you would·want to make that right
7 out -that going out on Watson Court and making that turn off Watson didn't take you
8 out of your way.
9 Mr. Ashby: It does.
10 Board Member Wassermann: What's the big deal with having to go out Watson Court
11 instead of having to go out that driveway?
12 Mr. Ashby: Well it's more circuitous and it's just another valve to get out. I think Jim
13 Baer was going to present some things I think to the Council in terms of some graphics
14 that he didn't have with the Planning Commission, and I think he'll go over that in terms
15 of just the gap in a real traffic engineering terms and statistics, but we don't see any
16 value in not being able to go out that way as an additional valve, and it does help to get
17 out of the project, rather than to drive all the way around and only be able to come out
18 on Watson Court.
19 Board Member Wassermann: Is it one way through the project? Can you only circle
20 counterclockwise around there?
21 Mr. Ashby: No; two ways.
22 Board Member Wassermann: You could go both ways.
23 Mr. Ashby: Yes.
24 Board Member Wassermann: So if I was parked by that upper green place -the bright
25 green place -I could go either way.
26 Mr. Ashby: You could go either way.
27 Board Member Wassermann: Never mind; I don't want to get into an argument about
28 this. I've one more question for you and then I have some landscaping questions. If
29 you would turn to sheet A-3.5, there is a drawing of the way -I'm interested in the way
30 the column cap meets the soffit. If you look at that drawing and you look at this
31 drawing, they're quite different. If you could explain which one you intend to use it
32 would be helpful. In one case it looks like the columns are related to the scoring in the
33 soffit, and in the other case it looks like the column is just at the edge of the metal
34 window frames.
35 Mr. Ashby: You understand we have a reveal at the top of the column, I guess that's
36 pretty clear.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1 Board Member Wassermann: Yes, that I understand. It's where it meets the soffit that
2 seems to be in question here. Do you see the difference between that drawing and this
3 color rendering?
4 Mr. Ashby: If you look at A-3.4, that is precisely where we have the precast column.
5 This is in the typical building section, the one right in the middle.
6 Board Member Wassermann: so it really is very different from this. It actually comes out
7 under the window mullions.
8 Mr. Ashby: Yes, right at the window mullion is where it comes. The window mullion
9 actually wraps around the base and then we have the column there.
10 Board Member Wassermann:. The base of the column just sits flat on the plane of the
11 paving and then it rises. And when it hits the soffit underneath, it's partly under the
12 plaster soffit and partly under the window mullion.
13 Mr. Ashby: It's actually right to it. We might pull it back a little bit just to keep it off of the
14 thing there. Probably makes sense.
15 Board Member Wassermann: and this drawing was somebody else's idea?
16 Mr. Ashby: let me just find that and look at that for just a minute. That may have been a
17 little earlier drawing that we pulled it back. I see what your question is.
18 Board Member Wassermann: Is there a structural reason for having it so far out?
19 Mr. Ashby: No, it's fine.
20 Board Member Wassermann: Because this looks somehow a little bit more comfortable.
21 I have a couple of landscaping questions, please. One is really quite simple and stupid,
22 but where is the backflow preventer? .
23 Mr. Lauderbaugh: Tentatively proposed for this area right here.
24 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. Just wanted to make sure you had
25 it in there. What was your response to the Planning Commission's question about
26 native landscaping in other parts of the landscape and the interpretive area? .
27 Mr. Lauderbaugh: Well actually, we do have native landscaping in other areas other
28 than the interpretive garden. If they'd carefully looked at the plan, we have interpretive
29 gardens from this point all the way around to where the fence starts and terminates
30 here. The remainder of the entire perimeter up against the right-of-way here and
31 against where we have those mature eucalyptus trees is all native garden. The only
32 break is where we have some redwood trees to screen out the bike ramp here. This
33 little section here is native. We thought about putting natives in the islands in the
34 parking area and then if we are putting an additional planting strip along here, it'll
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1 probably end up being native ground covers because a good portion of that is in with
2 PG&E easement there.
3 Board Member Wassermann: Great. I kind of thought you had -from your plant list it
4 looked like you had done that. I just didn't understand ...
5 Mr. Lauderbaugh: basically the entire perimeter is either interpretive garden or native
6 planting.
7 Board Member Wassermann: That was my understanding. Thank you. I'll make sure I
8 don't have any more questions. No, I don't have any more questions. Anybody else?
9 Board Member Maran: Lee, just a couple more quick questions on the sustainability
10 leadership document. Would you be receptive to coming back a year after completion
11 with a summary report of the successes and failures of this program? I'm talking again
12 about the sustainability leadership document.
13 Mr. Ashby: Drew, just in terms of do they like it, was it successful, are they glad they did
14 it -is that the type of thing that you're askin-g?
15 Board Member Maran: Yes. That plus perhaps a matrix since there's such a careful
16 cost/benefit analysis done on the photovoltaic system, perhaps just a summary of that
17 as well just to -confirm that those were in fact the costs and also the rebates, etc.
18 because those things can change over time.
19 Mr. Ashby: I think that's probably more of a question for the owner to deal with.
20 Mr. Richard Peery: I've got 130 conditions or 25 conditions here, stuff that keep coming
21 back and coming back. If we have to do it, it'll be done first class. The quality of this
22 building is better than anything out there, and we've got the biggest system of
23 photovoltaics, whatever it is, in the whole city right now for this kind of building. Enough
24 is enough. We've done a good job here. I know that you'll like it when it's done,you'li
25 be proud that your name's on it, and I hope you'll just get on with it and leave us alone
26 on more conditions. -i wanted to comment, too, on that right in and right out. That's a
27 big deal. If there's a traffic jam or something turned over on Watson Court I want
28 another way out of this whole project. They got hundreds of cars back there. It's not
29 going to be a big deal. Staff says it's okay, everybody else. Someone came up, I didn't
30 do it, let's just not have a right out. Well it's necessary, we've studied it. That type of
31 thing, the parking that we're talking about, we have no off-street parking. We went over
32 there with the staff, we've studied it every which-way. It'll all go in exactly what is shown
33 on the plans so it's exact. And we need your help on that kind of stuff. Thanks.
34 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you. Drew, did you have more questions?
35 Board Member Maran: No thanks.
36 Board Member Wassermann: David, you had another one?
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1 Board Member Solnick: I was unclear. The parking, Lee, there's 244 spaces shown, is
2 that right?
3 Mr. Ashby: No; we've applied for 344 spaces, that's what we've applied for. That's the
4 stat that is shown on there as the minimum. But we've provided 291 spaces which are
5 spaces that they need in order to carry out their operations. They're vital to this ...
6 Board Member Solnick: so the plan shows ao extra 45 spaces.
7 Mr.Ashby: All the paving and landscaping, the entire site plan, is based on the 201
8 spaces, that's always what it's been, it's never been any different. It's just that the City
9 has a minimum and all we did is point out what the setup, the minimum is.
10 Board Member Solnick: One of the reasons it's so confusing is you don't say how many
11 parking spaces you have. You just say .it complies. And that's to my mind a bit
12 deceptive.
13 Mr. Ashby: Complies with the 244. but if you count the spaces, which I did again last
14 night, 291 spaces, and that's pretty much what's always been shown on it.
15 Male Speaker; Just one comment. From the very beginning on this whole project we've
16 said four per thousand is what we had to have. So there's no intention on that. We've
17 said four per thousand since five years ago when we started this project and that's what
18 we've got to have.
19 Board Member Solnick: I'd never seen a drawing that doesn't show the number of
20 parking spaces on it, never seen one that doesn't give the number. This is the firs time.
21 And just so I understand, this color is from the windows down, is that right, this darker
22 color is from the base of the window down?
23 Mr. Ashby: That's correct. The first story window from the sill down.
24 Board Member Wassermann: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone here from
25 the public who would like to speak to this project? No. I'm going to close the public
26 hearing and turn to the Board for comments. We need a motion on the Negative
27 Declaration, and we need a motion on the project and conditions. let's start with Drew
28 and work our way though.
29 Board Member Maran: Thanks. I'm generally in support of this project and will support
30 a motion to approve the Negative Dec and the project. As to my questions, I'm mostly
31 focused on the sustainability program, and I think it's markedly improved from a few
32 months ago and seems to continue to improve each time we've seen this project. I'm
33 concerned that there's a little difficulty in asking questions about it since the people who
34 are involved with that part of the program, which seems to be a large part of this
35 submittal, aren't here. So there are specific questions are difficult to get answers to.
36 That's a concern, so I would like to see that portion as a condition of approval perhaps
37 brought back on consent or the project brought back on consent with some further
38 detailing on that.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1 Board Member Wassermann: Could you be specific about what you want to come back
2 on consent please?
3 Board Member Maran: The questions I had about FSE-specific wood, and something I
4 didn't speak to, something I would also like to see a LEEDS checklist resubmitted or
5 submitted and just a review of that as well as the request I had for just a brief summary
6 of the project's ...
7 Board Member Wassermann: the one-year report.
8 Board Member Maran: right; the one-year post construction report. And that's
9 something that we've asked for and gotten on many of the larger projects, many of the
10 projects over the last couple of years. It provides,a basis for moving forward with
11 environmentally friendly systems such as this building is incorporating. So it gives us a
12 lot of standardization guidelines.
13 With my support for this project I'd also note that the project has changed a lot and
14 frankly, I have to say that I'm a little bit taken aback by Mr. Peery's comment, which is to
15 say that had we not asked for these things, I don't think we would have gotten them. I
16 don't believe in this situation that we should be spoken to as if the things that we've
17 been asking for aren't good things or aren't things that are really rightfully the things that
18 should be incorporated into a project in Palo Alto. So 'I want to make my position really
19 clear on the record that this project has improved through the discussions between the
20 Board and the applicant and through the persistence of the Board and other boards and
21 commissions and staff members in pushing hard on this project to improve. I think those
22 are things that should be noted in the context of this project having gotten to the point
23 that it is. Than'ks.
24 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you, Drew. David, do you have comments, please.
25 Perhaps you might second Drew's motion.
26 Board Member Maran: I didn't make a motion.
27 Board Member Wassermann: Oh, you said you support a motion but you didn't make it?
28 We don't have a motion yet, sorry.
29 Board Member Solnick: I am in general support of the project as well and will make a
30 motion with conditions, but let me make a couple of comments first.
31 I suppose my main comment before I get into conditions is a follow-up from what Drew's
32 saying. There have been a lot of changes made and there've been a lot of positive
33 changes. I think the building is a lot better. But my feeling is that they've been done
34 sort of kicking and screaming. I think your approach, Mr. Peery, is very combative, and
35 I don't think it's helped you here, and it certainly won't help you in future projects to have
36 that kind of approach to coming to the Board or to the other boards and commissions.
37 So it's just a suggestion to you. We do get a lot of applicants who we feel are working
38 with us as opposed to against us and I think those have been very productive
39 relationships. Both parties on both sides feel that they have been. If you could find it
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1 somehow to develop that,mutually supportive relationship in future applications I think it
2 would help everybody. So I would like to move to approve the project with conditions,
3 and the conditions are the following:
4 1. Provide the landscaping in the parking lot as we asked for last time in the area
5 where there's the double aisles on Embarcadero all the way along. And even if
6 that means losing some parking spaces, that doesn't bother me at all. But it's not
7 a condition to have to lose them. But if you have to, you have to.
8 2. Have that fence along Embarcadero return at a right angle. I think just having it
9 start at a loose end of a fence always looks a bit arbitrary to me and I think if it
10 could return by 16 feet would be perfect. That's two bays. Your post bay is eight
11 feet. S016 feet would be about half of that island so it would actually come in
12 notinto the parking space next to it but just in the landscape area.
13 3. That the drawings indicate that the screen be a maximum of nine feet as
14 opposed to just nine feet.
15 4. Look at raising the sides of the -on the entry, that main entry on Watson court,
16 of raising those two masses to either side, raising the parapets on those to either
17 side by -you kind of have to see what looks good -2-3 feet would be my guess,
18 2-3-4 feet, I don't know exactly.
19 5. Pull the columns back -I agree with Judith about that -the columns should be in
20 board of that soffit and not right on its edge as they were in that inaccurate
21 rendering. It's a much cleaner look than to have them dangling on the edge.
22 6. Remove those windows where the roofs die and either to remove those windows
23 or to make them smaller, lowering the head of the window down from below the
24 roof so it doesn't have that awkward condition.
25 I would move that these come back to a -this is sort of a question for staff -can this be
26 approved and go to Council but still come back on consent? Would that no hold it up or
27 would it have to come back on consent and get approved before it could go to Council?
28 Mr. Riordan: It could be a condition, but when it goes to Council, they will be the ones
29 that would be the final approvals. After Council it's approved. So I would suggest that it
30 can come back on a subcommittee after it's approved by Council, but it's going to
31 CounciL ..
32 Board Member Sol nick: So a subcommittee and not consent then.
33 Mr. Riordan: Yes. A consent would be a regular hearing, and it's already scheduled for
34 a Council hearing.
35 Board Member Sol nick: So then my motion would have it for these items to come back
36 as a subcommittee.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1 Mr. Riordan: Staff would recommend that it come back during subcommittee to look at
2 these details and they could d() that prior to it being submitted for a building permit and
3 after the Council takes action on the project.
4 Board Member Solnick: Good; that's it.
5 Board Member Wassermann: Is there a second?
6 Board Member Maran: I'll second that.
7 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you, Drew
8 Mr. Riordan: Could I ask a couple of clarifications. Number one, that included the
9 motion to recommend approval of the negative Declaration?
10 Board Member Sol nick: Yes.
11 Mr. Riordan: And secondly, you didn't specifically mention Drew's sustainability issues.
12 Is that a condition to bring the sustainability program back with those details being
13 addressed? .
14 Board Member Solnick: Yes.
15 Board Member Wassermann: So you added to Drew's, and I will add one or two small
16 things myself. So I will now speak to the second in motion because I'm going to add a
17 couple of small things and then we will vote on this.
18 I would like to say that I will support the motion to approve the project. You guys could
19 now take a deep breath and sit back. .
20 When we originally denied the previous project we were concerned about three major
21 things, that was the gateway, the Baylands, and the sustainability issue. I think that you
22 have addressed the sustainability issue admirably. I'm very impressed with this
23 photovoltaic array and a lot of the other things that you included. But that particularly is
24 going to be a precedent-setting bar above which people are going to have...,. towards
25 which at least people are going to have to jump, and I'm very happy to see that.
26 As far as the Gateway Baylands, there was kind of a tension between how much this
27 should blend into the Baylands and how much it should be a gateway statement, and I
28 think you have reached an appropriate level of response to that. I think that the color
29 scheme is really quite lovely. I think it's subtle, I think that it looks like the Baylands, I
30 think that the green is a kind of a green that will not jump out and bite you, and I think
31 that it doesn't need to be a Silicon Graphics kind of building at the gateway if it looks
32 enough like the Baylands. And I think that you've reached that balance, and I think that
33 it makes it now a supportable building.
34 I support all the other conditions that my colleagues have listed. In addition -I will
35 support whatever driveway conditions that Transportation will support. I think it's an
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1 engineering question, a traffic engineering question, and not an urban design question.
2 So I will defer that to Traffic.
3 I particularly support the issue of the mechanical screen being no higher than nine feet
4 and I would very much like to see it lower, as much as you possibly can because you're
5 already nine feet up off grade.
6 The last thing that I would to address is probably something you did not have a chance
7 to look at. There is a draft design guideline for the Baylands. It's still only a draft, but I
8 would recommend that you look at that for signage design ideas. I think the signs you
9 have proposed are a little on the busy side. There's -I can't think of a better word to
10 call it -they're kind of a little hokey, I'm sorry to say that. The fence I think should be
11 certainly no higher than five feet. I'd keep it to 4'6" if you could. It would be nice to get
12 the idea that it was not a barrier but a backdrop. And those are my only conditions that
13 would I have added.
14 Board Member Solnick: I think they have the fence a 3-1/2 already, don't they?
15 Board Member Wassermann: No, was it at 3-1/2? I must have misread that then.
16 Mr. Lauderbaugh: It's currently shown as 3-1/2 to 4'. And that was a comment...
17 Board Member Wassermann: Where is it? I must have misread it.
18 Mr. Lauderbaugh: It's in response to a comment we received last time.
19 Board Member Wassermann: No, there was a drawing of the fence.
20 Mr. Lauderbaugh: Right, and I think the dimension was changed on it.
21 Board Member Wassermann: I was confused. It says 4-5 feet high.
22 Mr. Lauderbaugh: Oh, there was a revision to that I guess.
23 Board Member Wassermann: It's 3-1/2. Swell, you've fulfilled my condition. I love it.
24 Perfect. And I also very much support this version of the columns as opposed to what
25 was in the drawings
26 With that, do the makers and seconders accept these amendments to the list of
27 conditions?
28 Board Member Maran: I do.
29 Board Member Sol nick: I do, yes. And want to confirm that I think the driveway issue is
30 not an ARB issue. It's the T&PTC's transportation zone. That's their job, not ours.
31 Board Member Wassermann: And I would give it to Traffic.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1 what size the mechanical equipment is before we make a final. This needs to come
2 back -these items need to come back to the subcommittee.
3 Board Member Solnick: An actually, on that condition, that screen is not shown on these
4 3-D renderings. And actually when that comes back, we'd like to see the screen on the
5 rendering.
6 Board Member Wassermann: Are we ready to vote on this? Let's vote on the Negative
7 Dec. first.
8 Board Member Sol nick: I just want to make one little suggestion for Lee. When you
9 raise the parapets for those things to either side of the entry, I would suggest taking the
10 parapets back onto the roof a little bit.
11 Board Member Wassermann: Also, I would not support anything as tall as four feet.
12 think two or three feet is going to be plenty. So let's vote on the Negative Dec first and
13 then read back the conditions and we'll vote on the conditions.
14 All in favor of supporting the Negative Declaration ...
15 [All say "aye"]
16 Board Member Wassermann: So that's done. Would you please read us back what we
17 said.
18 Mr. Riordan: sure; I may need help with one of those. But what I did jot down was there
19 was a move to approve the project by Board Member Solnick, seconded by Board
20 Member Maran to provide landscaping in the parking lot where there are double loaded
21 spaces, especially the ones that are along Embarcadero Road.
22 Board Member Solnick: the double aisles.
23 Mr. Riordan: The double aisles, yes, where they're face-to-face. The fence section
24 along Embarcadero Road return into the project at a right angle by 16 feet..
25 Board Member Wassermann: It was two post bays, it amounts to 16 feet.
26 Mr. Riordan: That the drawings reflect that the screening of the equipment be no higher
27 than nine feet
28 That the columns be pulled back into the building so they're not right at the edge but
29 pulled back.
30 Board Member Wassermann: I would like to actually include this drawing because this
31 drawing shows more than them simply being pulled back. It shows them in good
32 relationship to the scoring in the soffit and it makes very good sense. So whoever drew
33 this should be commended.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1 Mr. Riordan: And refer that to like Exhibit A and I'll incorporate that Sixth condition -
2 I'm sorry when Sol nick described about the windows, I'm not quite clear about that
3 removing the windows that come into the building. So that may need to be repeated.
4 Board Member Solnick: the windows under the roof returns.
5 Mr. Riordan: That they be eliminated?
6 Board Member Solnick: Or made smaller.
7 Board Member Wassermann: Somehow in better relationship to the roof is the issue.
8 We don't need to design the solution.
9 Mr. Riordan: To bring back the sustainability program, a report in a year back to this
10 Board to find out the success of that and how well it worked.
11 Mr. Riordan: And the signage come back to the subcommittee to be more reflective of
12 the signage that's in the Baylands guidelines and that the mechanical screening that's
13 shown on the renderings come back alsb to the subcommittee, that it should be shown
14 on the renderings when it comes back to the subcommittee.
15 Board Member Wassermann: Did you miss raising the side parapets?
16 Board Member Solnick: Yes.
17 Board Member Wassermann: and the LEED checklist and the FSC certified lumber.
18 Mr. Riordan: So the parapets on either side of the entry are to be raised 2-3 feet.
19 Board Member Wassermann: At least studied
20 Mr. Riordan: And then I think what we do is the one that Chris was mentioning relative
21 to the sustainability program. We'll probably have one condition that basically says that
22 when that program is further developed, that should it address or respond to the issue
23 of the FIC wood, and the LEED checklil;)t and then that there would be he monitoring
24 report after a year.
25 Board Member Wassermann: sounds like you got it. All in favor. ..
26 [All say "aye."]
27 Board Member Wassermann: We didn't need parking permits this morning.
28 Congratulations gentlemen. Whatever you got to come back needs to come back just
29 to subcommittees and see you at the City Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2 Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Good evening Chair Cassel and Commissioners. A similar
3 proj ect for the site, which was reviewed by the Commission on December 17, 2003 and
4 ultimately denied by City Council on November 8, 2004. The project before you this
5 evening is for a new two-story office building with at grade parking located on a 5.6-acre
6 site at 2300 East Bayshore Road and 2450 Watson Court. The approximately 42,000
7 square feet of existing office buildings would be removed.
8
9 As stated in the Staff Report the ARB has conducted two preliminary reviews of both the
10 building and landscape design ofthe project. The ARB was generally supportive ofthe
11 proposed design and commented on the project's improved effort to achieve the goal of
12 the project serving as a gateway to the Baylands and meeting the objectives of the
13 Baylands Master Plan. The allowable .3 floor area ratio will allow the construction of a
14 73,933 square foot building on the site. The proposed building would equal 77,956
15 square feet. The additional 4,023 square feet of floor area is considered exempt floor
16 area if it is set aside for onsite employee amenities that could facilitate the reduction of
17 employee vehicle use. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a cafeteria and
18 recreation areas into the building however the details of these are not included in the plan
19 since it is being constructed as a shell building and future tenant improvements would be
20 the responsibility ofthe future occupants. Staff did not add to the list of conditions of
21 requirement that this exempt floor area be clearly shown on any plans submitted for
22 building permit and Staff would recommend that the Commission add this to a condition
23 of project approval.
24
25 The Staff Report includes what Staff considered the following three key issues worthy of
26 further discussion. The transportation impact analysis has been prepared and it was
27 determined that the project's impact would not have a significant impact on traffic
28 volumes. Heba EI-Guendy, who will be following my presentation, will be commenting
29 on that analysis. Landscaping, the project includes a Baylands interpretive garden at both
30 street intersections. The purpose of this garden is to act as a gateway to the Baylands and
31 signifies that one is entering the Baylands, which is currently not noticeable at the project
32 site. This garden will include benches, pathways, interpretive signage and plants native
33 to the Baylands. The project's landscape consultant I believe should be present this
34 evening to address any of the Commission's questions regarding the proposed
35 landscaping.
36
37 Parking. The applicant is proposing a minimum 244 parking spaces, which would meet
38 the project's parking requirement. The site plan allows for substantially more parking
39 while still providing landscaping in excess of City requirements. The ARB will evaluate
40 the project's landscaping and the final design of the parking will be developed when the
41 final landscape configuration is known.
42
43 Staff did receive questions from the Commission after the Staff Report was prepared.
44 These questions and Staffs responses are as follows. One, the absence of colored
45 drawings in the Commissioner's packet and material samples will be made available.
46 The applicant submitted color renderings and a photomontage, which are present at
Page 2
1 The third analysis scenario is background plus project, which includes the net new trips
2 generated by the proposed project. Of course taking into consideration the existing uses
3 on site, the restaurant and office space;
4
5 The last and fourth analysis scenario is for the cumulative condition for the year 2015.
6 We provided the traffic consultant with these volumes from the outputs of our traffic
7 forecasting model which incorporated all of the approved and pending projects within the
8 city as well as the overall regional growth.
9
10 The project does not have a significant traffic impacts under the background plus project
11 conditions. However, we are requiring the project to financially contribute towards a
12 certain number of improvements that were recently implemented or are needed in the
13 future to meet future traffic needs. These improvements include the signalization of the
14 101 northbound ramp with San Antonio Road, which was recently implemented by Cal
15 Trans. Also the deployment of signal adaptive at the intersection of Embarcadero with
16 East Bayshore and the intersection of San Antonio with Charleston both of which are on
17 our work program.
18
19 Ishould also mention that the project is proposing a transportation demand management
20 program that includes flexible work hours, compressed workweeks, the designation of a
21 TDM coordinator among other initiatives that are intended to reduce the auto trips as well
22 as spread the peak trips that would be generated by the project. However we did not give
23 the project any credit for this TDM program.
24
25 I will gladly answer any questions that you may have on the traffic study. Thank you.
26
27 Chair Cassel: Would we like to ask questions of Staff now rather than later?
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: Actually I have a comment. I should state for the record that I
30 received this binder directly from the applicant. I know that this is a quasi-judicial
31 hearing and we are not supposed to have contact with the applicant. So Ishould state that
32 for the record. I contacted the City Attorney's Office with regard to that as well.
33
34 Chair Cassel: You want to make a comment, Don.
35
36 Mr. Larkin: I would just comment that indeed all the Commissioners did receive that
37 binder and it has been made available to the public as well.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
40
41 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Are there any other questions we should ask now or would we
42 like to hear the presentation by the applicant? Then let's go ahead and hear the
43 presentation by the applicant and then we will ask the questions.
44
45 Mr. Jim Baer, Premier Properties Management: Planning Commissioners and Staff and
46 members ofthe audience, this is a project that is not a first review.
Page 4
1
2 Chair Cassel: Would you state your name and the city you are from?
3
4 Mr. Baer: Jim Baer, Palo Alto. Thank you.
5
6 This is a project that has gone through years of review and some with outright forceful
7 rejection. The planned community zone, which asked for 110,000 feet, was determined
8 not to be appropriate in size at this location. It was determined subsequently by Planning
9 Commission and City Council that the zone change to an LM(D)(3) was appropriate
10 which would allow a building of the size that is being proposed. The Planning
11 Commission on a five-one vote recommended to the City Council that it approve a
12 previous su,bmittal. That was done in December 2003 that recommendation and in
13 November 2004 for reasons that we will elaborate on and hope that we have corrected the
14 City Council determined that the applicant had not been responsive to some ofthe
15 conditions requested by Planning Commission, it had not been responsive to the ARB
16 and winning ARB recommendation and support. The language in the Council debate
17 included "Are we Baylands compatible? Is this project serving as an adequate gateway?
18 Are We compatible with the Comprehensive Plan?" Those are the right issues.
19
20· What are not the right issues are "Is an office building approvable and allowed in this
21 location and the size proposed and is this a project with impacts that are significant."
22 Those are really not what is at issue. What is at issue is Palo Alto for projects of this size
23 Stanford Research Park, housing projects in South Palo Alto appropriate at this location?
24 How rigorous. Developers need embrace progressive policies ofland use some of which
25 has significant meaning to the development of a project and some of which are indicating
26 to future applicants and to the community that there is an embracing of transportation,
27 sustainability and design features that are not to the core of the land use but that are to the
28 core of embracing Palo Alto policy.
29
30 So let's look at what has happened since November. This was a project that had not
31 embraced ways of mitigating traffic even though the traffic was determined not to be
32 significant. There is an Embarcadero overpass at 101, bicyclists and pedestrians use this
33 overpass. There had been a request that the path be connected to Watson Court to avoid a
34 left tum at East Bayshore and left tum back again into the project on Watson. The
35 applicant has since agreed to dedicate a fee, land, to the City enabling the City to make
36 that connection. The distinction here was that a deep pocketed applicant owner could be
37 forever liable for accidents to pedestrians and bicyclists occurring on land that they
38 granted an easement to so instead the solution was to provide a fee to the City and that is
39 a condition that has been offered.
40
41 Another was that the Planning Commission asked for a Transportation Demand
42 Management program which was not provided previously and which is now provided.
43
44 The request was that this project embrace some sustainability features. The sustainability
45 features are beyond what any for-profit developer has done previously. It is the largest
46 sustainability program of any office building second only to the Foundation for Global
Page 5
1 Environment. In addition there are a number of other non-mandatory but voluntary
2 sustainable features that have been introduced in the program.
3
4 How does it serve as a gateway and communicate Baylands? What has happened is a
5 complete focus on site improvements. The interpretive gardens which encompassed a
6 portion of east Bayshore have now been extended from the first point at which there is
7 sufficient width along Embarcadero Road all the way to the end of the site on Watson
8 Court, all with native species, with benches, with pedestrian. seating, with lighting, with
9 garden pathways all of which communicates that we get that this is an entry to the
10 Baylands and this is part of the communication to those who will experience this site. So
11 greatly enhanced for pedestrian experience at the site. On Embarcadero Road there is no
12 sidewalk what there is is a chain link fence and a drought resistant growth on Cal Trans
13 land. What the applicant has done is create on its property at the edge ofthe Cal Trans
14 fence a wooden fence of a type reviewed by the ARB on two occasions now and
15 approved as being meaningful to indicating that we are entering a district that is different
16 than research park type property. There are offered infonnational signage not unlike
17 what you would see for a California park or for Palo Alto Parks and Recreation. Wood
18 signs, carved, yellow letters, green letter however we are making available to the City
19 two of those locations for infonnational signs one along East Bayshor~ or Embarcadero
20 and one along the bicycle path connection.
21
22 The stone sculpture is in the notebook in section C-4 is an example of the stone sculpture.
23 Again, this is not something that has been required or is not a mandatory requirement but
24 the Comprehensive Plan speaks to art in public places where there is high visibility.
25
26 Now all of this seems to be at the edge of what this project is about. The truth is in the
27 Council's review and the Planning Commission's five-one recommendation and the
28 review of the conversion to an LM zone the core issues were not what were at issue.
29 What was at issue on November 8 when the Council rejected this plan was the failure of
30 the applicant to speak responsibly to those issues that speak about public policy,
31 progressive development, not about whether the building was an appropriate building for
32 the site and whether the impacts where insignificant and mitigatible. So with that I am
33 really prepared to answer questions. There was a lot of material provided to you in the
34 notebook and by the Staff. We think this is a good project. We are proud to come before
35 you with two preliminary reviews from the ARB both of which provided great
36 compliment to the direction and the changes and we expect to receive a sound ARB
37 endorsement having responded in what would be our final review to a half dozen
38 elaborations that they requested.
39
40 Chair Cassel: Did you want to explain these pictures and plans that you have in front?
41 You have about seven minutes.
42
43 Mr. Baer: Not really. I will say that it is a good-looking building. One of the things that
44 asked also by the ARB is that its scale be broken. A building of this size and length at
45 two stories feels like a sideways high-rise so sort of break its scale was one of the
46 important assignments captured by Lee Ashby as the architect on behalf of this owner.
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
Mr. Baer: I am going to let Lee answer that. Thank you for the question.
Chair Cassel: Would you please tell us your name and the city you are from and who you
are representing? Then complete a card if you haven't for Zariah.
Mr. Lee Ashby, Architect, Hoover Associates, Palo Alto: Let me just answer the
question on the floodplain. The site is graded and has some filling to it so that our
finished floor level is 12 inches of free board or 12 inches above the elevation, the
floodplain.
Commissioner Lippert: What is currently there?
Mr. Ashby: What is that elevation currently?
Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
Mr. Ashby: I believe we are adding I think it is about three feet to bring that grade up
from what it is up to the floor grade.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Vice Chair Packer: Since I have a question for the architect. In the elevations it shows
the screening for the equipment that goes on top of the roofbut it doesn't show any detail
of what the screening might look like. What ideas do you have for that because that is
pretty high and there is a lot of it?
Mr. Ashby: The mechanical equipment screens on top, it is screened on top and we are
proposing metal screening. It will be colored to match the precast panels. I have a
sample of the precast panel as Mr. Baer had mentioned if anyone is interested in seeing
that.
Chair Cassel: Please, would you pass those forward so we can see that?
J
Mr. Ashby: Sure.
Chair Cassel: Is that the siding or is that the screening?
Mr. Ashby: This is the precast panel, the precast concrete panel.
Chair Cassel: Let me repeat what he is saying because he doesn't have a mike. That is
the precast panel that he is showing us at this time. Thank you.
Page 8
1 Mr. Williams: We just wanted to clarify that the amount offill at its maximum is almost
2 six feet. It is 5.95 feet or something like that. The maximum height as Mr. Baer
3 indicated is measured from the finished outside finished grade, the line of the building on
4 the finished grade and it is 30.5 feet I believe is that height. So if you add the six feet it
5 ends up being about 36.5 feet from existing grade. That was one of the questions that we .
6 had from a Commissioner today.
7
8 Chair Cassel: There is a lot of discussion on that issue in general but the floodplain issue
9 we have been working in general with buildings in the floodplain having to add the
10 height to them and residential units. So I guess the basic question that was first asked
11 was what is the floodplain in here and does this have to come up to meet the floodplain?
12 Are there some floodplain requirements?
13
14 Mr. Williams: That is the purpose ofthe fill and so as they mentioned it would put the
15 building then a foot above the floodplain.
16
17 Chair Cassel: So it is essentially required that this building come up some in order to
18 meet the floodplain requirements? .
19 .
20 Mr. Williams: Yes.
21
22 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Karen.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: I have a clarifying question. The Staff Report Attachment H
25 says that the building height is 33 feet, six inches to the parapet and 41 feet, six inches to
26 the top of roof screen. What I understand now is that from existing grade the height of
27 the building is actually 36.5 feet and to the top of the roof screen it is 44.5 feet and 75
28 percent ofthe building has this 44~5-foot height. Can Staff clarify, expand, correct?
29
30 Mr. Riordan: That is technically true but Staff doesn't evaluate height from existing
31 grade. The height of the building is measured as the applicant correctly stated it is five
32 feet away from the building at the finished grade. So yes it is true if you look at the
33 existing grade that the building would be at the correct numbers that you stated but that is
34 not the way that building height is measured.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: So then clarify for me because if the grade from which it is
37 measured then is up five feet, nine inches where does that flesh out then to what the
38 numbers actually are?
39
40 Mr. Emslie: That is what your standard is. The height is measured from the finished
41 grade and that is the standard that is established in the zoning code. We understood the
42 question to be what is the relative change based on the flood zone requirements? So that
43 is information that you can take into account but in terms of meeting or exceeding our
44 standard the way it is measured and recorded in the Staff Report reflects that it complies
45 with the height as it is established for this zone.
46
Page 10
1 Commissioner Holman: I understand how it is measured. I guess where I am confused is
2 that if measuring from existing grade it is 36 and a half feet and the fill is five feet, nine
3 inches I think is what was stated, then where does the number 33 and a half feet come
4 from because the numbers don't compute it seems?
5
6 Mr. Emslie: I think the amount of fill is going to vary on the site. I think with the
7 numbers that Staff was relaying to you, is to give you kind of a sense of what the worst
8 case in the amount of fill is proposed. No site is perfectly level and would probably
9 involve a variety of different depths of that fill. So in order to give you kind of a relative
. 10 sense I believe, and Staff can correct me, we are attempting to kind of give you the worst
11 case ofthe relative amount of additional fill in relationship to the existing site. .
12
13 Mr. Williams: The reason why there is a difference,and I apologize because my
14 statement was probably confusing, is the 33 feet, six inches is to the top of the parapet,
15 the 30 feet, six inches is the roof.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: That does clarify, thank you.
18
19 Chair Cassel: Do I have other questions on this side? Michael.
20
21 Commissioner Griffin: I wanted to go back to Chris's comment early on in your
22 presentation you pointed out the fact that the 4,000 square feet of exempted floor area for
23 employee amenities, etc. was not indicated on the plan. Then you went on to say that you
24 expected that to be a condition of approval tonight.
25
26 Mr. Riordan: Yes, it was called out to me after the Staff Report was completed that that
27 condition was missing in the Record of Land Use Action. So that is why I discussed it
28 and any action that the Commission was to take Staff suggests that you add to that
29 condition that prior to submittal for a building permit that since it is being built as a shell .
30 building and who knows how it will ultimately end up in its appearance from the TI is
31 that that 4,000 square feet of exempt space not be any greater than that and be clearly
32 shown on the building permit so Staff can look at during our review.
33
34 Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering in your discussion of the traffic impact analysis
35 was the rather low level of current traffic given consideration in the neighborhood? What
36 I am getting at is that the 30 percent, plus or minus, vacancy rate along that Embarcadero
37 frontage the amount of traffic that is being experienced by that part oftown is
38 substantially less than it was a number of years ago during the dot.com situation. I drove
39 through that street a couple of times this week and verified that situation. It has come
40 down a lot. Consequently as the economy comes back and as those buildings become
41 rented and the traffic volumes increase in that neighborhood were you able to do any kind
42 of a study that would give us feel for the impact of this project combined with the proper
43 amount of traffic impacts that that neighborhood under normal circumstances would
44 experience?
45
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
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. EI-Guendy: Actually what you just explained was the reason for us using the 2001
volumes in our existing analysis. I have done comparative analysis for the past five years
throughout the city how the traffic has been changing. Its highest numbers were in 2001
that is why I requested from the traffic consultant to use the 2001 turning movement
volumes at all the study intersections.
Chair Cassel: I don't have any cards from the public indicating that anyone would like to
speak. Ifthere is anyone here who would like to speak to us on this item would you
please complete a card, hand it to Zariah and then I will bring us back to that discussion.
Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I would like to continue my line of questioning regarding the
height of the building. So the way I understand this we are adding about five to six feet
offill, the building is about 30 feet so weare about35 to 36 feet tall from where it is right
now and then in addition to that they have the ability to add up to 15 feet in height of roof
screen. That brings us to a total of about 50 to 51 feet over what we are right now as
viewed from the surrounding site. In fact if you are standing in the parking lot at current
grade this building could possibly 100m as tall as 50 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: 1 think that math is right but the screening is only nine feet not 15 feet
above the roof.
Commissioner Lippert: But they are allowed up to 15 feet.
Mr. Williams: You are right they are technically allowed that much but that is not what
they are proposing.
Mr. Emslie: . They wouldn't be allowed to increase that because the approval would be
predicated on the screening as it is represented not any additional screening that would be
allowed. As you know too, the experience ofthe building is going to change based on
perspective and the setback ofthe screening from the front edge of the building in terms
of how much of screening is visible from distant or viewing from the public streets as
well. So a lot of it is also going to be a product of the placement of the screening.
I
Commissioner Lippert: Let me tell you where I am going in my line of questioning and
maybe you can respond to that a little more ~asily. We recently reviewed the zoning
ordinance for LM and RLM zones and in that we talked a little bit about biotech and
being able to have interstitial as well as increasing the building height. My line of
questioning is that what is to prevent them from coming back and saying I have a biotech
firm going in here. Council has not approved the LM or the RLM Zoning Ordinance
Update portion yet but once that is approved will they be able to come back and amend
what their approval is to adopt that?
Mr. Williams: Your recommendation in this zone was not to allow that height increase
so that is the recommendation going to Council for this area. You only allowed it in the
Research Park area.
Page 12
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
3
4 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: I have another little question related to height. What visual impact if
7 any is there with the addition' of the solar voltaic cells? You mentioned those and where
8 do those go in relationship to where all the mechanical stuff is?
9
10 Mr. Baer: As the architect pointed out the photovoltaic will be behind the mechanical
11 screen. In addition the parapet for this building above the roof deck is sufficiently high
12 that there wouldn't be a pedestrian experience, I am trying to respond to the Foundation
13 for Global Community and Ace Hardware where we can see those, this building we
14 won't be able to see the photovoltaic panels.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: And they don't add any height?
17
18 Mr. Baer: They are taller than the roof deck. They are not taller than the roof screen.
19 They are beneath the roof screen.
20
21 Chair Cassel: Annette.
22
23 Commissioner Bialson: My question is with regard to the entrance to the project from
24 East Bayshore Road. You say in your plans it is a relocated entrance right in and right
25 out. Is that relocated from the first curb cut that is now there? Could you describe where
26 that curb cut is intended to be?
27
28 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes. The first curb cut is about 450 feet from the Embarcadero
29 intersection and it would be right in/right out only and there would be a channelizing
30 island to force drivers to make the right tum out. The full access would be out of Watson
31 Court.
32
33 Commissioner Bialson: When you say it is 400 feet from Embarcadero I looked at the
34 two entrances that are into Scott's Seafood, the old Scott's Seafood, is that beyond the
35 entrance that is now in existence or is it in a similar spot? Sorry I am not able to visualize
36 400 feet.
37
38 Ms. EI-Guendy: No, that is about where the existing is.
39
40 Commissioner Bialson: Okay, the first one off Embarcadero.
41
42 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
43
44 Commissioner Bialson: So you could have cars backed up coming down Embarcadero
45 making the right tum and then going into this building from this relocated entrance?
46
Page 13
1 the distribution of these project-generated·trips at the different study intersections. So if
2 you are interested in any part of that.
3
4 Chair Cassel: I can't do that in my brain. Is this difference and drop in the number some
5 small increases and some drops in the number of cars entering and existing at this AM
6 and PM because ofthe difference of use also with an active restaurant? Does the active
7 restaurant have some much more use that we can pick up double the square footage of the
8 site and yet not really increase the traffic at all?
9
10 Ms. EI-Guendy: Well, the size of the project is a factor as well as the type of
11 development. The restaurant has different trip patterns in terms of its peak and
12 distribution of trips than it would for an office space. In general, even in the previous
13 traffic study that was done the analysis is always for the AM and PM peak hours. So
14 even ifthe peak for the restaurant let's say is around 8:00 PM the PM peak for the street
15 could be "from 5:00 to 6:00 PM, which is what we work with.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Annette:
18
19 Commissioner Bialson: I have a follow up to my previous question. You indicated that
20 there would be a median put in the street so that no left tum could be allowed. That is
21 going to be a concrete or some other barricade sort of process?
22
23 Ms. EI-Guendy: The channelizing island that we put as a condition on the project would
24 be at the driveway itself so that no one would violate this left tum prohibition.
25
26 Commissioner Bialson: So how is that constructed if it is on the property itself and not in
27 the street? Could you describe it somewhat?
28
29 Commissioner Griffin: It is in the street and runs down the middle.
30
31 Commissioner Bialson: It runs down the middle of the street?
32
33 Ms. EI-Guendy: No, it is on the driveway itself and it is like a triangle shape that would
34 force drivers to make a right tum.
35
36 Commissioner Bialson: Okay, and people coming in?
37
38 Ms. EI-Guendy: For people coming in it will allow them also to make the right tum in.
39
40 Commissioner Bialson: It is a triangular shape at the sidewalk.
41
42 Ms. EI-Guendy: The encroachment is within the street. The travel lane is actually very
43 limited. It is mostly on the driveway itself.
44
45 Commissioner Bialson: Mike, you have a question.
46
Page 15
I
2
3
4
5
Commissioner Griffin: Well, I somehow thought that there was going to be some sort of
a barricade or a curb running down the middle of the street that would keep people from
crossing the median and being able to make a left-hand tum. Apparently that is not the
case?
6 Ms. EI-Guendy: Our concern with putting a median on East Bayshore itself is the
7 available pavement widths in this area. We don't want to restrict the width too much that
8 would actually cause backup problems in terms of queuing and so forth. So the
9 alternative that was selected for this project is a channelizing island on the driveway
10 instead of a median in the middle of East Bayshore.
11 -I
12 Commissioner Griffin: Thank you.
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 Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Two questions, one is a follow up to that. As opposed to a
median is there some other solution? I sort of follow the previous two speakers'
concerns. Is there no other solution like I hate to use the word 'bollard' because it
doesn't sound very attractive but some other device like fencing that is used in San Jose
and parts of town to keep people from crossing one lane into another? Or something that
is much narrower that would impede traffic from making wrong-way turns from how you
want them to go that doesn't really take up much space? That is one question.
Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, there could be other alternatives but we also need to consider
safety conditions in general and how visible such barricade would be because there are
minimum requirements for a median for instance and we cannot just put a barrier in the
middle ofthe street. The minimum width of a median is two feet, which is not what we
want to take away out of the travel widths.
Commissioner Holman: Then the other question having to do with traffic is the report
refers to gaps. Having been in that location and around there quite a bit I am not sure
what gaps are referred to because it seems like sometimes it is very difficult to get out or
tum because there aren't gaps. So I am curious to know more about that.
Ms. El-Guendy: Yes, actually that is a very valid concern but based on the analysis that
we have done for both the background and the cumulative conditions which means for
years 2008 and 2015 there is sufficient gaps. We have also done warrant analysis for
signalization at the intersection of Watson Court and East Bayshore. The gaps is
evaluated in terms of two items how many gaps we have and the length of the individual
gaps whether it is sufficient to make a left tum or make a right tum. The right tum
movement requires a shorter gap in traffic. Weare fortunate enough that Watson Court is
only about 900 feet from the intersection of East Bayshore and Embarcadero, which is
signalized. So the fact that there are nearby signals helps in allowing gaps in the traffic
on East Bayshore that permit the turning movements.
Page 16
1 Commissioner Holman: Just to follow that briefly is there are also right tum on red
2 allowed on Embarcadero coming south. So I am still not quite grasping this gap concept.
3
4 Ms. EI-Guendy: In the volumes that we evaluated for East Bayshore we have analyzed it
5 and I was actually involved with the traffic consultant in doing this analysis it is based on
6 site surveys during the peak conditions. So ithas taken into consideration all the traffic
7 traveling on East Bayshore including the right tum movements at the intersection of
8 Embarcadero and East Bayshore. This is how the gaps were calculated. Did I answer
9 your question clearly?
10
11 Commissioner Holman: You did, thank you.
12
13 Chair Cassel: Pat, you have a question?
14
15 Commissioner Burt: On the Embarcadero border there is no sidewalk. Does the private
16 l~nd boundary go right to the edge of the street there?
17
18 Mr. Baer: No, there is a very substantial Cal Trans right-of-way.
19
20 Chair Cassel: Jim, you will have to wait until I ask for you. I'm sorry.
21
22 Mr. Riordan: I was going to ask for Commissioner Burt to repeat the question.
23
24 Commissioner Burt: So my question was who owns the land adjacent to Embarcadero
25 where there is no sidewalk presently.
26
27 Mr. Riordan: Currently where there is no sidewalk present that would be part of the Cal
28 Trans right-of-way.
29
30 Commissioner Burt: Is there any potential to in conjunction with the redevelopment of
31 this parcel to get a sidewalk connection there? I believe that we have, am I trying to
32 recall exactly, but I believe that we have a sidewalk on the overpass and then it leads to
33 no sidewalk once you enter the Baylands.
34
35 Chair Cassel: Mr. Baer, do you have some information on that that we don't have?
36
37 Mr. Baer: Yes. In that notebook in D-4 there is a drawing. On the overpass there is no
38 sidewalk on the south side crossing over 101 and Embarcadero. There is an overpass that
39 is both the bicycle and pedestrian size that is about five feet wide by the time it hits
40 ground on the backside of this property and continues on beyond the adjacent building at
41 Watson Court and then enters at East Bayshore and you can cross that by bicycle across
42 East Bayshore again. What this applicant has done in response to the Planning
43 Commission's previous request on this site was to dedicate land to enable the connection
44 for bicycle and pedestrian through the Watson Court.
45
Page 17
1 Commissioner Burt: I understand that aspect and I think the clarification that I was
2 lacking is that the sidewalk is only on the northwest side ofthe Embarcadero overpass
3 not on the southeast. There is no comparable sidewalk on the southeast side ofthe
4 Embarcadero overpass. Is that correct, Steve?
5
6 Mr. Emslie: I am trying to recall because I think the problem with having and there is no
7 sidewalk connection onthe west side so you can't get there iftherewas. I think that is
8 because Cal Trans doesn't want pedestrians or bicycles to be crossing the onramps
9 because they would be on the south side and they would have to traverse the two onramps
10 at Embarcadero and at Oregon which I don't think they want to encourage and that is the
11 presence of the pedestrian and bike overpass to provide thataccess.
12
13 Commissioner Burt: Then my other question has to do with landscaping. I think the
14 gateway landscaping with vegetation that is indigenous to the Baylands is really a great
15 concept. As I was looking through the landscaping scheme for the balance· of the proj ect
16 it did not look like we were having a strong emphasis for indigenous Baylands plants in
17 the balance ofthe project. I wanted to see whether Staff and the applicant could
18 comment on that and ifthere are reasons why we couldn't have a greater incorporation of
19 indigenous plants in the balance of the projects.
20
21 Mr. Riordan: The project was reviewed by the Planning Arborist. The plants that are
22 selected were deemed appropriate for the site. The plants that are selected for the project
23 do come from the applicant. So they are proposed for aesthetic reasons and also they are
24 chosen from plants that are going to thrive in a saline environment similar to the
25 Baylands. I am sure there are alternative plants that would be native to the Baylands like
26 you see in the Emily Renzel Baylands but they may not be the most attractive types of
27 plants that the applicant may want to place on his project site. .
28
29 Mr. Emslie: I would just add there are a lot of non-native ornamentals that basically the
30 Embarcadero area uses kind of traditional office park landscaping for the balance of it.
31 The applicant may want to amplify this or clarify but trying to create more of an edge that
32 is an announcement to the Baylands rather than creating it all over maybe sets this off as
33 something that is a little bit more noticeable rather than try to recreate a Baylands
34 landscape over the whole site. The idea was to mayb~ have a little emphasis by having it
35 be back-dropped against more ornamental trees.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Pat, do you want Mr. Baer to comment?
38
39 Commissioner Burt: Yes, I would and maybe the applicant can respond in more detail to
40 my inquiry and I guess I would like to preface it with a brief statement that I think that
41 the landscaping that we have out there that historically had not been deliberately designed
42 to be compatible with the Baylands and not indigenous is not the example that we want to
43 follow when we are redesigning and building new projects for the next 50 years. Those
44 are scars that we want to attempt to heal as best as possible. I think this gateway concept
45 is an excellent model but I don't think it should be in contrast to the rest of the
46 landscaping. It may be a greater emphasis on being a purely indigenous plant
Page 18
1 environment but the passive landscaping that we have out there is an opportunity to
2 recreate native habitat to some degree right integrated within the projects. They certainly
3 are plants that are going to thrive in that environment. Having said that, could the
4 applicant comment on whether they would be amenable to greater integration of
5 indigenous plants in the balance ofthe project?
6
7 Mr. Baer: Mostly yes but let me give you - I apologize that we didn't have Jim
8 . Lauderbah, who is an excellent landscape architect and has worked on this project. The
9 emphasis that we had had -this project needs to be reviewed with new full blush. It so
10· happens that the landscape plan that was reviewed previously on all of the plants
11 occurring on the selection oflawn, bushy things, the types of trees which are live oak and
12 some redwoods, some London plain trees, that was an aspect of the project that was .
13 endorsed by the ARB in its previous life. Therefore we paid attention to the pedestrian
14 edge condition because this had had review and support previously on other elements.
15 Now saying that we would be glad to have the Planning Commission ask that the ARB
16 give rigorous scrutiny to the landscape plan not just on this well received pedestrian edge
17 but on the landscaping trees and the planting around the building. The answer is I am
18 sorry we didn't ask Jim Lauderbah to be here because this was not expected to be an
19 issue. We would welcome these comm~nts going to the ARB and be fully prepared to
20 address that at the ARB.
21
22 Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
23
24 Chair Cassel: I have a question on parking. This site requires 244 spaces, there were 300
25 proposed. The project said that they are putting in 244 but with 56 in reserve. So I
26 looked at the site plan and I can't find where the site plan allows for a reserve. At the
27 pre-Commission meeting the response I received was that the impervious surface was the
28 same the parking spaces are just marked larger so that if you need more parking spaces
29 you can just mark them more narrowly and get more parking spaces. I would like a
30 comment from the developer on that because that doesn't seem to be the reason for
31 parking spaces in reserve.
32
33 Mr. Baer: The Planning Commission in a previous review of a similar project but
34 different project had asked that there be a landscape reserve. The reasoning applied
35 wasn't because there was inadequate landscaping, open space and pervious area in fact
36 the pervious standards have been substantially increased with C-3 subsequent to the last
37 review by this Board but that the response from the applicant was that that reason to
38 increase the foliage, open space and permeability ofthe site wasn't what the Planning
39 Commission was getting at it was somewhat indirectly getting at if you have more
40 parking spaces than the 244 minimum won't that necessarily translate to you are
41 generating more traffic. Here is the answer to that the IPE standard for how andwhy the
42 applicant said it didn't want to limit its parking to 244, and it didn't do that last time, was
43 because that connection that somehow trip generation and the number of parking spaces
44 is related is not how ITE studies for traffic generation occur. In the Downtown the
45 parking standard for office is four per thousand. In some communities the traffic ....
46
Page 19
1 Chair Cassel: I think you are not answering my question.
2
3 Mr. Baer: I am going to get there. If you give me one more minute I am going to get
4 there. In many communities the parking standard for office is five per thousand. The
5 ITE trips generated bear no relationship to whether the zoning ordinance .....
6
7 Chair Cassel: But that is not my question. My question is why did you not put the land
8 in parking reserve? Why did you just cover enough land to do 300 parking spaces?
9
10 Mr. Baer: I don't know what pre-Commission statement was. Our statement is that we
11 still have a couple of issues to work out with ARB. There was some question about the
12 size of the landscape islands in the parking lot and secondly the landscape islands can't
13 occur in part of the public utility easement. We will have more than 244 spaces that is
14 our proposal. We don't yet know until the final ARB plans whether that is 274 spaces or
15 284 spaces. We will know that by final review. The objective of the applicant is not to
16 limit its ability to provide the number of parking spaces in the paved surface area that
17 exists and that they will do that in the final application to ARB when they work out these
18 island issues. The point that the applicant is wishing to make is the request for landscape
19 reserve wasn't because there is a deficient landscape it was because there was somehow a
20 sense that reducing the number of parking spaces available would somehow restrict the
21 numbers of trips generated. In this project there is abundant open space and pervious
22 area.
23
24 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Annette.
25
26 Commissioner Bialson: Going back to my concerns about East Bayshore. As I look at
27 the site and where most of the parking is provided on the site you are going to get a lot of
28 people who do wish to go, let's say we are effective in the use of that triangular bollard or
29 whatever you want to call it, having people go right out of that entrance. Just the number
30 of cars in this area of the parking lot turning right impacts the ability ofthose employees
31 to go down Watson Court and want to make a left. Did the Staff in review of this
32 consider requiring that the property owner signalize that intersection of Watson Court and
33 East Bayshore? Considering also that the office buildings that we have East Bayshore
34 while not fully occupied now or even in 2001 may somedaybe fully occupied and that
35 we are going to have a great deal more usage ofthe Bayshore parks both in Mountain
36 View and Palo Alto. I would also like to know what the cost of signalization would be.
37
38 Chair Cassel: What page are you working on from our reports?
39
40 Commissioner Bialson: What do you mean by reports?
41
42 Chair Cassel: Well this is the material I received.
43
44 Commissioner Bialson: I am looking at the plans.
45
46 Chair Cassel: I don't seem to have those plans.
Page 20
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Phyllis, we have reduced plans. They are the same plans just
3 ours are reduced.
4
5 Chair Cassel: Some people gotbig plans and some of us got little ones?
6
7 Commissioner Bialson:, We can discuss that.
8
9 Chair Cassel: Okay, go ahead.
10
11 Ms. EI-Guendy: If I may just note what is shown on the most recent site plans that were
12 submitted is actually a total of260 parking stalls including the accessible parking spaces
13 which I understand may increase in the future plan submittals.
14
15 To answer your question with regard to the signalization it was evaluated under the 2008
16 traffic volume conditions as well as the 2015. It was warranted based on only the peak
17 hour traffic for year 2015 but it was not warranted for the rest of the volumes in terms of
18 the pedestrian crossing volumes, collision statistics at intersection, visibility conditions
19 and so forth. So it was determined that the only peak hour warrant was not sufficient to
20 recommend the signalization of this intersection for year 2015.
21
22 The cost of signalization really varies. For aT-intersection like that it could be in the
23 range of $150,000 to $200,00. What the project would be responsible for is only their
24 share and the City would have to pay for the rest, which is the majority really of the
25 dollars. So it was not recommended for this intersection.
26
27 Commissioner Bialson: In doing that analysis what did you consider given the
28 reconfiguration ofthis parcel that we are now dealing with that the number of
29 automobiles coming out of that ancillary exit would be going right? We have no figures
30 for that at this point.
31
32 Ms. EI-Guendy: What we have used for the turning movements at this intersection is
33 what was counted for the existing buildings, 2370 which is across the street on Watson
34 Court because one of their two parking lots is off of Watson Court in addition to the trips
35 being generated by the proposed project. I should also note that we did not give credit of
36 existing uses on the site when we analyzed the gap analysis as well as the warrant
37 analysis. We have taken them as is the full number oftrips that will be generated off the
38 project without existing uses.
39
40 Commissioner Bialson: I guess my point still is we have changed the configuration of
41 traffic there once we have all the cars pouring out of that secondary exist going right and
42 that may remove the gaps you are speaking of and thereby affect those trying to make a
43 left tum off Watson. I don't see how you have done that study.
44
45 Ms. EI-Guendy: This was actually taken into consideration in distributing the project
46 trips and assigning them at the two driveways. We have considered the secondary
Page 21
1 driveway, which is to the north as only right in/right out so we focused all of the left tum
2 movements at Watson Court, all of them.
3
4 Commissioner Bialson: Correct, but did you consider that all the, right turns would
5 reduce your number of gaps with respect to coming out?
6
7 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
8
9 Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Lee, you have a question?
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am still not clear on this. The curb cut that is on East
14 Bayshore traffic coming in there would be able to come south on East Bayshore Road
15 and make a right-hand tum into that driveway.
16
17 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Traffic coming out ofthere would have to make a right-hand tum
20 they could not make a left-hand tum.
21
22 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, that is correct.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: So technically if somebody wanted to get onto Bayshore
25 Freeway, 101, what they would have to do is exist through Watson Court, make a left-
26 hand tum at East Bayshore Road and then make another left-hand tum at Embarcadero to
27 zip onto the Bayshore Freeway.
28
29 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, that is correct and the reason that it was designed and distributed
30 this way is because the secondary driveway is too close to the intersection of
31 Embarcadero with East Bayshore. So we didn't want to allow full access, which would
32 actually impact the operations at the main intersection that is nearby.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: So I guess the question that I am leading up to here is why not
35 just simply restrict traffic from exiting from that curb cut at all and just have it a one-way
36 drive, right-hand tum in only and forget about exiting that way? Then make everybody
37 exit through Watson Court because people that are going south are going to have to head
38 basically in that direction anyway.
39
40 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, I understand. We did discuss it with the project representatives.
41 The thought was to properly serve the site plan it is desirable to have two access
42 driveways even if one of them would be only right in/right out.
43
44 Chair Cassel: Is there need for emergency vehicle access as well? Is that one of the
45 reasons?
46
Page 22
1 Ms. El-Guendy: Well, the emergency services would be allowed access at both and it is
2 beneficial to have two driveways to serve the overall site.
3
4 Chair Cassel: Pat, you had a question?
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Yes. Could I get clarification regarding the TDM program? Is it
7 going to be mandated on the development?
8
9 Ms. EI-Guendy: No it will not it will be optional for the future employers that will be
10 using this site which was the reason that we didn't dictate a monitoring program and we
11 didn't allow the project any credit for this TDM program. We didn't give them any
12 percentage of reduction in their trips to reflect the TDM program.
13
14 Commissioner Burt: So is that because the traffic impact doesn't require a TDM program
15 is why it is not mandatory?
16
17 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, that is correct but it is still from our perspective it is desirable to
18 have a TDM program and the hope that we will work with them in the future.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: Can Mr. Baer add his comment to that?
21
22 Chair Cassel: If you would like to hear that, yes.
23
24 Mr. Baer: I think the applicant had agreed that a condition of approval be that a TDM
25 program be adopted and it would be imposed on a future tenant. We did not take any
26 credit for the potential trip reduction, which means that there isn't a monitoring but it
27 didn't reduce the impact. I wish somebody would ask me a question on gap analysis
28 since I became such a student of that issue and I think what I would say is comforting.
29
30 Commissioner Burt: Okay, just a sec. I want to make sure I understood correctly that the
31 applicant would accept the TDM program as a condition of approval.
32
33 Mr. Baer: Yes.
34
35 Commissioner Burt: What was it you want to say about gap analysis?
36
37 Mr. Baer: Of course this is a highly, highly considered issue that moves beyond being
38 technical when it is on a close call. I am sorry I don't have the traffic study here but we
39 really spend a lot of time and Heba is as fine and diligent a worker as there is in the
40 quality of this report, independent analysis and the Staff supported analysis is really
41 extraordinary and is a standard that. is going to be met for future projects. I really want to
42 compliment Heba and it is a challenge for an applicant.
43
44 It is not a close call in this way, I don't have the traffic study right in front of me, but
45 these would be the questions I would ask that I am going to give you what the solution is.
46 The number of gaps available for right turns from Watson Court are 11 times the number
Page 23
1 of gaps necessary for the traffic generated by this project taking no credit for the existing
2 trip generation. The number of gaps available for left turns is 5.6 or 6.7 and again
3 without the study in front of me I don't have the precise answer. How are those .
4 determined? How many seconds does it take for a car to tum right? And how many
5 seconds does it take for two cars to be able to tum right? That is what a gap analysis is.
6 How many seconds does it take for a car to make a left tum without danger and ifthere
. 7 are three seconds more can two cars make a left tum? But the issue that I wanted to point
8 out is that the number of trips that this project generates exiting the site left and right at
9 peak hour and when you look at how they are stretched out over 60 minutes at its greatest
10 hour of use it is not a great number. Secondly, I really do mean to say this 11 and five
11 times factor was part to say there is such comfort in the fact that perhaps the trips being
12 generated today are fewer bec~use of some vacancy but it is not a close call.
13
14 Second, on the signalization, this is one where we would hold to the CEQA standard. If
15 there is no nexus compelling an applicant to mitigate an impact that does not exist then
16 you can't compel that This happens to be one of those cases where very rigorously the
17 traffic has been analyzed and there is no signal warrant again until the year 2015. Heba
18 could answer those with great precision but we worked so hard at looking at the data and
19 it sounds like an applicant's made-up story but it is that magnitude of opportunity for gap,
20 11 times for right and five or six times for left that provides an enormous cushion for the
21 many concerns about are we taking into consideration the site exiting right on its East
22 Bayshore entrance and is that going to impact the left tum opportunity on Watson Court?
23 They are not a close call is what I am saying.
24
25 Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
26
27 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question on the shifting parking number. The preliminary
28 landscape plan that was in our .packet does that reflect this new number that you
29 mentioned of 260 parking spaces? The reason I am asking is if the number of parking
30 spaces changes how will that affect if at all the landscape area that we see in the plans
31 before us? How can we make a deciSIon tonight if that is going to be a moving target?
32
33 Chair Cassel: You are asking that of Staff?
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Yes.
36
37 Mr. Emslie: Let me make a general statement first I was going to talk about this when
38 we got into the design and site issues, which we seem to be at now. This is an unusual
39 process peculiar to Palo Alto. I have never encountered it before in my 25-plusyears of
40 experience where you have two Boards and Commissions with the same overlapping
41 oversight. In this case in the Baylands in the D overlay both the ARB and the Planning
42 Commission have architectural and site authority over this site. You dealt with this in a
43 way last time when you ended up as the majority of the Commission decided to delegate
44 that to the ARB which it is perfectly within your purview to do that it is not required
45 because your purview is established by code and it does include this. We are strongly
46 recommend as a way to deal with the 12 different people that both the ARB and the
Page 24
",
1 Planning Commission offering various viewpoints on Site and Design issues and in this
2 case landscaping and where there is a landscape reserve that the Planning Commission
3 reserve its role in terms of Bay lands compliance, policy analysis, a higher levelland use
4 review but because you also have a lot of experience in the community both living here
5 and practice of your role as a Commissioner you provide advice and comment to the
6 ARB for concerns that you would like them to address. In the case of landscape reserve
7 and the number of parking spaces they would not be able to change the configuration of
8 the parking and reduce the amount of landscape area that is being provided. They would
9 be able to reconfigure that in some way by reconfiguring the islands in between parking
10 and a lot of the details which frankly the ARB has a great deal of experience and does
11 deal with them extremely well. We get great projects because ofthat incredible laser
12 focus that they have in looking at those details. So we think that the Commission's time
13 would be best served in providing general guidance in terms we want to maximize the
14 amount oflandscaping on this site, we don't want to see it reduced and if you can try to
15 increase it where possible where it makes an impact. But for us to kind of try to overlap
16 that review I don't think it is a productive use of your time and two I don't necessarily
17 see it leading to a better product. That is basically my opinion and my strong
18 recommendation as to how you might handle those issues that overlap with the site and
19 architecture.
20
21 Chair Cassel: In the case of parking I wouldn't dare try to argue with the ARB about
22 how the layout would go. However, we are talking about a situation where our code
23 requires 244 parking spaces and we have an owner that wants to put in more. My sense
24 from what I have is that rather than putting some of that space in landscaping so you
25 could use it in the future if you needed it that all of the area that would accommodate the
26 larger number has been put down in impervious surface to be worked out as to how that
27 would fit later. Landscape reserve means that it is impervious in addition to the other
28 open space it is pervious surface that can be used later as impervious surface if it is
29 needed and demonstrated. So my concern is that we aren't providing impervious surface
30 for 276 spaces and leaving none of the land in reserve. So it is a much more general
31 question. I don't want to encourage more cars to be used by having more spaces and two,
32 I don't want to cover more land, especially out in this area but anywhere, than I need to
33 cover for the spaces.
34
35 Mr. Emslie: Let me just respond very quickly. We don't recommend that. We don't
36 recommend putting in a certain number of spaces in pervious coverage that someday they
37 can be repaved or used if they are needed. We feel as a Staff that you have ample
38 amounts oflandscape area. As you know when we rezoned this site it is the lowest
39 intensity industrial zone that we have in the Baylands and it has the highest requirement
40 for open space. They are exceeding that and I am sure someone here could tell you by a
41 double-digit percentage. It is a great bonus oflandscape area. We don't see that there is
42 a direct value. We think we would be giving up some future flexibility in the tenancy and
43 occupancy of this building. We all know we have plenty of job producing uses and
44 plenty of offices. There are other uses that are allowed in the LM zone that are more
45 parking intensive that are more retail oriented. I can tell you we have a tremendous
46 demand for example health and fitness clubs. Ifthat were to be located in the site we
Page 25
1 think that would be a very good use. It would serve the employment population. It could
2 possibly take some midday trips off for employees that would use this instead of going
3 Downtown, going up Embarcadero or Oregon Expressway to workout at lunchtime. We
4 think those would absolutely good uses but they require more parking. So because we
5 are able to achieve our objectives of having a very well landscaped green site and have
6 the flexibility to introduce uses that may require more parking and provide necessary
7 services for this area. We think it is good balance and it is our strong recommendation
8 that we not start looking at putting in spaces in reserve. We think that would be a
9 disincentive for uses that we would like to encourage.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Michael.
12
13 Commissioner Griffin: I am going to come back to this traffic issue. Reba, speaking for
14 myself, I have really very vivid memories of what the traffic situation was like in that
15 part of town during 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was awful. In my opinion it was just
16 really bad. Rere we are looking at a project that is if you look at it today it is out of
17 context. I want to put this project back into the context that I think is coming down the
18 road literally as well as figuratively. I realize that your engineering study say not to
19 worry but I want to tell you that experientially I am not convinced. I am really concerned
20 about the impact that this project in the correct context is really going to have in less than
21 ten years from now. Nothing that I have been presented with tonight really ....
22
23 Chair Cassel: Do you have a question?
24
25 Commissioner Griffin: My question is how can you convince some of us non-believers
26 or maybe this non-believer that we aren't really looking at a dangerous situation coming
27 forward?
28
29 Ms. EI-Guendy: I think maybe part of your concerns are because you weren't provided
30 with the complete traffic study that was conducted for this project. I should note that
31 even under the 2015 traffic conditions the project in this location would operate under
32 acceptable conditions. When we came up with the 2015 traffic volumes as part of
33 updating the traffic-forecasting model we didn't just include all approved and pending'
34 projects with the City of Palo Alto. We have taken into consideration the developments
35 within the surrounding cities from the information that VT A provided us with and I
36 contacted the different cities to get information about their projects. We have also taken
37 into consideration any shifted traffic because of congestion on highway 101 because Cal
38 Trans is planning improvements to highway 101 north and south of Palo Alto without the
39 segment that is actually abutting the City of Palo Alto which would divert some of the
40 traffic to the major roadway network within the city. So when we came up with the
41 volumes for 2015 we were very conservative. I fully appreciate your concern but based
42 on the numbers and analysis we have conducted there are no impacts to be concerned
43 about at least up to 2015.
44
45 Commissioner Bialson: Follow up?
46
Page 26
1 possibility of a higher influx of traffic coming onto our street system as a result of that
2 phenomenon of 101 staying narrow in Palo Alto and wider in Menlo Park and in
3 Mountain View:
4
5 Commissioner Bialson: That goes to my point that more people will be coming off 101
6 on Embarcadero as the earliest place that is relatively convenient to get across to the
7 Dumbarton Bridge.
8
9 Mr. Emslie: Even those trips do not trip impacts. Even when you account for the worst
10 case of more cars using our streets rather than the freeway it still does not affect the
11 recommendations that you have. .
12
13 Commissioner Bialson: So that is not going to make that intersection any worse than it is
14 at this point. It is F now and it is going to continue to be F?
15
16 Ms. El-Guendy: Actually for the 2001 traffic volumes it is E not F. It will go to F in
17 2015. Ifwe look at the volumes for 2001 and 2008 and compare it to the 2015 volumes it
18 increases significantly because of the shifted traffic. With the improvements that are
19 planned for this intersection it should mitigate.
20
21 Commissioner Bialson: So you are talking about your models and your predictions?
22
23 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
24
25 Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
26
27 Chair Cassel: Bonnie and then Lee.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: So ifl understand you correctly in 2015 the situation will deteriorate
30 to F under this worst case but not because of this project but because of so many other
31 things that are happening. Is that correct?
32
33 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes, that is correct.
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Also another point is that the 2015 numbers are built on Michael's
36 experience in 2001 plus 1.2 percent growth compounded for each year, is that correct?
37
38 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes but the 2015 actually goes a step further not just the growth locally
39 but the regional growth and the improvements planned for highways and so forth.
40
41 Chair Cassel: Lee.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to clarify something that Steve Emslie said earlier
44 which is both the ARB and the Planning Commission are both doing Site and Design
45 Review for this but we each have different standards. The ARB is really looking at it
46 from a quality and character point of view. They have their 16 points of review that they
Page 28
1 The conditions being that the support space of 4,023 square feet of exempt floor area be a
2 condition of approval and that those uses are for internal ancillary uses that would
3 facilitate trip reduction by keeping employees on site more and second that the TDM
4 program be a condition of approval under the guidelines that are withIn the Staff Report.
5 . Finally, the recommendation to ARB and to the applicant that the landscaping on the
6 balance of the site pursue as many opportunities as possible to integrate compatible
7 indigenous landscaping to whatever degree possible.
8
9 SECOND
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
12
13 Chair Cassel: Pat, would you like to speak to your motion?
14
15 Commissioner Burt: Yes. First I would like to say that I think the improvements to this
16 project versus the previous project that we had seen for the same site are very extensive.
17 I think they are generally quite favorable and I would like to commend the applicant for
18 coming forward with a project that I think is going to meet many of the objectives of the
19 Baylands Master Plan and result in not only a significant improvement over the prior
20 project proposed but also over the prior buildings that are already on the site now and
21 evolve us toward the sorts of development in the Baylands that we are striving for. I
22 think that many aspects of this project are going to be a model for the community, the
23 sustainability aspects and the TDM program and the native plant landscaping and I think
24 that the applicant should be quite proud of the project that they are now bringing forward
25 for the community and I think it represents a model project in a lot of ways and I hope
26 that we can continue with these sorts of themes as other buildings in that area likely to be
27 redeveloped from grade B to grade A commercial.
28
29 Chair Cassel: Lee, do you want to speak to your second?
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I know we are not supposed to speak to the previous
32 submittals but having been involved in reviewing this site from day one I agree with Pat
33 that this has come really a very, very long way in terms of development of the project.
34 Originally, this project was presented and it had looked like a building that was a spec .
35 building out in Fremont on the other side of the Dumbarton Bridge. The applicant has
36 done significant work to really make it a building that I think will do very well and be the
37 gateway to the Bayshore area.
38
39 I do have some minor concerns with regard to the project and I alluded to that in the very
40 beginning with my line of questioning with regard to the height ofthe building. This is
41 where I would like to sort of add a cautionary footnote which is that with the required fill
42 that is necessary on that site and with leaving the parking at approximately the existing
43 grade we are looking at an overall building height that is somewhere on the order of
44 about 45 feet. Now mitigating that of course is this row of eucalyptus trees but they are
45 not a native species here. One of the concerns that I have is that one day Cal Trans is
46 going to come along and that row of eucalyptus trees is going to become cordwood
Page 30
· .
1 somewhere, actually you shouldn't bum eucalyptus, but it is going to become a pile of
2 rubble and that building is going to be exposed.
3
4 What I would like to add as an amendment to the motion is that story poles be erected for
5 the building to get an idea as to the height and configuration of the building for review by
6 the Architectural Review Board.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: I think that would be helpful for the ARB review. On the prior
9 project I took the overpass there and did my own best estimates of story pole heights in
10 relation to the eucalyptus. This whole issue of building height versus elevation from
11 street grade is one that we are going to have to struggle with in the Baylands in general
12 and I don't think that we can just stick with a formulaic approach that says well, by the
13 way we calculate it it is only this high when in fact we are building buildings today upon
14 earthen pedestals out there. Nevertheless this project I think has enough improvements
15 from our Site and Design standpoint I would still support the project but I think that that
16 is something that would be helpful for ARB's final review.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
19
20 Chair Cassel: I assume that you are going to accept that.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to accept that and I am just going to add to that a little
23 bit more just to say that with the eucalyptus trees possibly gone in the future because of
24 the PUE easements that are there, the Public Utility Easements, it won't be possible for
25 the owner to be able to adequately screen the building in the future if those eucalyptus
26 trees are gone.
27
28 Chair Cassel: I am going to start now with Karen and work back.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I did not raise a point of order but I do out of courtesy or maybe
31 it is wrong of me but we had not been asked if we were complete with our questions and I
32 did have one quite significant question. We went straight from questions to a motion
33 without going through discussion.
34
35 Chair Cassel: We can do that when we have had extensive discussion. Do you have
36 another question you would like to ask?
37
38 Commissioner Holman: The point is we didn't have discussion we had questions. So my
39 question is this, yes, where is the pedestrian/bike commitment made? It is not in the
40 conditions of approval. Where is that transfer made? Where is it committed?
41
42 Chair Cassel: Do you mean is it in Attachment A?
43
44 Commissioner Holman: I did not find it in the Staff Report. It is referenced but it is not
45 in the conditions of approval and I see no other document that commits it unless I am
Page 31
1 overlooking it. So I am looking for where it is committed, how do we know we are
2 getting the pedestrian/bike path?
3
4 Ms. EI-Guendy: It is actually shown on the site plan. If you like it to be edited in the list
5 of conditions we would gladly do that but the land dedication is shown on the site plan.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I know that it is but my discomfort and I have a list of things I
8 am uncomfortable about.
9
10 Chair Cassel: Karen, they said that they would put it in the conditions. Is that all right
11 with you?
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Well it is up to us to add it to the conditions of approval.
14
15 Chair Cassel: , Right but they are willing to do that. If you are interested I will check with
16 the seconder and the maker of the motion.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I would ask that the maker of the motion accept as a
19 condition of approval as a friendly amendment to the motion to add the dedication of -
20 and I am not sure what the language is Staff will have to help me with this, if it is the
21 transfer of the land or if it is an easement, I am not sure how it should be handled.
22
23 Mr. Emslie: We will put the wording in we understand the amendment that you want that
24 added as a condition. It would reinforce what is already required as a part of the site
25 plan. So it would just be putting it in two places, which is fine we agree to that.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: And the maker and seconder would approve that?
28
29 Commissioner Burt: Yes, I would accept that.
30
31 Chair Cassel: Let me explain to Lee. What she is doing is adding into Attachment A a
32 condition that the bike path be included as one of the conditions.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes I got that as the general drift of where you were going.
35 That's fine.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Then I had one last question, which is one minor question and
38 then one other question regarding the height as Commissioner Lippert referenced. I am
39 not clear why 70 percent of this building is at the maximum height indicated on the plan.
40 I am not clear why it is necessary for 70 percent of the building to have the essentially
41 45-foot height.
42
43 Mr. Emslie: With the equipment screen? Someone might correct me but I think it is
44 because they are putting extensive photovoltaics on the roof So the footprint ofthe
45 equipment would be much smaller without the photovoltaic because it would just be the
Page 32
1 HV A system and any other mechanical but because of the extensive array of photo voltaic
2 they have a bigger footprint to screen.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: A clarifying on that then. The photovoltaic I don't think stand
5 up very high so would they be even visible from the ground without a parapet?
6
7 Mr. Emslie: I understood in the previous questioning that the photovoltaics were going
8 to be behind the screen. ·We might want to get that clarification but that is how I
9 understood the response earlier.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: I follow that that the photovoltaics would be behind the screen.
12 The clarification I am looking for is the photovoltaics I don't believe stand very high so if
13 you looking from the ground up at the building is it necessary to have the screening
14 because would you not be able to see them anyway?
15
16 Mr. Emslie: Good question.
17
18 Chair Cassel: Let me ask the applicant.
19
20 Mr. Baer: Along with the landscape review we would accept that we look closely at the
21 relationship of the size of the roof covered by the screen and the photovoltaics to consider
22 a reduction ofthat size if possible.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Would the maker and seconder of the motion consider that as
25 either a friendly amendment condition of approval or as a reconimendation to ARB way
26 one or the other?
27
28 Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think it would be best to accept it as a recommendation to the
29 applicant and ARB to look at minimizing the screening to whatever extent possible both
30 the height and the lateral extent of the screening.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Then my last minor ...
33
34 Commissioner Burt: We have to hear from the seconder.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: I apologize.
37
38 Chair Cassel: I need to get it written down. Go aheadLee.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that.
41
42 Chair Cassel: Just a minute. Look at minimizing the screening height and lateral, what
43 was the next word?
44
45 Commissioner Burt: The lateral extent of the screening.
46
Page 33
1 Commissioner Holman: Then my last and it is more of a minor point but it is one that is.
2 of some concern on the conceptual plans for the welcome to the Baylands sign it talks
3 about green pressure treated poles. I would just suggest that PT is pretty noxious material
4 especially going into a sensitive environment. So I would suggest that pressure treated
5 wood not be used.
6
7 Commissioner Burt: Is the design of that part of the conditions of approval or something
8 that simply could be readdressed?
9
10 Mr. Emslie: I think it is an issue that would be readdressed.
11
12 Commissioner Burt: So Staff agrees to readdress that and ifit is all right with Karen we
13 won't have that as a condition of approval but we will ask Staff to do that.
14
15 Mr. Emslie: I think we can address that, absolutely.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Okay? Annette.
18
19 Commissioner Bialson: Yes, going back to my concerns about traffic impacts here I
20 continue to be very concerned about that secondary access road in somewhat for it's
21 ingress possibilities as having a difficult effect on the intersection of East Bayshore and
22 Embarcadero but I absolutely feel that traffic coming out that secondary access is going
23 to cause difficulties for not just people leaving this particular project but that entire East
24 Bayshore area. So I would ask if you would accept a friendly amendment indicating that
25 the secondary access should be used only for ingress. I think that takes care of your
26 safety issues for Fire Department, ambulance, etc. and not allow any egress from that
27 secondary driveway. It is my only amendment.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: The reason for my hesitation was hearing the Staff response. I
30 would be open to Annette if you would permit having Staff give additional response to
31 their thoughts on that recommendation. Is that all right?
32
33 Commissioner Bialson: That is fine. I don't think you are going to have any change in
34 their appraisal. I am just going on 35 years of living in this area and dealing with that
35 intersection quite often.
36
37 Commissioner Burt: So if that other curb cut were only ingress are there substantial
38 problems that Staff perceives would result from that?
39
40 Ms. EI-Guendy: There will not be substantial problems but some things will need to be
41 reevaluated because all of the existing traffic will be out of Watson Court whether right
42 tum or left tum. So gap analysis, signal warrants will need to be reevaluated for the
43 numbers to be correct. In terms of findings it is not going to change -I don't believe it is
44 going to change the findings.
45
Page 34
1 Commissioner Burt: Annette, would you be receptive to that being a recommendation
2 that Staff reevaluate that prior to submittal to Council and pursue the feasibility of that? I
3 just am hesitant as to whether we can draw a conclusion tonight on the technical merits of
4 that.
5
6 Commissioner Bialson: I am a little concerned about that because I will vote against this
7 motion if we don't have that provision in it. Merely asking for a review or a
8 consideration of that by Staff and having this project go forward I am very concerned
9 about. This project, I agree with you, Pat, is a much better project than it initially was but
10 I feel like we are sort of rewarding the applicant for coming in with a terrible project
11 initially so we all feel great about this one. I have seen it happen before and I don't like
12 the process but here we are again and I would like to deal with this at this point we have a
13 project with avery sophisticated applicant and a very sophisticated team dealing with
14 Staff and I would rather make a decision ourselves. This will go before City Council and
15 Staff can come forward with their opinion at that point that it does not work with this
16 additional amendment.
17
18 Commissioner Burt: Because of my feeling of a lack of present technical basiS for
19 making that as a condition of approval I wouldn't be able to accept it as a friendly
20 amendment but I would be receptive to any Commissioner making it as a
21 recommendation to Staff to pursue this as a favorite alternative prior to submittal to
22 Council.
23
24 Chair Cassel: I haven't heard any other comments on that. Did you want to do that? I
25 am going down the line for comments.
26
27 Commissioner Bialson: I think I will wait for a vote on your motion and then I will do a
28 substitute motion.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Michael.
31
32 Commissioner Griffin: I tend to be supportive of Commissioner Bialson's concern about
33 the traffic situation and if anything my concerns transcend hers. I really am worried
34 about the impacts on that stretch of road that this project is going to bring in future years.
35 At this stage I am not going to support the motion.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Pat.
38
39 Commissioner Burt: Maybe the City Attorney is going to slap my hand for this but when
40 we had this prior project or a prior project it had a certain ingress and egress pattern.
41 Does Staff recall how that differed from what we have before us on ingress and egress
42 given that this Commission approved the traffic flow pattern at that time?
43
44 Ms. EI-Guendy: It was initially a full access but what was approved by the Commission
45 was right in/right out at the time.
46
Page 35
1 Commissioner Burt: So comparable to what we have right here.
2
3 Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
4
5 Commissioner Burt: So these same Commissioners approved that same pattern last time.
6
7· Ms. EI-Guendy: Yes.
8
9 Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Did you want to say anything else, Michael? Then we will work down to
12 Bonnie.
13
14 Commissioner Griffin: Well, nothing more than to say that this is a new project and I
15 guess we all the right and ability to change our mind.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Bonnie, you are next.
18
19 Vice Chair Packer: I am going to support the motion and I have a question for Pat on one
20 aspect of it. I also want to speak to the concern that Annette raised about that driveway.
21 So first my question was about your request with regard to landscaping. Was that simply
22 a request that applicant and Staff consider indigenous plants but not make a condition of
23 approval?
24
25 Commissioner Burt: It was a request that the applicant and the ARB pursue all
26 reasonable alternatives to using native plants in the balance ofthe project. That was I
27 believe somewhat consistent with the applicant's indication that they were willing to
28 pursue that and Staffs indication that that is something that could fall under the ARB
29 revIew process.
30
31 Vice Chair Packer: So my comment is this, I am not a botanist or anything like that, but I
32 am aware that currently the Baylands does have a lot of non-native trees especially
33 because trees are not native to the Baylands yet they seem to be very much a part of the
34 current ecological system. I was out looking at the egrets nesting in the trees around the
35 duck pond, which are certainly not native, but it really does enhance the life out there. So
36 I am not certain what we mean when we say indigenous. I would wonder if you would
37 just clarify your request to say indigenous andlor compatible with the current Baylands
38 environment. The reason that this might be helpful is that when and if those eucalyptus
39 trees reach the end of their useful life ifthere are other kinds of trees that could be
40 planted to screen the concrete that are not indigenous because the Baylands don't have
41 trees but certainly compatible. Would that meet your concerns?
42
43 Commissioner Burt: I think I am okay with that distinction. We have an oddity here and
44 really throughout the Baylands because what was once swampland is no longer
45 swampland. So what were the plants that were formerly on these lands really are today
46 not the replacement alternatives that would be considered. They are not plants that can
Page 36
1 exist in brine water and things like that. What we have done with the Bay fill is we have
2 created these lands down by the Baylands and today they are more comparable to the
3 lands that were originally between 101 and Middlefield. They were dry lands and oak
4 wood lands and grasslands and we had riparian corridors where we had trees and larger
5 bushes and richer vegetation. So yes, we cannot attempt to prescribe that the vegetation
6 in these oevelopment parcels will in fact be title land vegetation. So your greater latitude
7 in your recommendation Uhink is acceptable with an emphasis that we are looking at
8 what is the extent to which we can have indigenous species that wouid be at this soil and
9 transitional area. So that is a long answer to say yes. .
10
11 Chair Cassel: Okay, let me see ifI have got the writing ofthis down correctly. A
12 recommendation that the ARB and the applicant pursue landscaping on the balance of the
13 site be as compatible, which is what I had originally, as possible to .....
14
15 Mr. Larkin: Excuse me. Was that a clarification or was that a friendly amendment?
16
17 Commissioner Burt: I think we can use Bonnie's language which is a minor modification
18 is to the original motion that it would be either indigenous vegetation or compatible
19 vegetation and we will leave it with that latitude but the seconder.has the prerogative of
20 approval or acceptance ofthe motion.
21
22 Chair Cassel: Lee.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: I accept that and just in accepting that I want to say that the site
25 is first of all on the edge of the Baylands. Second of all the site is surrounded by
26 eucalyptus which are not native species anyway. So what you really need to do is create
27 a vegetative corridor that sort of makes a bridge between the bay area and the freeway
28 and working at being able to screen the freeway in a way. The last clarification that I
29 want to make in terms of an inaccuracy I think that Commissioner Packer had is that
30 there are two zones there, which are PUEs in which they can have nothing in those zones.
31 So once those eucalyptus trees are gone they can't be replaced with any vegetation at all.
32
33 Chair Cassel: Did you want to make any other comments on this motion?
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Yes I am going to support the motion and for the reasons that Pat and
36 Lee have stated. It is a good project'even though it has a height issue it is within the
37 zoning and it is setback so far from the edges of the property that I think the visual impact
38 is not going to be a negative one.
39
40 I do want to respond to the concerns about traffic. I think that the right ingress and right
41 egress on that East Bayshore Road driveway is appropriate. I don't see that it would
42 really cause a backup there is a dedicated right tum lane on Embarcadero Road from 101
43 that goes right there. I don't see how -it is very smooth. It may only be an issue for
44 people crossing Embarcadero Road from the other side of East Bayshore but I can't
45 imagine the backups that my fellow Commissioners are imagining. So I think it will be
46 fine with that driveway. Also I would be concerned if there were no egress from that
Page 37
1 driveway. It would create a very negative circulation problem within the site itself when
2 people are leaving because the. area in front of the building going out to Watson Court
3 looks like there is only room for one lane of cars. I could see all kinds of backups just
4 when people are leaving on the site itself. So I don't see the need to create circulation
5 headaches on the site. So those are my comments and I will support the motion.
6
7 Chair Cassel: I have some people on this end that would like to speak again. Karen, you
8 wish to make another comment.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Yes. Perhaps I could add some clarity to the additional
11 condition of approval regarding the plants. There is, I would remind the Commission, an
12 .. approved Baylands Plant List. I think if reference was made to that as opposed to
13 reference to indigenous and this sort of thing I think it might be a little clearer what the
14 intention is. Could I just offer that up? Then I have just one other thing.
15
16 Commissioner Burt: Yes, I am not very familiar with the plant list. Is it predominated by
17 indigenous plants?
18
19 Commissioner Holman: That would be the purpose. Yes, it would be both plants that are
20 appropriate to the environment and also would survive the salty environment. So I think
21 if the Baylands Plant List was referred to and reviewed by the Planning Arborist for
22 instance that we would have probably where the Commissioners are trying to go.
23
24 Commissioner Burt: That sounds reasonable.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: On the surface it sounds very reasonable unfortunately I don't
27 think that there are good quality trees in that list and that is really the main concern.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: Well if we were to have that as a recommendation then to the extent
30 feasible that be incorporated then I think that gives latitude.
31
32 Chair Cassel: It will be reviewed by an arborist anyway. That is part of the standing
33 proceedings and it will be reviewed by an arborist so that doesn't need to be added.
34
35 Commissioner Burt: So Karen, would your friendly amendment be to utilize the
36 Baylands Plant List to the extent feasible?
37
38 Commissioner Holman: I was just trying to -there seemed to be some struggle going on
39 about how to deal with plants and I was trying to add some clarity to that but if you don't
40 want to accept that as a clarification. .
41
42 Commissioner Burt: No, I am asking would your friendly amendment be to include the
43 Baylands Plant List to the extent feasible. Would that qualify? I would be open to
44 accepting that amendment and I just want to provide enough latitude that we have given
45 ARB, Staff and the applicant the direction that we want to go. Everybody seems to be
46 receptive to that. Your recommendation of the Baylands Plant List seems to give greater
Page 38
1 guidance but I don't want to handcuff people. I want to as much as you know that I am
2 an advocate of this I want to allow a certain amount of discretion based upon these
3 guidelines.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: I would be fine with that if that is acceptable to both of you.
6 Then I have just one other thing.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: I would accept it.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Let me ask you, would you be inclined to vote in support of the
11 motion if that was included?
12
13 Commissioner Holman: My next comments will address that.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, let me hear your next comment.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: I do have some comments and they are frustrations actually
18 which I am not happy to bring up but they are frustratioris I think that need to be stated.
19 This is a project that has come a long way, it does respond so much better to the Baylands
20 and its location as a gateway. That said and not having anything to do with the project
21 itselfthis is an unusual situation and almost an isolated instance from my experience
22 where we have a Site and Design project that has come to us without benefit of color
23 elevations, without benefit of a full compliment of materials including paving, we did see.
24 the body material but we do have a charge to review Site and Design. That is part of our
25 charge. 1 am uncomfortable that a lot of the plans say not just 'preliminary' but they say
26 'preliminary,' 'conceptual' and 'illustrative.' That leaves me with a feeling that this not
27 really a complete application ready for Planning and Transportation Commission Site and
28 Design Review. We did not receive the full traffic analysis. These are frustrations that I
29 have. I am frankly happy with the amendments that have been made and appreciate
30 Commissioners accepting and initiating those amendments. I do still have some ofthe
31 traffic concerns that other Commissioners have referenced. I think I would probably be
32 more inclined to support a motion that did change the egress out of the first driveway.
33
34 Commissioner Burt: First we have ....
35
36 Chair Cassel: Wait a minute, I'll call on Lee. Do you want to accept that friendly
37 amendment or did you not?
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: Well on the face of it I am going to have to say no.
40
41 Chair Cassel: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Pat.
42
43 Commissioner Burt: So I think Commissioner Bialson talked about wanting to address
44 the ingress/egress as a separate motion.
45
Page 39
1 Chair Cassel: Would you like me to comment first? I think I am next. Well, I think
2 maybe I should talk before you make the next motion because I am going to support the
3 motion. I would like to have seen the traffic report first although it is very difficult to go
4 through these things. We have done it before and have reviewed them before and I think
5 it might have saved us some time this evening. I will support the motion and I would like
6 to see and I don't know if this takes acceptance or not this right exit is not in the
7 conditions and is not on this report that I could find. At least it isn't on the bottom of
8 page one of Attachment A and I presume that you will just add that in to that report if it
9 passes. Pat, go ahead.
10
11 Commissioner Burt: Annette and I may be on the same page as far as the process on this
12 but it seems that there is strong good support on the Commission for the project as a
13 whole and then we have one issue that we have as divisive which is substantive but it is
14 not fundamental, as I would characterize it. So I would hope that we could as a
15 Commission vote on the main motion ami then separately have a vote on the ingress and
16 egress issue. Can we break those two up?
17
18 Chair Cassel: Don.
19
20 Mr. Larkin: The way to accomplish what I think you are getting at is to have a secondary
21 motion. The secondary motion would be subsidiary to your motion. It could be brought
22 forward first voted on and then return to the main motion.
23
24 Chair Cassel: She should make an amendment to the motion.
25
26 Mr. Larkin: She should make a secondary motion, something that is a subsidiary motion.
27
28 Chair Cassel: I am sorry I am having trouble with the term subsidiary. I am used to
29 amendments to motions or substitute motions.
30
31 Commissioner Burt: If! understood the City Attorney the secondary motion can precede
32 the vote on the main motion.
33
34 Mr. Larkin: Right because it does not change the main motion.
35
36 Commissioner Burt: That just seems like from a process standpoint that might be a good
37 way to address it.
38
39 Chair Cassel: Okay.
40
41 SECONDARY MOTION
42
43 Commissioner Bialson: Do I finally get heard now? What I would make is a secondary
44 motion asking that we provide, not speaking to the rest of the project but with regard to
45 the ingress and egress that is provided by the secondary access to alter that to allow for
46 only ingress. That would be my motion.
Page 40
1
2 SECOND
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: I would second that.
5
6 Commissioner Bialson: I think we have spoken to it enough so let's vote.
7
8 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Burt, Packer and Cassel voted against)
9
10 Chair Cassel: I really think I better ask though ifthere is anyone who would like to speak
11 to that in addition to those that have already spoken. Okay. All those in favor of the
12 amendment to the motion please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) I believe that passed
13 four to three with Karen, Annette, Michael and Lee voting in favor and Pat, Bonnie and
14 Phyllis voting against.
15
16 Now let's bring us back to the main motion. I think we have all had enough to say on
17 that I would like to call the vote. All those in favor please say aye. ( ayes)
18
19 Commissioner Bialson: A clarification. This is with respect to everything in that main
20 motion except the ....
21
22 Chair Cassel: The main motion now covers the egress as you passed it.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Should the main motion be restated?
25
26 Chair Cassel: Oh lovely, yes, it should be. Let's go from scratch on this one. The
27 motion is that we approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with a finding that the
28 project will not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and
29 Design Review application to allow the construction of a new office building in the
30 LM(D)(3) Limited Industrial Combining District based on the findings in the Draft
31 Record of Land Use Action, that we support the space of 4,020 square feet that it be a
32 condition of approval, that the TDM program be a condition of approval,
33 recommendation that the ARB and the applicant pursue a landscaping with indigenous or
34 compatible plants for the balance of the site to be as compatible as possible to the
35 environment, that story poles be erected for the ARB review, that the ARB look at
36 minimizing the screening ofthe height and the lateral extension of the screening. I
37 believe that was it, right?
38
39 Commissioner Holman: No, there was one more the bike and pedestrian path.
40
41 Chair Cassel: The pedestrian path is included in the conditions.
42
43 Commissioner Burt: That the dedication of the bike and pedestrian path be included as a
44 condition of approval.
45
Page 41
1 Chair Cassel: Okay. Did you get that? This motion is amended to eliminate the egress
2 as a right-hand tum out ofthe East Bayshore driveway. It is limited to be a right tum in
3 but there is no right tum out.
4
5 Mr. Larkin: It is appropriate to restate that as part of the main motion so it is just for
6 clarification purposes.
7
8 Chair Cassel: Okay.
9 Commissioner Holman: One minor question here of clarification. In regards to the
10 pedestrian and bike path dedication I guess will Staff deal with maintenance and that sort
11 of thing and who is responsible for that? Should that be a part of our condition?
12
13 Mr. Emslie: No, no that will be dealt with as a public facility and it will be dealt with as
14 any other city maintained facility.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Okay, great. Thank you.
17
18 MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Griffin voted no)
19
20 Chair Cassel: Do we have it all down? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes)
21 Opposed? (nay) The motion passes six to one with Lippert, Burt, Packer, Cassel,
22 Bialson and Holman voting yes and Griffin voting no.
23
24 That completes that item on the agenda. We have one more. Let's take a break for 15
25 minutes and then I think we can come back and work on this. Ten minutes, sorry, ten
26 minutes, pardon me. We will be back and we will set the timer. Thank you Staff for the
27 work that you have done. It is a complicated project and we appreciate it.
28
29 Would everyone please come back? I need seven Planning Commissioners although I
30 can start with fewer and will.
31
32 There was one piece I didn't do in our last motion and I did not close the public hearing.
33 I want to be sure that it is on the record that that was closed I had no other cards for
34 public testimony besides the applicant so I continued with the discussion but that public
35 hearing has been closed.
36
Page 42
the Oregon Expressway exit loop and access road to Embarcadero Road, to the west by the
Bayshore Freeway, to the north by Embarcadero Road, and to the east by East Bayshore Road,
comprised of parcel 1 (3.82 acres) and parcel 2 (1.84 acres) of that parcel map. There are five
existing structures on the site with floor area totaling 41,600 square feet, for an existing Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) of .17:1.
Parcel One (2450 Watson Court)
The 3.82-acre (166,400 sq. ft.) parcel is developed with four office buildings (currently vacant)
totaling 33,200 sq. ft. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (P AMF) most recently occupied the
buildings.
Parcel 2 (2300 East Bayshore Road)
The 1.86-acre (81,160 sq. ft.) parcel is developed with an 8,400 sq. ft. vacant restaurant (formerly
Scotts Seafood Restaurant).
Four driveways provide ingress and egress to the site (two at East Bayshore Road and two at
Watson Court). A 65-foot wide public utilities easement runs across the northerly portion of the
site. There are 120 mature trees on the site, including significant Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Pine
trees that border the edges of the property. There are no protected trees on the site .
. The site lies within the LM(D)(3) zoning district. Under this zoning district designation,
medical, professional, and general business offices are a permitted use pursuant to compliance
with Chapter 18.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). No exceptions to any site
development regulations accompany this Site and Design application.
The existing buildings would be demolished and replaced with a single, 77,956 square-foot two-
story ·office building including 4,023 square feet of exempt floor area set aside for on-site
employee amenities. The first floor area would be 38,358 square feet, and the second floor area
would be 39,598 square feet. The design is an L-shaped building surrounded by vehicular
circulation and parking spaces, with two plaza areas, one at each end of the building lobby. The
proposed building is two stories, to reach 30' -6" in height as measured from the roof and 32'-6"
as measured from the parapet to finished grade. The proposed materials include pre-cast
concrete panels and columns, vision glass, and metal roofing. Driveways are proposed from both
Watson Court and East Bayshore Road. The existing driveway on East Bayshore Road closest to
Watson Court would be eliminated and the two driveways on Watson Court would be realigned.
Previous ARB Review of Project
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review of the design of the
proposed landscaping and site planning on December 16, 2004 and reviewed the design of the
proposed building on April 19, 2005. Copies of the ARB staff reports are attached as Exhibits K
and L. The ARB was generally supportive of the proposed design and commented that the both
the landscaping and the design of the building were an improved effort to achieve the project's
goal of serving as a "gateway building" to the Baylands and meeting the objectives of the
Baylands Master Plan.
2300 East Bayshore Road and 2450 Watson Court [05PLN-00166]
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project at their meeting of
June 29, 2005. The PTC recommended approval of the Site and Design Review application to
the City Council. The verbatim minutes of the PTC meeting are not attached to this report due to
the short time frame between the PTe and ARB meetings. However, the discussion of the PTe
during the meeting concentrated on the following issues:
Building Height
As mentioned above, the height of the proposed two story building would be 30'-6" as measured
from the roof and 32'-6" as measured from the parapet. The height of the proposed building
would be measured from finished grade five feet from the building. The site is located in a flood
plain, which would require the proposed building site to be raised by 5.95 feet resulting in a
finished grade of 8.95 feet. The existing grade adjacent to the existing building is approximately
three feet. The PTC commented that raising the elevation of the sit~ would actually cause the
building to appear taller than the proposed height stated on the development plans. The PTe
also commented that the proposed roof top equipment screening could cause the building to
visually appear taller and appeared excessive relative to the amount of equipment (especially
solar panels) to be screened. The PTe approved a motion recommending that:
• . The applicant install "story poles" to visually represent the height of the proposed
building prior to ARB review and;
• The ARB attempt to· minimize the height and lateral extent of the mechanical screening.
Transportation
The PTe discussed the proposed project's potential effects on traffic and questioned staff on the
findings of the project's Transportation Impact Analysis submitted by the applicant. The PTe
also was concerned that cars existing the site and turning right directly onto East Bayshore would
be in conflict with traffic heading east on East Bayshore Road. The PTC approved a motion with
the following condition of approval, which has been added to the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A).
• Vehicular egress from the East Bayshore Road driveway be eliminated (Condition #8).
The PTe complimented the applicant's proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program. The PTC approved a motion with the following condition of approval, which has been
added to the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
• The project's proposed TDM measures be added to the conditions of approval (Condition
#23)
2300 East Bayshore Road and 2450 Watson Court [05PLN-00166j
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Project Design
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted preliminary reviews ofthe design ofthe
proposed landscaping and site planning on December 16, 2004 and the design of the
proposed building on April 19, 2005. Copies of the ARB staff reports are attached as
Exhibits K and L. The ARB was generally supportive ofthe proposed design and commented
that the both the landscaping and the design of the building were an improved effort to
achieve the goal ofthe project serving as a "gateway building" to the Baylands and meeting
the objectives of the Baylands Master Plan. .
Traffic
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the proposed project. The
TIA included the project's impact on current traffic volumes as well as the projected traffic
volumes for 2008, the estimated year the project is to be completed and ready for occupancy.
Vehicle trips associated with the existing land uses were subtracted from the trips generated
by the proposed project. This TIA used this credit for existing land uses (if fully occupied) to
estimate the total trip generation and net new trip generation for the proposed project. The
TIA determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on traffic. The
TIA concluded:
• The proposed project would generate 308 fewer daily trips than the current land uses
on the assumption the existing buildings were fully occupied;
• The proposed Transportation Demand Management Program and onsite employee
amenity areas (recreation areas, workout rooms, lounges, and employee cafeterias)
could reduce critical p.m. peak hour vehicle trips by 8 to 20 percent;
• There are no significant traffic impacts projected for the year 2008;
• Sufficient gaps in traffic exist for both project generated traffic and existing vehicles
to safely exit Watson Court during p.m. peak hour conditions.
A complete list of the results and recommendations contained in the TIA is attached as
Exhibit J.
Landscaping
The preliminary landscape plan indicates 134 new trees are proposed including 24" box
Redwood, Southern Live Oak, Pear, Chinese Pistache, and Raywood Ash. Fifteen-gallon
size trees include Western Redbud and Purple Leaf Plum. The existing, mature Eucalyptus
and Casuarina trees along Embarcadero Road, the common property line of the adjacent
commercial site and Cal Trans property to the southwest would be retained.
An extensive variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, and perennials, including a selection of
native species, would be planted on site. Lawn area for employee recreation purposes would
City of Palo Alto Page 2
be located at both ends of the bUilding. The edge of the site along East Bayshore Road and at
the intersection with. Embarcadero Road and Watson Court will feature a "Bayland
Interpretive Garden". This area will include long grasses and native plants designed to
attract wildlife, along with pedestrian amenities such as benches, pathways, and interpretive
signage. Detailed discussion of the "Bayland Interpretive Garden" and the "statement of
landscape design intent" are contained in Attachment F.
Parking
The applicant is proposing a minimum of 244 parking spaces, which would meet the
minimum amount required by the City. The site plan allows for substantially more parking
and still provides landscaping far in excess of City Requirements. Staff recommends that the
final parking provided be determined during the Architectural Review Board review of this
project when final landscaping configuration is known.
RESOURCE IMPACT:
The proposed office building at 2300 East Bayshore Road is unlikely to generate significant
revenue to the City. First, office and research facilities generally contribute marginally to
City resources and to its ability to provide services to these facilities. Second, it is uncertain
whether the owners of 2300 East Bayshore Road will be able to lease all of the newly
developed space. In August of 2004 there was an estimated 267,000 square feet of vacant
office space in the Palo Alto-East Embarcadero neighborhood; comprising a vacancy rate of
33.3 %. The following outlines the likely impact ofthe proposed building on specific revenue
sources.
Sales Tax
Ofthe tax records reviewed, most recent office uses in the area have had very low or no sales
tax generated. If the new office building contained a sales operation, the revenues would
depend upon the nature of the business and sales volume. F or example, a few
furniture/equipment companies located in this area have reported significant sales taxes in
positive economic cycles. If the complex housed a small retail operation such as a sandwich
shop, it could generate approximately $5,000 annually to the City.
In addition, assuming that the facility employs approximately 300 office workers, purchases
by those workers would generate in the range of $3,600 in sales taxes per year.
Property Tax
For each $1 million in additional assessed and moveable equipment value, the City will
receive approximately $950 annually. Should a new office building worth $5.0 million more
than the current building be constructed, containing $1.5 million in new moveable
equipment, the City would receive approximately $6,200 annually. The property is not being
City of Palo Alto Page 3
sold or transferred, so there is no documentary transfer tax.
Utility Users Tax
The new building would generate approximately $4,000 in UUT revenues per year.
One-Time Revenue
The proposed increase in commercial floor area would yield, on a one-time basis,
Development Impact Fees of $502,906.82 and $126,856.47 for housing and community
facilities, respectively.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (Attachment M)
was prepared for the project. It was determined that the project could have significant
biological and cultural impacts. The project however, would include mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will
be prepared~
NEXT STEPS:
If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval o~ approval with
additional conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the Architectural Review
Board for their review and recommendation to the City Council for final action.
TIME LINE
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review Period:
P&TC Meeting:
ARB Meeting:
Required Action by Council:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Project Description (Prepared by Applicant)
May 11,2005
June 9, 2005
June 15, -July 5, 2005
June 29, 2005
July 13,2005 (Tentative)
July 25,2005 (Tentative)
D. List of Proposed Sustain ability Measures (Prepared by Applicant)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
• Building desigri. should exceed minimum sustainability measures. Applicant should look
at sustainability measures from previous projects that have been submitted .
•
The site lies within.the LM(D)(3) zoning district. Under this zoning district designation, medical,
professional, and general business offices are a permitted use pursuant to c:ompliance with
Chapter 18.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). No exceptions to any site development
regulations accompany this request for preliminary review.
Site Information
The project site is located on the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road and
bounded to the south by Caltrans Right-of-Way, comprised of the Oregon Expressway exit loop
and access road to Embarcadero Road, to the west by the Bayshore Freeway; to the north by
Embarcadero Road, and the East Bayshore Road. The project site is 5.66 acres (246,442 square
feet). There are five existing structures with floor area totaling 41,654 square feet. All existing
buildings and paving would be removed as part of the project.
Driveway Entrance, Bicycle Access, and Excess Parking Spaces
In the previous application, the Transportation Division opposed the East Bayshore Road
driveway entrance for safety considerations. A condition of project approval had been
recommended this driveway be removed. The previous. plan did not include the recommended
bike path, which is now proposed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division.
The square footage of the project requires 244 parking spaces be provided and 300 are proposed,
excess of 56 spaces above the minimum requirement. The. previous application included a
condition of approval recommended by both staff and the Planning and Transportation for the
excess parking spaces to be converted to a hindscaped parking reserve. Staff would recommend
for this project the same condition regarding the excess parking spaces.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Project Description .
The project plans submitted by the applicant include only site plans and a landscape plan .. The
applicant's intent of this preliminary review is to obtain ARB confirmation on elements of the
previous application reviewed and generally accepted by the ARB on April 1, 2004, prior to
moving forward with a design for the proposed building. These elements would include the
location of both the building footprint and access driveways as well as the proposed landscape
plan.
Landscape Plan
2300 East Bayshore Road
04PLN-00I07
Preliminary ARB Review
"
• >
In an attempt to increase the "Gateway" characteristics of the site as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has proposed some changes to the landscape . plan not
previously reviewed by the ARB. These changes would include:
1) Construction of a 4'-5' tall wooden and pole fence with pressure treated green wood of the
type that could be found existing in the Baylands. This fence would be constructed along the
Embarcadero Road property line.
2) Connection of the "Baylands Interpretive Gardens", formerly proposed for just the street
comers of East Bayshore Road, along the entire frontage of East Bayshore Road and most of
the Watson Court frontage. .
3) Installation of decorative street paving at the vehicle entrances.
4) Remoyal of the existing concrete sidewalk along East Bayshore Road and Watson Court to be
replaced with new "integral colored" concrete reminiscent of colors found in the Palo Alto
Baylands.
5) Installation of public art and a wooden sign which would read "Welcome To the Palo Alto
B~ylands",.to be integrated with the "Iriterpretive Garden" at the.intersection of Embarcadero
and East Bayshore Roads.
6) Construction of a wooden trellis over a portion of the parking spaces.
7) Installation ofa bicycle path on the site connecting Watson Court to the existing bicycle path
along the southern portion of the site. This path currently crosses the freeway and terminates
aiEast Bayshore Road.
8) Revised design of the trash enclosure.
Sustainability
Included in the applicant's project description (Attachment A) is a discussion of sustainable
design characteristics· not part of the previous application. These would include a "Green
. Consultant" to be part of the design team to review the proposed development plans and make
recommendations and the installation of photovoltaic solar cell panels to the roof of the building.
Transportation Demand Management
The previous application included a condition of approval requmng the preparation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The applicant's project description
(Attachment A) includes additional details with respect to this TDM program. These would
include trip reducing employee amenities such as an on-site dining facility and recreational lounge
areas with showers. The applicant would also retain a transportation consultant to prepare a TDM
program, which could include carpool/vanpool, flextime, and telecommuting programs.
Additional project details, including a material sample board and "cut sheets", will be presented at
the meeting.
2300 East Bayshore Road
04PLN-OOI07
Preliminary ARB Review
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environnwntal review is required for this Preliminary Review application,' as it is not
considered a project Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When a project
application is filed, staffwill develop the Initial Study in compliance with CEQA guidelines.
Staff Note: The application was received on December 6, 2004. The plans were routed to city
staff for review. No comments were received prior to the completion of this report Any
comments received will be presented by staff at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: . Applicants Project Description
Attachment B Preliminary Development Plans (Board Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Dick Peery, Property Owner
Hoover Associates, Project Architect
Jim Baer
Prepared By: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
2300.East Bayshore Road
04PLN-00107
Preliminary ARB Review
, .
feet). There are five existing structures with floor area totaling 41,654 square feet. All existing
buildings and paving would be removed as part of the project.
Driveway Entrance, Bicycle Access, and Exce'ss Parking Spaces
In the previous application, the Transportation Division opposed the East Bayshore Road
driveway entrance for safety considerations. A condition of proje,ct approval had been
recommended this driveway be removed. The previous plan did not include the recommended
bike path, which is now proposed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division.
The square footage of the project requires 244 parking spaces be provided and 300 are proposed,
excess of 56 spaces above the minimum requirement. The previous application included a
condition of approval recommended by both staff and the Planning and Transportation for the
excess parking spaces to be converted to a landscaped.parking reserve. Staff would recommend
for this project the same condition regarding the excess parking spaces.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Project Description
The project plans 'submitted by the applicant include only site plans and a landscape plan. The
applicant's intent of this preliminary review is to obtain ARB confirmation on elements of the
previous application reviewed and generally accepted by the ARB on April I, 2004, prior to
moving forward with a design for the proposed bUilding. These elements would include the
location of both the building footprint and access driveways as well as the proposed landscape
plan.
Landscape Plan
In an attempt to increase the "Gateway" characteristics of the site as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has proposed some changes to the landscape plan not
previously reviewed by the ARB. These changes would include:
I} Construction of a 4'-5' tall wooden and pole fence with pressure treated green wood of the
type that could be found existing in the Baylands. This fence would be constructed along the
Embarcadero Road property line.
2) Connection of the "Baylands Interpretive Gardens", formerly proposed for just the street
comers of East Bayshore Road, along the entire frontage of East Bayshore Road and most of
the Watson Co~ frontage.
3) Installation of decorative street paving at the vehicle entrances.
4) Removal of the existing concrete sidewalk along East Bayshore Road and Watson Court to be
replaced with new "integral colored" concrete reminiscent of colors found in the Palo Alto
Baylands.
, 5) Installation of public art and a wooden sign which would read "Welcome To the Palo Alto
Baylands", to be integrated with the "Interpretive Garden" at the intersection of Embarcadero
and East Bayshore Roads.
6) Construction of a wooden trellis over a portion ofthe parking spaces.
2300 East Bayshore Road
04PLN-00I07
Preliminary ARB Review
· .
· ~
7) Installation of a bicycle path on the site connecting Watson Court to the existing bicycle path
along the southern portion of the site. This path currently crosses the freeway and terminates
at East Bayshore Road.
8) Revised design of the trash enclosure.
Sustain ability
Included in the applicant's project description (Attachment A) is a discussion of sustainable
design characteristics not part of the previous application. These would include a "Green
Consultant" to be part of the . design team to review the proposed development plans and make
recommendations and the installation of photo voltaic solar cell panels to the roof of the bUilding.
Transportation Demand Management
The previous application included a condition of approval requiring the preparation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The applicant's project description
(Attachment A) includes additional details with respect to this TDM program. These would
include trip reducing employee amenities such as an on-site dining facility and recreational lounge
areas with showers. The applicant would also retain a transportation consultant to prepare a TDM
program, which could include carpool/vanpool, flextime, and telecommuting programs ..
Additional project details, including a material sample board and "cut sheets'~, will be presented at
the meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for this Preliminary Review application, as it is not
considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When a project
application is filed, staff will develop the Initial Study in compliance with CEQA guidelines.
Staff Note: The application was received on December 6, 2004. The plans were routed to city
staff for review. No comments were received prior to the completion of this report. Any
comments received will be presented by staff at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:. ·Applicants Project Description
Attachment B Preliminary Development Plans (Board Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Dick Peery, Property Owner
Hoover Associates, Project Architect
Jim Baer
Prepared By: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
2300 East Bayshore Road
04PLN-00107
Preliminary ARB Review
? •
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS. Would the pro.ject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista? 1,2,7 X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state X
scenic highway? 1,2,7
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings? 1,2,7 X
d) ;Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely 1,2,3 X
:affect day or nighttime views in the
~area?
n. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as:an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
pro.iect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and 1 X
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) . Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson 1,7 (L-X
Act contract? 9),8
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in N/A X
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
m. Am QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the pro.iect:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? 1,6,7,10 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an 1,6,7,10
existing or projected air quality X
violation
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
cI;iteria pollutant for which the,
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state 1,6,7,
ambient air quality standard 10 X
(including releasing emissions which
'exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1 X
:concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a 'substantial number of people? 1,2 X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pro.iect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
. identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or 1,7 X
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, 1,7 X
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including; but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, 1,7 X
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or 1,7 X
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree 1,2,4,7,8 X
preservation policy or ordinance? ,12
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation 1,7 X
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. ·CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro.iect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
:in the significance of a historical 1,7
resource as defined in 15064.5? (L-7) X
b) :Cause a substantial adverse change
:in the significance of an 1,7
archaeological resource pursuant to (L-8) X
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or· 1,7
site or unique geologic feature? (L-4, X
L-8)
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside 0"1 1,7 X
formal cemeteries? (L-8)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the pro.iect:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk ofloss, injury, or
death involvin2:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist~Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based 7,9,10,
on other substantial evidence of a (N-8)
known fault? Refer to Division of X
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation .
Incorporated
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,7 X
(N-10)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 2,7 X
(N-5)
iv) Landslides? 7(N-5) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? 1,2,14 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
.project, and potentially result in on-
lor off-site landslide, lateral 2,7
.spreading, subsidence, liquefaction (N-5),
"or collapse? 14 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the 2,7
Uniform Building Code (1994), (N-5), X
creating substantial risks to life or 13
'Property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
. alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not NA
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routing transport, use, or 1,2,5 X
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the 1,2,5 X
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous NA
materials, substances, or waste
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
within one-quarter mile of an X
existine or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list ·of hazardous
.materials sites compiled pursuant to NA
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project 1 X
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
1) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people 1 X
residing or working the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or 1,2,7 X
emergency evacuation plan? (N-7),
11
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are NA
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the pro·ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,7,19 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to 1,2,7,8 X
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? 1,2,7 X
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pro.iect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the 1,7 X
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource ,
,recovery site delineated on a local
,general plan, specific plan or other 1,7 X
;land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levelS in excess of standards
established in the local general plan 2,5,7 X
or noise ordinance, or applicable
·standards of other a2encies?
b) Exposure of persons to. or generation
of excessive ground borne vibration 2,5,7
or eround borne noise levels? X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vidnity above levels existing without 2,5,7 X
the pro.iect?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise. levels in
the project vicinity above levels 2,5,7 X
existine without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, would
the project expose people residing or 1 X
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sourc~s Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV; RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial 1,2 X
phys~cal deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities 1;2 X
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the pro,tect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial 2,6,7
increase in either the number of (T-7, X
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity T-8),
ratio on roads, or congestion at 10
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county 2,6,10 X
congestion management agency for
desh!nated roads or hiehwavs?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change 1 X
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp 2,10 X
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? 1,2,11 X
t) Result in inadequate parking
capacity? 1,2,10 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative 1,2,7,
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, 10 X
bicycle racks)?
Page 12
· .
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable 2,16,19 X
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of 2,16,19 X
existing facilities, the constrnction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which 2,14 X
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, 2,17,19 X
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity 2,16,19 X
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existin2 commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to 2,15 X
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to 2,15 X
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment; substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
Page 13
'"
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation.
IncorDorated
sustaining levels, threaten to X
eliminate a plant or animal 1,2,5,7
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually ihnited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Culilulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when 1,2,7 X
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future pro.iects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, 1-19 X
either directly or indirectly?
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site
2. Project Plans, entitled "2300 East Bayshore Road" prepared by Hoover Associates, received May 11,2005
3. Project Documentation by Premier Properties, dated May 11,2005
4. Project Tree Survey and Tree Preservation Guidelines, McClenahan Consulting, June 4, 2003 and
Addendum dated July 21,2003
5. Project Description and Environmental Assessment Worksheet, received May 11,2005.
6. Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers Associates, dated June 2005.
7. . Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the
Comprehensive Plan
8. Palo Alto Municipal code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
9. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault Zoning Map
10. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division memoranda
11. City of Palo Alto, Fire Department memorandum
12. City of Palo Alto, Planning Arborist memorandum
13. City of Palo Alto, Building InspeGtion Division memorandum
14. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering.
15. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Operations
16. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Water Quality
17. City of Palo Alto, Utility Marketing Services memorandum
18. City of Palo Alto, Utilities Engineering (Electrical) memorandum
19. City of Palo Alto, Utilities Engineering (WGW)
Page 14
..
. ,
ExPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
1. Aesthetics
The proposed two-story office building will alter the existing character of the site, the most recent land
uses being a vacant restaurant (Scott's Seafood) and four vacant buildings occupied by the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation (PAMP). The new building would add mass and establish a new architectural
presence on a visible corner site however; the visual affect of this mass as viewed from off site would be
gre~tly reduced by the substantial building setback from Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The
new building would be taller and larger than building on adjacent sites, but will nevertheless be
compatible with these buildings. The distance from adjacent roadways and from other nearby buildings
would reduce the buildings' sense of scale.
The proposed project is required to meet the City of Palo Alto development standards and review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the new
construction would be compatible, harmonious and appropriate to the site and surrounding development.
The proposed project meets the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, LM(D)(3)
Limited Manufacturing zoning district, additional site. development and design regulations for
Commercial and Industrial Districts including Section 18.64.030(a)(2)(A) that requires the elimination of
glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter ofthe development.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
II. Agricultural Resources
Less than significant
None required
The·site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency. The site is riot zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the
Williamson Act.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required
ill. Air Quality·
Demolition and new construction activities could have a significant impact to localized air quality through
the release of respirable particulate matter concentrations. Sensitive receptors are defmed as children,
elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected by air quality problems. There are no such sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of the subject site.
The proposed project would consist of office uses. These uses do not typically create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable
odors when it is complete. It is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan
or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of
the effects on air quality will be during the period of site preparation and construction.
Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation
in the Bay Area. The project proposes to replace the existing buildings with office buildings that are
consistent with the policies of the LM(D)(3) zoning district and Comprehensive Plan. The trips generated
by the proposed use do not require a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts, as follows: .
Page 15
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, grading, paving, and landscaping
which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne
particulate matter. Dust related impacts could be considered potentially significant but can be mitigated
with the application of standard dust control measures.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval reducing the
potential negative impact of fugitive dust to less than significant: .
• All active construction areas shall be watered at lea~t twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recoverylrecycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
IV. Biological Resources
Less than significant
None required
No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species has been identified at the project site.
The site is developed with mature landscaping including street trees. Conditions of approval for the
proposed project require the developer to obtain City Arborist approval prior to the issuance of a building
penriit for; (a) the removal and/or relocation of regulated' and protected trees per the Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual, PAMC, Section 6.30 and 2.00; (b) foi~he landscape planting and irrigation plan; and
(c) for tree protection measures during construction phases of the project that must comply with and Tree
Preservation and Management Regulations, P AMC Section 8.10 'and the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical
Manual.
The existing trees on the site could provide potential nesting opportunities for birds, including songbirds.
These trees would be removed as part of the project. According to the City of Palo Alto's Naturalist, these
birds' nesting period extends from April-June. These nests are abandoned after each nesting period and
new nests are built the following year. The project will plant more trees than currently exist on site.
These additional trees would provide an increased amount of habitat for nesting birds. .
Residual Impact:
impact.
The project conditions include mitigation that results in a less than significant
Mitigation Measure #1: The application for a demolition permit shall require the developer to avoid the
removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation during the April 1 through June 31 bird nesting period to
the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys
shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be
conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees,
shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, or grading or other construction activity. Survey results shall
be validfor 21 days following the survey; therefore, ifvegetation or building removal is not started within
·21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction
sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas
to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the wildlife biologist.
In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150
feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or
Page 16
, .
. j.
· I
until the wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated,
and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.
V. Cultural Resources
The site is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building, four vacant office buildings, parking
facilities and landscaping. There are no known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity.
Residual Impact:
impact.
The project conditions include mitigations that result in a less than significant
Mitigation Measure #2: In the event of accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site,
work at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to
evaluate the find. At the applicant's expense the qualified archaeologist will peiform an archaeological
reconnaissance and develop mitigation measures to protect archaeological resources. In the event of
accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office shall be
notified immediately who will determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent
actions and mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e}.
VI. Geology and Soils
According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Plan), the project site is located in an area with a
high potential for liquefaction (Map N-5, Geotechnical Hazards) and the potential for violent ground
shaking during an earthquake (Map N-I 0, Ground Shaking Potential). Program N-73 of the Plan require
preparation of a report from an engineering geologist that reviews geologic, soils, and engineering reports
for developments in hazard areas.
A Geotechnical Investigation from United Soil Engineering, Inc has been submitted. The report
concludes the site to be suitable for the proposed development and provides recommendations to be
followed during the design and construction of the building. These provisions, as well as adherence to the
most recent version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), would be r"eviewed by the City of Palo Alto
Building, Inspections Division prior to the issuance of a building permit and continuously kept under
surveillance during construction by City building inspectors. '
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated asa wildland.
The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City's building permit approval
standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The proposed project site does not contain hazardous or toxic wastes as identified in the Comprehensive
Plan. However, it is not known if a past use of the site may have released hazardous substances into the
soil. Until recently, asbestos was used in many building materials. The existing buildings may contain
asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM's).
Conditions of project approval prior to the application for a demolition permit shall require the developer
to test for ACM's and, if necessary, provide for standard safety protocols and best management practices
during removal of any hazardous materials. Required protocols are set forth. in the California
Page 17
Occupational Safety and Health (CaIlOSIiA) regulations and the California Health and Safety Code.
ACM's and lead paint containing materials shall be handled only by trained construction workers and
disposed of in a manner prescribed by State Law. If the materials are handled and disposed of in
accordance with the regulations they should not pose a hazard either to the construction workers or to any
members of the public nearby or neighboring residents.
Additionally, the developer shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances survey for the site prior to
application for a building permit to determine the historic use of the site. If the results of the Phase I
surv.ey indicate the potential presence of hazardous substances, the developer shall conduct a Phase II
'survey to test soil samples at the site and shall comply with City standards for subsequent cleanup and
removal of hazardous substances, as necessary.
City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative
Hazardous Materials impacts of the project to less than significant.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Plan), the project site is located in a flood hazard
area (Map N-6, Flood Hazards). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard
Map identifies the project as being in flood zone AE8 (panel 0003E). Program N-S2 of the Plan requires
minimized exposure to flood hazardS' by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone
areas. City development standards require the applicant to meet with. the Public Works Engineering
Department prior to approval of the project to verify that the basicFEMA Flood Control construction
standards will be met.
The project would cover approximately 16% of the site where 30% is allowed by development standards
of the LM(D)(3) district. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or storm water run-off of the already developed site. The
City's Public Works Department requires the project to meet specific conditions of project approval that
require compliance with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge
and storm water run-off.
The site is in an area that typically has a high ground water table. A condition of project approval has
been added requiring the submittal of a site-specific soil report prior to building permit submittal. This
report is to identify the current ground water level at various locations on the site and if required, provide
recommendations for construction, dewatering, collection, filtration, testing and disposal of collected
groundwater.
City development standards and specific conditions of project approval will reduce hydrology and water
quality impacts of the project to less than significant. .
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required
IX. Land Use and Planning
The project replaces an existing developed use of the site for office buildings and does not conflict with
any land use plans for the site. The project complies will all massing, height, setback and lot coverage
Page 18
i'
standards for the LM(D)(3) zoning district and complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies for
ResearchlOfficePark.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required
X. Mineral Resources .
The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral
resources are expected.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XI. Noise
Primary noise sources impacting the site are Highway 101 to the South and Embarcadero Road to the
west. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Noise Exposure Contours Map (Map N-3) indicates the
site would be exposed to noise levels between 75 decibels adjacent to the freeway and between 65-70
decibels near East Bayshore Road. Policy N-39 of the Plan encourages the location of land uses in areas
with compatible noise environments. The Plan identifies noise exposure up to 70 decibels as normally
acceptable and up to 80 decibels as conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses.
Implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance is required (P AMC
9.IO) .. In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction management plan to
·minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses.
Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction activities. Typical noise sources would
include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the
building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new
building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated.
The.project will replace buildings of the same office use and eliminate the restaurant use on a site that is
not adjacent to residential land use or sensitive receptors. The new buildings would have HV AC units on
the roof that would generate noise. The building design would include sound proofmg measures to
mitigate for the off-site traffic noise.
The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Project related traffic would not
cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets.
Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC would reduce
construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XII. Population and Housing
The project would increase the square footage of office space at the site by approximately 32,279 non
exempt square feet which means more employees in Palo Alto that may require additional housing. Based
on the standard used by City staff for jobs created by development of 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of
commercial space, the additional square footage could result in 129 additional employees at the project
site over the current development. The project does not include any housing development and is subject to
a housing in-lieu fee based on 32,279 square feet of net new floor area. The fee as of June 13, 2005 is
$15.58 per square foot for a total fee of $502,906.82. The fee is payable in full at the time. of building
Page 19
pennit issuance. The actual fee due will be based on the building square footage on the fmal building
pennit plans. The fee rate is adjusted annually and the fee in effect at the time of building penn it issuance
is the fee required, PAMC, Section 16;47.
City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts ofthe project to less than significant.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
:xrn. Public Services
Fire
. None
None required
The project site is not located in a high fITe or wildlands fITe area. The project would be required to meet
Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a building permit.
Police
The project would not alter the use of the site and is not expect to result in the need for additional police
officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
The project does not include housing and is not subject to school impact fees.
Parks and Public Facilities
The project is subject to Development Impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries based on
the amount of net new square footage of 32,279. The park rate is $3.54 per square foot for a total fee of
$114,267.66. The community center rate is $0.20 per square foot for a total fee of $6,455.80. The library
rate is $0.19 per square foot for a total fee of $6,133.01. The total fees for parks and public facilities are
$121,140.00. The City may adjust these fees, and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance
is the·fee required. .
City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval would reduce
public service impacts to less than significant.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required
XIV. Recreation
The project could increase the number of employees to the site and thus, potentially, increase the usage of
nearby recreational areas, such as the Baylands Recreational Area. The project would include open grass
areas near both ends of the building that could be used for recreation purposes.
It is not anticipated that the proposed office use would accelerate the need for any additional off site
recreational facilities or pose substantial physical deterioration to existing offsite recreational facilities in
the vicinity.
Residual Impact: None
Mitigation Measures: None required
xv. Transportation
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the proposed project. The TIA included
the projects impact on current traffic volumes as well as the projected traffic volumes for 2008, the
·Page 20
recOl1!Ul
is
sance and develop mitigation measures to Protect archaeolOgical resources. In the event of
accideo",1 discovery of human remains on the site, the San", Clara County Coroner's Office shall be
notified immediately who will detennine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent
actions and mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
Page 22