Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-17 City Council (6)City of Palo4to City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:FEBRUARY 17, 2004 CMR: 155:04 SUBJECT: 795 EL CAMINO REAL [03-AP-13]: APPEAL BY ALAN B. ROGERS OF APPROVALS FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [03-V-20 AND 03-CUP-18] AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW [03- ARB-102, 03-EIA-14] FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONING DISTRICT REQUESTED BY THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD ALLOW A 41,500 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE (OUTPATIENT MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY) IN A NEW BUILDING (THE CLARK BUILDING). THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW A REDUCED STREET SETBACK FOR THE NEW FOUR-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (14.4 FEET, WHERE 20 FEET IS REQUIRED) AND INCREASED TOTAL SITE COVERAGE (31.2% WHERE 30% IS THE MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE). RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) to: 1.Deny the appeal (Attachment B), 2.Uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (Director’s) approvals of the Conditional Use Permit 03-CUP-18 and Variance 03-V-20 (Attachment C), and 3.Uphold the Director’s approval (Attachment D) of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) application (file 03-ARB- 102) which was based upon conditions of approval contained therein, and upon the associated addendum (Attachment F) to the 1996 EIR. BACKGROUND The project is the completion of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Urban Lane campus at 795 E1 Camino Real as envisioned in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by Council in 1996. The Council is requested to review the 2003 Director’s approvals related to this campus completion, which consists of the addition of the Clark Building (referred to in the 1996 EIR as Building D or Wellness Center) and a four-level above ground parking structure above the current parking podium. CMR:155:04 Page 1 of 4 The 1996 PAMF project included the relocation and limited expansion of its medical and research facilities located near Palo Alto’s downtown to a new 9.2 acre Urban Lane campus that would consist of three separate buildings (Buildings A, B/C and D) totaling approximately 355,300 square feet. The project EIR examined associated parking demand based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance standard of 1 space per 250 square feet, as well as an analysis of actual on-site parking needs based on staff and user numbers. The project was conditionally approved with a Deferred Parking Agreement (Attachment F). Under the provisions of this Agreement, the existing Buildings A and B/C have 66 deferred parking spaces (see Attachment I, ARB 12/18/03, Table 2 for a breakdown of parking analysis and compliance). The proposed parking structure was first designed as a five-story garage with 264 additional spaces for overall campus use. However, under recent ARB review and recommendations, the number of spaces was reduced to 189 (providing more than the required 166 spaces for the Clark Building and reducing the overall deferred spaces to 43), and the structure was reduced in mass from five levels to four. The design maintains provision for a fifth level if needed for future parking demand as determined by provisions of the 1997 Deferred Parking Agreement. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) staff report (Attachment G) summarizes and addresses the appellant’s specific charges relating to the Director’s December 18, 2003 approvals of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and variance. The approvals occurred after a noticed Director’s Hearing on December 4, 2003, and were based upon recommended conditions of approval of the December 18, 2003 ARB staff report. These conditions of approval formed the basis, along with the environmental addendum, for the Director’s December 30, 2003 approval of the ARB application. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held a public hearing of the appeal on January 28, 2004. The PTC recommended denial of the appeal (5-1-0-0 vote) as reflected in its meeting minutes (Attachment K). The PTC recommended adding two conditions: (1) do not allow street parking at the intersection of Wells and Urban Lane, and (2) perform an additional evaluation of the proposed constmction’s potential impacts upon Town & Country Center and Encina Avenue traffic. The review and approval process that occurred prior to the PTC review of the appeal is summarized in Attachment L attached to this report. It should be noted that, in addition to documents related to the CUP and variance that were within its scope to review, the PTC was forwarded the November 20, 2003 Addendum to the 1996 EIR. This Addendum is a project level analysis of the completion of the PAMF campus. CMR: 155:04 Page 2 of 4 On January 28, 2004, the PTC requested an additional traffic field study and analysis to determine the traffic impacts on Town & Country Center and Encina Avenue, with specific attention given to cut through traffic. PAMF commissioned Fehr & Peers Traffic Consultants to conduct a field survey on February 4, 2004. The traffic report, dated February 6, 2004 (Attachment E) concluded the combined capacity of adjacent roadways (Encina, Wells, and Urban Lane) and the signalized main entrance to PAMF are more than adequate to carry the existing traffic generated by the existing local developments along with the addition of the Clark Building. The report also concluded that the anaount of cut through traffic occurring between Town and Country and PAMF is less than significant and there is a valid business connection between the two uses. No recommendations were made to modify the existing traffic circulation. The City Planning Transportation Division reviewed and agrees with the traffic report conclusions. The complete packet of approved plans approved by ARB is included with this report as Attachment M. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Record of Council Land Use Action Attachment B: Alan Rogers appeal dated December 23, 2003 Attachment C: Director’s approvals of CUP and Variance dated December 18, 2003 Attachment D: Director’s approval of ARB application dated December 30, 2003 Attachment E: Fehr and Peers Supplemental Traffic Analysis, February 6, 2004 Attachment F: Addendum to 1996 EIR dated November 20, 2003 (Limited Packet) Attachment G: PTC staff report dated January 28, 2004 (Limited Packet) Attachment H: Letter informing appellant of ARB application approval and appeal period (Limited Packet) Attachment I: ARB Proceedings (Limited Packet) including: ¯Preliminary ARB Review, August 7, 2003 ¯ARB Initial Review, November 6, 2003 ¯ARB Public Hearing, November 20, 2003 ¯ARB Public Hearing, December 18, 2003 Attachment J: Letter of Project Approval and Conditions of Approval for 1996 PAMF Conditional Use Permit (94-UP-8), April 15, 1997 (Limited Packet) Attachment K: PTC minutes of January 28, 2004 meeting (Limited Packet) Attachment L: Review and approval process prior to January 28, 2004 PTC heating (Limited Packet) Attachment M: Approved Plans dated December 10, 2003 (Council only) CMR:155:04 Page 3 of 4 COPIES David Jury Curtis Snyder Alan Rogers Herb Borock DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~ ’~ "~.~:.z-;~- ~~EV~ E~4/S LiE ~ CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Director of Planning and C~unity Environment EMILY HKRRISO~-- - Assistant City Manager CMR:155:04 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 795 EL CAMINO REAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [03-CUP-18], VARIANCE [O3-V-20], ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW [03-ARB-102], ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT [03-EIA-14] (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, APPLICANT) On INSERT DATE the Council of the City of Palo Alto denied the appeal by Alan Rogers [03-AP-13] and approved the Architectural Review, Variance and Conditional Use Permit applications for the !ocation and construction of the Clark Building (formerly referred to as Building D), a four-level above grade parking structure, landscaping and various site improvements, and extension of medical office use into the proposed structures in the Public Facility zone district, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 18, 2003, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved a Variance [03-V-20]and a Conditional Use Permit [03-CUP-18] amending an existing use permit (94-UP-8) and on December 30, 2003, the Director approved the Architectural Review application for the same development project [03-ARB-102, 03-EIA-14] . The project is the expansion of the existing conditiona! use (outpatient medical office facility) into a new 41,500 square foot building, the Clark Building or Building D, a four-level above grade parking structure containing 189 parking spaces, landscaping and various site improvements as per attached plans at 795 E1 Camino Rea!. The Variance would allow a reduced street setback for the new parking structure (14.4 feet, where 20 feet is required) and increased total site coverage (31.2% where 30% is the maximum site coverage). B. Documentation of these approvals include: (i) a December 30, 2003, letter to the applicant documenting the Director’s approval of the ARB application, including Conditions of Approval and procedure for protesting exactions, and (2) a December 31, 2003 letter to public speakers on the project informing them of the Director’s approval of the ARB application and noting the appeal period end date on January 12, 2004. C. Prior to the approvals, there were five public hearings on the project including: (!) two preliminary reviews and two formal reviews of the project at public hearings by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), who recommended approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the hearing dates were August 7, November 6, November 20 and December 18, 2003) and (2) one Director’s Hearing on December 4, 2003 regarding the proposed Variance and Conditional Use Permit [03-V-20 and 03-CUP- 18], during which the Hearing Officer received the Administrative Record that included staff reports and plans for the above referenced ARB meetings and the Addendum to the 1996 EIR and considered testimony by the applicant and public (Alan Rogers and Herb Borock) . SECTION 2. Environmental Review.Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15162, it was determined that a subsequent EIR to the certified 1996 PAMF EIR was not necessary pursuant to the fol!owing findings: (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (i) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Discussion: No substantial changes are proposed for the Clark Building or the parking structure from that identified in the 1996 EIR. The square footage of both facilities has been reduced, rather than substantially increased, and the severity of potential environmental effects that were previously identified in the 1996 EIR have not been increased by the current proposed project. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified~ significant effects. Discussion: The 1996 EIR adequately addressed all potential environmental effects of the PAMF campus that included a conservative analysis (worst case scenario) of the Clark Building and parking structure. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects are presented by the current project. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. Discussion: The current project presents no new information of substantial importance. No additional significant effects not discussed in the 1996 EIR are presented by the current project. (B) Significant effects previousIy examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. Discussion: Due to the reduction in size of the Clark Building, the environmenta! effects due to the current project are less severe than shown in the previous EIR. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Discussion: There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that relate to the current project. PAMF has willingly complied with the mitigation measures of the 1996 EIR. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but he project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Discussion: There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. None of the above conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred due to the current PAMF project, and the City prepared an Addendum to the 1996 EIR to provide project specific environmental analysis for the Clark Building and parking structure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (a): The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. A courtesy copy of the Addendum dated November 20, 2003 was mailed along with the ARB November 20, 2003 staff report to the appellant prior to the ARB November 20, 2003 meeting. The appellant was formally noticed for all of the above listed meetings regarding the proposed project. Courtesy copies of the December 18, 2003 approval with conditions for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance and December 30, 2003 letter with conditions for the ARB recommendation on the project were also sent to the appellant. Throughout the project process, the original 1996 EIR and all other PAMF project files have been available upon request for public review in the Planning Division on the 5th floor of the City Hall. Additionally, the current PAMF project file with all supporting documents is available for public review in the Development Center. No requests from the appellant were received by the Planning Division to review any of these documents. SECTION 3.Variance Findings i. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the PAMF Campus property that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that: a.The Clark Building conforms to the Public Facilities zone district front side and rear setback requirements. The parking structure conforms to side and rear setback requirements but needs a variance for a reduced street setback of 14.35 feet where 20 feet is required. A Design Enhancement Exception (95-DEE-3) was approved in 1995 to permit a 15-foot setback for Building B and a 10-foot setback for Building C on Urban Lane. A variance was processed for the parking structure due to the additional request for increased lot coverage created by the build-out of the Clark Building. Modified setbacks and lot coverage for the parking structure and Clark Building are justified due to the unique nature of this property. First, the PAMF campus is located adjacent to the urban core of Palo Alto where the streetscape is 4 established with buildings abutting sidewalks on the street with little or no setback. Urban Lane serves as an urban street through a medica! facility complex of buildings with sidewalks to serve pedestrians using the medical buildings in much the same way as pedestrians access businesses and services in the urban core. Second, Urban Lane is a private street with a dedicated easement for public ingress and egress. Ordinarily, the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance only apply to public right-of-ways - not private streets. They are being applied in this case only because of the ingress and egress easement. However, due to the private nature of the street, the reduced setbacks are justified. b. Coverage - The 1996 EIR included the buildout of the PAMF Campus with Building D (Clark Building) and the Parking Structure for an overall coverage of 31.9%. Buildings A, B and C have been constructed with a lot coverage of 20.6%. The original project approvals anticipated that the construction of the parking structure would result in a possible 31.9% lot coverage. The completion of the Clark Building and the Parking Structure would bring the total !ot coverage to 31.2% that is less than the !ot coverage analyzed in the original EIR for the site. 2. The granting of the variance application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that : Due to the physical constraints of the property, including the structural infrastructure of the existing parking podium, the ground water table elevation and weight-bearing capacity of site soils and geology that limit the extent of underground parking that can be built on the property, the modified lot coverage and setback are justified. 3.The granting of the variance application will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that : a.A detailed EIR was prepared and certified for the PAMF Campus in 1996 that included reduced setbacks for buildings on Urban Lane and an overall lot coverage of up to 31.9% and identified no public health or safety impacts that would result from construction of the entire PAMF Campus including Building D (Clark Building) and the Parking Structure. The general welfare and convenience of the Palo Alto and convenience of the Palo Alto community-at-large would be wel! served by the completion of the PAMF Campus with the Clark Building and associated Parking Structure. SECTION 4.Variance Granted. Variance No. 03-V-20 is granted for a reduced street setback for the new PAMF four-level parking structure (14.4 feet, where 20 feet is required) and increased total site coverage (31.2% where 30% is the maximum site coverage). SECTION 5.Conditions of Approval. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans dated December I0, 2003 on file at the Development Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. A copy of this approval shall be printed on the first page of the blueprints submitted for building permit. o Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the Clark Building and Parking Structure shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and shall be subject to ARB recommended conditions of project approval. SECTION 6.Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that: a. The construction and use of the Clark Building and parking structure, as conditioned, will be conducted in an orderly and safe manner. b. The use and location of the buildings is consistent with the master plan for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus that was included in the certified 1996 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR identified no site-specific significant adverse environmental impacts that would affect vicinity properties so long as all mitigation measures are implemented. The amended use permit will not change the original conditions of approval for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus or mitigation measures of the 1996 EIR which include: i. EIR Mitigation Measures C.I, C.2 and C.3 regarding visual, light and glare impacts that could otherwise 6 adversely affect adjacent properties, particularly the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue. o EIR Mitigation Measure J.2 which governs future noise levels of PAMF project stationary equipment, such as that to be !ocated on the southerly service road adjacent to properties on the north side of Encina Avenue, and the Use Permit and EIR mitigation measure that govern the noise levels permitted at the southerly property line adjacent to the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue. c. The new four level parking structure provides adequate and convenient parking for the new Clark Building. The parking structure is located above the existing subterranean parking and adds 189 new parking spaces that is more than the required 166 for the Clark Building. A new exterior elevator is conveniently located near the main entrance to the Clark Building that provides access to the subterranean parking levels. d. The amended use permit will not change the 1997 Deferred Parking Agreement. The full build-out of the PAMF campus requires 1,346 parking spaces, 76 of which are accessible, and I0 of those are van accessible. The new parking structure combined with the existing parking provides 1,303 parking spaces, 67 of which are accessible, and 5 of those are van accessible. 43 parking spaces remain deferred, of which 9 are accessible, and 5 of those are van accessible. Additionally, 135 bicycle parking spaces are required for the full buildout of the PAMF campus (81 Class I and 54 Class II). There are 68 Class I and 45 Class II bicycle parking spaces that currently exist on the campus. The Clark Building would provide an additional 6 Class II spaces near the front entrance. 13 Class I and 3 class II bicycle parking spaces remain deferred under the conditions of the 1997 Deferred Parking Agreement. 2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that: a.The Comprehensive Plan designation of Major Institution/Special Facilities is intended for institutional, academic, governmenta!, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or are operated as non-profit organizations as is the case with PAMF. b. The use as an outpatient medical facility is compatible with the allowed uses in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district and is allowed with a use permit. The proposed use is identical to the current use of the existing buildings that comprise the PAMF campus. The facility meets all development requirements of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 7.Conditiona! Use Permit Granted. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-CUP-18 is granted for PAMF amending existing use permit 94-UP-8 (795 E1 Camino Rea! - PAMF Urban Lane Campus) for the location and construction of the Clark Building (formerly referred to as Building D), a four-level above grade parking structure, landscaping and various site improvements as per attached plans at 795 E1 Camino Real, Public Facilities (PF) Zone District, Palo Alto, California. SECTION 8.Conditions of Approval. The conditional uses approved under this permit are outpatient medical facility occupying approximately 41,500 square feet and associated four-leve! parking structure (including the existing two-level subterranean beneath and on-grade level). The addition of a fifth above-grade level shall be permitted if determined necessary per the requirements of the 1997 Deferred Parking Agreement and shall be subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the Clark Building and Parking Structure shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and shall be subject to ARB recommended conditions of project approval. SECTION 9.Architectural Review Findings The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project meets the following policies for Major Institution/Special facilities, including: Land Use Element ¯Policy L-I Continue current City policy !imiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. ¯Policy L-48 Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-77 Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. Transporta ti on E1 emen t ¯ Policy T-I Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. ¯ Policy T-23 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture,art,and interesting architectural details. Business and Economic Element ¯Policy B-25 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along E1 Camino Real. Encourage the development of pedestrian- oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the E1 Camino corridor. 2.The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that: The proposed Building D (Clark Building) and parking structure were included in the master plan for the PAMF campus and are currently proposed as contemporary buildings on the same campus with different, yet compatible, architecture. 3.The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that: The use as a medical outpatient facility (Wellness Center) was included in the original master plan for the overall functions of the PAMF campus. The proposed project includes adequate parking (auto with accessible spaces and bicycle) for the new building as well as other services on the campus and is in compliance with the 1997 Deferred Parking Agreement for the overall PAMF campus. 4.The design is compatible with the character of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation in that: It is similar in massing, color palette and finish materials. The use of medium red vertical columns in both the Clark Building and the parking structure tie into the dominant medium red columns of the trellis throughout the PAMF campus. The new buildings complete the urban scale of Urban Lane. 5.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between differentdesignated land uses in that: It maintains the same land use as a medical out-patient facility on the site and is compatible with adjacent commercial and transit related land uses. 9 6.The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that: The new PAMF buildings are similar in mass and materials but vary the architecture that is urban and transitions well to the downtown urban core to the east of the property. 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 in that : The campus feel and garden components of the existing site are maintained with the introduction of the Clark Building. The new parking structure replaces current surface parking. A new glass art elevator enclosure at the Clark Building will be visible from the downtown core and serves as a welcoming "beacon" to pedestrians using the Homer Avenue Undercrossing. 8.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that: The garden elements will remain between the Clark Building and the parking structure. One large oak tree and several redwood trees wil! be relocated on the site, along with the introduction of new trees, to serve as landscape screening between the Caltrain right-of-way and the parking structure. 9.Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that: The new parking structure adds convenient parking with additional accessible spaces that were deferred in the original design of the PAMF campus. i0.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that: Pedestrian and bicycle paths connect on and off-site pathways that connect to the transit center and downtown core of Palo Alto. The entrance to the Clark Building is convenient to the Homer Avenue Undercrossing, as well as from the existing buildings fronting on E1 Camino Real. ii.Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that: The Clark Building would be built on an area that was temporarily developed as a landscaped plaza until such time as the building would be added to the campus, and the new parking structure will be built over the existing parking podium. Existing oak and redwood trees will be relocated on the site to further screen these buildings. 12.The new buildings have the same color palette as the i0 existing buildings and bring in the use of stone that is in the same color family as the medium dark wainscot of the main buildings. The introduction of medium-red linear elements, referencing the existing trellis columns that are a connecting landscape element campus-wide, will be extended into the parking structure composition as vertical supports and horizontal railings. 13.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that: The redwood trees effectively screen the parking structure from the train tracks and Alma Street, and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that the parking structure continues the garden concept into the design of terraced decks with many planter boxes. 14.Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. 15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements, such as the use of glass for natural daylighting and the open decks of the parking garage (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C) Building siting and landscape elements. (D) The design utilizes the LEEDs rating system to guide energy efficiency and will be comparable to a certified level, possibly silver. (E) PAMF has made a commitment to participate in the Palo Alto wind energy program. The proposed project is consistent with the project reviewed in the environmental impact report and approved by the City Council in January 1996. SECTION i0. Architectural Review Granted. Architectura! Review Permit No. 03-ARB-102 is granted for development in the Public Facilities Zoning District to construct a new +41,000 square foot medical office building (Clark Building) and a new +189 space, 4-1evel parking structure and related site improvements at the existing medical facility. ii SECTION ii. Conditions of Approval. BUILDING DIVISION Prior to Submittal for Building Permit I.Separate building permits shall be required for the construction of each building. Proposed Building D is an entirely new building and the proposed parking structure shall be considered as an addition to the existing underground parking garage. 2.Building D shall be considered as a medical office building and will not be plan checked or inspected for compliance with the OSHPD-3 regulations pertaining to licensed clinics. 3.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structura!, electrica!, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 4.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shal! be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 5.The location of the Building D’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 form the exterior. 6.During the construction of the new structures, all necessary measures shall be taken to maintain safety and occupancy requirements for employees and visitors to the existing occupied buildings. FIRE DEPARTMENT Prior to Submittal for Buildinq Permit 7.The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Fire Department to ensure that the project wil! provide adequate Fire Access throughout the property. 8.A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1999 Edition, )PAMCI5.04.160) . Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, (PAMC!5.04.083) . NOTE: Building plans will not be approved 12 unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. 9.An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location, (2001CBC904.3.2) . Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCIS.04.083) . i0. Underground fire supply system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau (PAMClS.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. Ii. An approved, adequate water supply and additional fire hydrants, as needed, shall be provided in accordance with Appendices III-A and III-B of the 2001 California Fire Code (2001CFC903) 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. 12.Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (65,000 ibs.) and turning radius (36’ 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-f!oor exterior of all buildings on-site. (2001CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The Current proposal does not meet this requirement. Any acceptance of alternate methods regarding fire access will include an upgrade at applicant’s expense of one or more signal intersections with the Opticom Preemption System, and at least one 50 foot section of the existing 16 foot access land to accommodate aerial ladder operations. 13. 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. (PAMCI5.04.120) 14. Applicant shall meet with Planning, Bldg., Fire, Public Works and Utilities to work out logistical issues involved with maintaining operation of the site during construction. PUBLIC WORKS Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 13 15. The applicant shall obtain a Public Works encroachment permit for that portion of the parking structure that encroaches into the air space of the Urban Lane easement. No part of the parking structure shall encroach over the paved surface area of Urban Lane. 16. A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan wil! only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities wil! be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 17. The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant will be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project’~ impact on city storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. Evaluate the previously installed on-site storm drainage system to verify that it continues to satisfy this condition regarding detention. 18. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shal! be maintained. 19.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 wil! take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 20.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation volume exceeds i00 cubic yards. 21.The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit 14 or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, or other features constructed in the public right-of- way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. PAMC, Sec. 12.12.010. The building permit associated with this application will not be issued until the encroachment permit or temporary lease has been approved. 22. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 23.The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 24. This proposed development would disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. 25. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek" logo in blue co!or on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the !ogo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in 15 the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. During Construction 26.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 27.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 28.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s)for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 29.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization 30. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. Al! off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post- deve!opments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off. PLANNING DIVISION ARBORIST Prior to Director’s Hearing for Approval of ARB Recommendation 31. Provide a site plan showing existing conditions, including landscaping, utilities, structures, and all minimum information required in the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section 6.00. 32. Provide a mitigation plan for protected oak #57 for selected re-location site. 33. Tree Survey Plan. The applicant shall submit a tree survey prepared by a certified arborist (project arborist) and locate accurate tree trunk locations and dripline of 16 all trees on site, and include trees in staging areas, transport routes and cueing areas. The Survey shal! be consistent with the criteria in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.20. 34. Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Survey Report, the applicant shall submit a tree appraisal or replacement value of all trees on site, both trees removed and trees to be preserved (each tree listed separately and formula used). The appraisal shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.40. 35. Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. The plan shal! be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. All specific recommendations from the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout construction. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact number. 36. Project Arborist shall be selected for the project as required in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30. The Project Arborist shall be conducting al! required inspections and be consulted in any activity involving the welfare of the trees to be retained. Prior to Submittal for Buildinq Permit 37. Landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant 17 species, quantity, size, and locations. c.Irrigation schedule and plan. d.Fence !ocations. e.Lighting plan with photometric data. f.Trees to be retained shal! be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. g. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, sha!l be insta!led per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. h. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. i. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. j. Landscape Plan shall ensure that the backflow preventer is adequately obscured either by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, covering the pipes with a green wire cage, or painted dark green to minimize visibility. 38. Landscape plan shall be consistent with PAMC 18.83, Design Standards--Landscaping in Parking Facilities and required landscape areas. 39.Planning staff shall review and approve of the location, size and screening of all above ground transformers, backflow preventers and other pad mounted equipment required by Utilities Department. After approval, any revision involving above ground utilities shall be reviewed by Planning staff. 40. All sidewalks, plaza and hardscape areas adjacent to trees (new and existing) sha!l specify on the civil drawings engineered structural soil (attached) as a base course materia! to a depth of 24-inches minimum to achieve and promote long term 18 growth and minimize damage to the infrastructure from tree roots. 41. The grading plan shall be reviewed by Public Works Engineering and include provision for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPS) . Base course material for the parking area shall specify engineered structura! soil to a minimum of 30-inch depth (specifications attached). 42. Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide soils lab report to the City Arborist verifying that the following soil mix has been delivered to the site. a. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site) *65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarse grade) *15% clay *10% !/4-inch fir bark *10% volcanic rock *Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per yard in the 12-inch area surrounding each root ball. Prior To Issuance of Demolition, Gradinq or Building Permit 43. Tree Protection Instructions. All recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual (TTM) implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A separate sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS shal! accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall also contain the arborist report (Revised report to Be Determined, dated XXXXXX). This sheet shal! clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed. 44. All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way. 45. The Planning Staff shall review and approve of the location, size and screening of all above ground transformers, backflow 19 preventers and other pad mounted equipment required by Utilities Department. After approva! or during construction, any revision involving above ground utilities shall be reviewed by Planning staff. 46. All sidewalks, plaza and hardscape areas adjacent to trees (new and existing) shall specify on the civil drawings engineered structural soi! (attached) as a base course material to a depth of 24-inches minimum to achieve and promote !ong term growth and minimize damage to the infrastructure from tree roots. 47. Inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined in the City Tree Technica! Manual, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the final set of plans submitted for the building permit. 48. Tree Protection Statement: ~A written statement shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition, grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 49. Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, i) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soi! conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. Type I Tree Protection The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must be !ocated on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, an appropriate grade leve! concrete base may support the posts. Type II Tree Protection For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the 2O planting strip shall be enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use. Type III Tree Protection Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter pit, shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch and overlaid with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely (slats shall not be allowed to dig into the bark). During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the City Arborist Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). ’Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x i!-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.ii0.~ During Construction 50. Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. 51. All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 52. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 53. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be 21 altered. c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. d.Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during all phases of construction per the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before fina! inspection is requested. 54. Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974. Prior To Occupancy 55. Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 56. Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and the Best Management Practice: Tree Pruning (ANSI A300-Part I, American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices, Pruning) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. PLANNING DIVISION - HOUSING 57. This project is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on 41,500 square feet of net new floor area. The fee as of May 8, 2003 is $15.24 per square foot for an estimated total fee due of $632,460.00. The fee is payable in full at the time of building permit issuance. The actual fee due will be based on the building square footage on the final building permit plans. The fee rate is adjusted annually as of May 8 and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. (Section 16.47) 22 UTILITIES MARKETING SERVISES Prior to Director’s Hearing for Approval of ARB Recommendation 58. The applicant shall submit an updated Water Use Calculations form for landscape water efficiency standards for review and approval by Department of Utilities, Utilities Marketing Services staff. PUBLIC WORKS -WATER QUALITY/ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 59. A sampling !ocation must be provided for sampling of the wastewater from the new clinic building. The sampling location must be either a manhole or Christy-type box allowing visual inspection of the waste stream as well as sampling access. The building plans must include detailed plans for the sampling location. 60. PAMC Section 16.09.032(b) (9) prohibits the use of copper or copper alloys, including brass, in sewer lines except for sink traps and associated connecting pipes. The building plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 61. PAMC Section 16.09.106(e) requires that new dumpster areas shall be covered. Any new dumpster area associated with the project shal! be covered, and shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area. 62. Any drain plumbing for interior levels of the new parking garage must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of i00 gal!ons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC Section 16.032(B)(17)). UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 63. PAMF has made provision for providing electric service to the proposed Building D through their internal electrical distribution system. PAMF has already installed/stubbed out conduit for Building D per their master plan. All the work/installation inside the building (after the main meter) must conform to National Electric Code/Building Codes and it must be inspected and approved by the Building Department/Inspector. 23 Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 64. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 65. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within i0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 66. 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 b included with the preliminary submittal. 67. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. 68. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shal! 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. 69. 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. 70. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities wil! be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as wel! as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 71. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan 24 review. During Construction 72. 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. 73. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227- 2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. After Construction & Prior to Finalization 74. 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 75. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 76.All fees must be paid. 77. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. UTILITIES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER Prior to Submitta! for Buildinq Permit 78. The plans show patio areas alongside building D encroaching into the public utilities easement. The plans show decorative concrete and retaining wal! structures in these areas over the existing utility mains. No structures can be installed over the existing utilities nor can decorative concrete pavements be used unless an agreement is entered into prior to installation where PAMF is responsible for the restoration of the decorative concrete if the City needs to repair the utilities. Additionally, no trees are allowed to be planted over the existing utilities, bushes are ok. 25 79. 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.) . 80. 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. 81. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes al! costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. Prior to Issuance of Buildinq Permit 82. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work unti! the submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 83. The applicant shall pay the 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. 84. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 85. 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 an 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. 86. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required contro! equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 87. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 88. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including a!l fir9 department’s requirements. 89. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 90. An approved detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the 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. 27 91. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 92. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans Show During Construction 93. The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. 94. The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling. 95. The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to new underground facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for re!ocating the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to accommodate new storm drains, with the prior approval of the Utility Department. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the re!ocation of the utility mains and/or services. Sanitary sewer laterals will need to be replaced for the full length of the lateral (if possible) per the Utility Standards. Sanitary sewer mains cannot be replaced. 96. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas and wastewater. 97. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must al!ow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 98. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector. Inspection costs shal! be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of construction. 99. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 28 I00. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division, inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. I01. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 102. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 103. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651- latest edition. 104. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 105. All customer gas piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection division before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department provided that the customer’s piping conforms to the Utility Standards. 106. Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new submittals, as specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the utilities engineering section before making any change. PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 107. Provide information regarding trash and recycling areas for the campus. TRANSPORTATION 108. The 1995 DEIR identified a project impact and mitigation for 29 the ECR/Page Mill intersection (including impacts from Building D) . The mitigation was identified as a 6% share of the cost of the proposed improvement (pIV.B-82) . Only a conceptual level cost estimate was made at that time. The actual amount would be payable when the City begins its planning for construction of the improvement project. This has not occurred yet, nor is a better cost estimate yet available. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit -Additional Review by Planning Transportation Division 109. Parking structure stall and layout dimensions shall be reviewed by the Planning Transportation Division. !i0. The Transportation Division requires a drawing showing the City’s construction plan for the Homer undercrossing and its connection to the bike path overlaid with the Building D plans, to insure that there are. no conflicts in this area. Additionally, the impact of construction of this building on the bike path and tunnel, and vice versa, needs to be evaluated. Construction of this building should not be permittedoto close either the bike path or the tunne! access. !Ii. Bicycle parking quantity, type and locations need to be looked at carefully. Bike parking is required for patients and visitors (Class III, on grade near the main entrance) and staff and employees (Class I in a reasonably proximate location Racks and lockers must be of a make and model acceptable to the Transportation Division. 112. Where Building D is immediately adjacent to the City s bike path, appropriate lighting must be provided to mitigate the loss of other lighting that now falls on the path. 113. Traffic exiting the above grade levels of the parking structure and surface exits onto Urban Lane must have good visibility of oncoming traffic. Thus, shrubs must not exceed 2-1/2 feet natural growth height next to these exits, particularly where they cross sidewalks, nor may any other obstacle or wall be over 3 feet high in these areas. 114. Submit a plan to describe how PAMF shall direct patients and visitors to access Building D by car and on foot. SECTION 9.Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of counci! approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c) 3O PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney 31 CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk Attachment B APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINIS’I To be flied in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrato.ri/!~i/z./i Appiic~tion No. 0 Name of Appellant Address /z-/~ i--- Street Receipt No. U /~ .... ~ Phone (~-~’~ r- -,- Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY: A~sessor s Parcel No. Street Address Zone District Name of Proper~y O~’vndr (if other than appellant) Property Owner’s Address ~"-- ~..__ "X Street "-City The decision of theZoning Administrator dated whereby the application of (varianceiuge permit) reasons stated in the attached tether (in duplicate). Date ~J~f~ 4 ~ ...~ ~,,_- ~J ~’ V Signature of Appellant (original applicant) (approvedk~nied) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CIT~-COUNCIL: !.... 19 for a ¯ ~s hereby appealed for the Date Approved D enied Remarks and!or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION:INSPECTION SERVICE_ ~ Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 2. 8. 4. 5. 12/89 /: -\ Attachment C Application No. 03-V-20; 795 E1 Camino Real (PA_M~: - Clark Building and ParMng Structure) Plmn_nin~ Dive.on XTariance 03-V-20 is approved for the Palo _Qto Medical Foundation (PA_h~F), 795 E1 Camino ¯. 1-~.~ for the new parking struc~-ure where 20 feet zs r~qu~r~d b,, zonin~ (Public Facflifies Dis~-ict), and (b) 3 !.2% lot coverage for the Clark ........I~ :sauare xooz parcel whereBuilamg ano me p -ark~g snmcrure (! 12.1 !0 square ieet) on the PF zoning allows a maximum lot coverage o530%: " FI2x ,OEqGS There are exceptional or e.~aordinmry .ckvcm:nstances,.or conditions applicable to the Campus property that.donor appty generally to propert3.,, in the same .district in that: Setbaclc - Urban Lane is a pri-vate road wifi~n the PAaNgF Campus with public access that was 0~iginalty desigmed to crea~e an urban fed with buildings ~at are close to the street. A Design Enhancement Exception (95-DEE-3)-was approved iint995 for Urban Lane to reduce street setbacks 5 ~*o 15 ~ee~ ~om the :_0-zoot requirement. From ©-than Lane. the ,existing Building B has a if,foot.sethadq and:the :existing Building C has :a 10-foot setback. The original 1996 EIR and the Ci~; Manager’s Report(CiviR=!04;96) states thin Btfilding D. (now r.e~%rred to .as the ,Clark Building)~ould have :a zero setback at one point. The proposed t4.35 foot setback fo~ the Parldng .S~-ucm~e associated with the construction of the Cla~k B~flding is consistent with the ordeal master plan for the PA_MF Campus and with the ! 995 DEE for the first-phase of construction.of the site. Surrounding properties ,-do :not have the same PF zoning desi~m~a~ion. However.. the warehouses ,on Wdis Avenue, the Holiday Inn -to the north. ,some ’buildings on Encina Avenue and the buildings in the urban co~e :to the east of _Q_ma Street generally do not provide 20-foot street setbach. Coverage - The 1996 EIR included the buildout of the PA_k~ Campus with Building D (Clark Building) and the Par-tdng Structtt~e for an overall coverage of 31.9%. Buildings A, B and C have been constrncmd with a lot coverage .of 20.6%. The ori~ project approvals anticipated that .the construction of the parking structure would ~esuh in a possible .31.9% lot coverage. _The comMetion of the Clark Building and-the Parking Structure would bring the total lo~ coverage to 31.2%. That is less than the lot coverage analyzed i~ the original E~ for the site. 250 lq.ammJlton Avm~ne RO. Bo): 10250 P~o_’adto, C_.~ 9-!303 6~03291!~= 2.The ~anin~ of the v~-iance applicaiion is necessm~y for the preservation and enjoy~nem of a substantial properb7 ri~ of the applicant: and to preveni unreasonable properb.,~ loss or tmnecessa_~,.hardship in that: Coverage- There a~e physical ~onstraints, including ~otmd wmer.table.elevation :and the wei_~_ht-bearing capaci~’ of site soils :and ~eolo~, that limit the ex~tent of:tmder~ound pa~dng that can feasibly be constructed on the property. _The buitdout of the P_QVfF Campus demands par -kLug that can o~y be met through construction of the abo~e ~ound partdng su~acmre that results in a ~eater than 30% tot covera=~e. The approved !997 Deferred P.arking A~eement .acknowledged that is wras not x%asible :to -reduce.the size of the P_AlvIF facilities at the Urban Lane Campus in order to ~reduce the associated par ~ldng demand and still achieve PAMF and City objectives of relocating most of the P.QX/fF facilities out :of the Downtown-area. Adjacent properties with CommerCial Ser~dce,:and~C0mmuniD~.Commercial .zoning are not ~estricted :by :stay coverage limitations and the ~miance is necessary for PA~Mi enjoy properry.ri~ts similar ~o those ofsu~oundin=~ property- o~ners re~arding coverage. The mzantin_~ of the variance application-will not ’be @etmmental ~o the public n~alth, safen,. ~eneral welfare, or convenience in lhat ’a detailed.EIIK was-prepared and-certffied for the PAMF .,Campus in 1996 that included_reduced :setbacks for buildings on Urban Lane and an overall lot coverage of.up to .~l.~gYo :and identified no public.health or sareD~ impacts that would result from consu-action of the entire P.Zd~ Campus including Building D (Clark Building) _and the i~afldng ’Structure. The._~n~ra! welfare and convenience oz.~ Palo M~mcat l~oundation and convenience o~_ _the Palo Alto communiD~at-lar~e ~ould o~ well ~ ~Campus with the Clark Building and associatedserved by the completion o~ .th~ Parkin~ Sm~cmre. CONDITIONS 1.The project shall be consn-acted in substantial compliance with plans dated December ! 0, 2003 on Kie at the De-v-elopment Center, 250 Hamilton _Avenue, l~alo Alto; California. A copy oft]is approval shall, be printed on the firs,+. page of the blueprints submit-ted for building permiz. Prior to issuance of an3~ building or ~ading permit, the Clark Building and Parking Smacmre shall be approved by the _&rchitecmral Review Board (A1KB) and shall be subjeci to .Zd~B recommended conditions " " ~oz projecL approval. Ju~--~2apo _t"~o, ~.~ce Planning Manager December lg, 2003 NOTE This Variance is ~anted in accordance with and su~ect to the provisions of Chapter ! 8.90 of the CiD’ of Palo _Zdto Municipal Code. This permit will become effective December 18, 2~)03 unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto IVfunicipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all furore requests for CiD~ permits relating to this approval. In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter wilt be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing dazes before the Ptanning Commission and the CiD~ Council. A Variance which has not been used within one (i) year after the date of ~anting becomes void, although the Manager of Current Planning may, without a hearing, e.-aend the time for an additional year if an application to this ef:t%ct is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. Application No..03-UP-18:795 E1 Camino Real (PA_M~ - Clark Building) Use Permit 03-UP-18 is approved amending existing use permit 94-UP-8 (795 El Camino Real - P.’AA47: Urban Lane Campus) for the location and construction of the Clark Building (formerly referred to as Building D), a four-level above g-fade parldng structure, landscaping and various site improvements as per attached plans at 795 E1 Cm~fino Real, Public Facilities ~F) Zone Disn-iCt, Palo .Qto: California. The approved Use Permit is issued to the Palo ;Alto Medica! Foundation (PAMF), 795 E1 Camino Real. FL’qDINGS The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properb~ or improvements in the vicinib~, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safer-y, general welfare or convenience, in that: The construction and use of the Clark Building and parking structure, as conditioned, wil! be conducted in an orderly and safe manner. The use and location of the buildings is consistent with the master plan for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus that was analyzed in the certified 1996 Final Environmental Impact Report 0EIR). The EIR identified no site-specific significant adverse environmental impacts that would affect vicinity properties so long as all mitigation measures are implemented. The amended use permit will not change the original conditions of approval for the P.~vI2z Urban Lane Campus or mitigation measures of the 1996 EIR whidh include: 1.EIR Mitigation Measures C.1, C.2 and C.3 regarding visual, light and glare impacts that could otherwise .adversely affect adjacent properties, particularly the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue. o EIR Mitigation Measure J.2 which governs future noise levels of P,Q\/IF project stationary equipment, such as that "~o be locamd on the southerly service road adjacent to properties on the north side of Encina Avenue, and the Use Permit and EIR mitigation measure that govern the noise ievets permitted at the southerly properb,- line adjacent ~o the prope~ies on the north side of Encina _&venue. 250 i-lamilton Avenue RO. Box 10250Paio Y-£tto, CA 9~-_303 650.32924&i 650.3292154’ The new fou~ level parking structure provides adequate and co~Jvenient partdng %r ~e new Clark Build~z. ~e p~g ~c~e is locaed above ~e e~s~g sub~em~e~ P~}~Z and adds 189 new p~g spaces ~a~ is more th~ ~e requked 166 %~ ~e title B~d~. A new ex~e~or elevaor is conve~ently locaed nea ~e ma~ enF~ce ~o the Cl~k B~d~g ~az provides access ~o ~e sffb~e~e~ p~g levels. The amended use permit w-ill not change the 1997 Deferred Par-tdng Agreemem. The full build-out of the PA~\IF campus requires !.~46 parking spaces, 76 of which are accessible, and !0 of those are van accessible. The new par-ld_ng s~-ucmre combined with the e~sting parking provides 1,289 parking spaces, 67 of which are accessible, and 5 of those are van accessible.. 57 parking spaces remain deferred, of which 9 are accessible, and 5 of those are van accessible. Additionally, t35 bicycle parking spaces are required for the full buildout of the P_a~vI~F campus (81 Class I and 54 Class II). There are 68 Class I and 45 Class ]2 bicycle partd_ng spaces that currently exist on the campus. The Clark Building would provide __ Class spaces near the front entrance. 13 Ctass I and __ Class II bicycle park_ing spaces remain demerred under the conditions of the 1997 Deferred ParkYn= 2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo A_lto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Al~o Municipal Code, in thaz: The Comprehensive Plan designation of Major InsfimtiolgSpecial Facilities is inzended for institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publiciy owned o~ are operated as non-profit organizations as is the cas~ with P:~d~F. The use as an outpatient medical faciliry is compatible with the allowed uses in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district and is allowed with a use permit. The proposed use is identical to the current use of the existing buildings that comprise the PAIvlF campus. The faciliD- meets all developmem requirements of TNe 18 of the Palo ~M,o Municipal Code. CONDITIONS The conditional uses approved under this permit are outpatient medical faciliD~ occupydng approximately 4i,500 square ~%et and associated four-level par-ldng structure (including the existing two-level subterranean parking beneath and on-gade levei). The addition of a fifth above-gade level shall be permitted if determined necessary per the requirements of the 1997 Deferred Par’king A~eemen~ and shall be subjec~ to Architectural Re~4ew Board (AP,_B) approval. Prior to issuance of any building or gading permit, the Clark Building and Parking Structure shall be approved by the _Architectural Review Board (_&RB) and shall be subject to ARB recommended conditions of project approval. 7~orgno, A vQa@e Planning Manager December 18.2003 NOTE This Use Permit g gran, ed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City.." of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This pem~i~ will become effective ten days following the daze of this letter, unless an appeal is fried as provided by Chapter lg.92 of the Palo _Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this let~er shall accompany all furore requests for CiD, permi,s relating to this approval. In the event that this approval is appealed., an additional letter vdll be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing da, es before the Planning Commission and the City Council. In any case in which the conditions to the ~aning of a Use Permiz have not been complied with, the Director of PIanning and CommuniD~ Environmenz shall g-ire notice to *he permi~ee of intention to revoke such permi~ a~ least ten (10) dWs prior ~o a hearing thereon. Follov~ing such hearing and if good cause e~s~s therefore, the Director may revoke *he Use Permit. A Use Permit which has not been used vdthin one (1) year after *he date of ganting becomes void, although the Director may, withom a hearing, e.,-ctend the time for an additional year if an application to this effec~ is filed before the expiration of*he firs~ year. 1 2 3 4 5 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 Dh’ector’s Hearhtg Thursday, December 4, 2003 REGUZA_R MEET]NG- 7:00 PM Cib; Council Conference Room Civic Center, ls~ Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 9430J Staff" Steve Emslie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Amy French, _~ianager of Current Planning Julie Caporgvw, Advance Planning Manager John Lusardi, Planning Manage~; Special Projects ~ rE W B US INE S S : 795 El Camino Real [03-V-20 and 03-CUP-18]: Palo Alto Medical Foundation request for (1) a Conditional Use Permit te allow an out-patient medical facitity of 41,500 square feet which would be an expansion of the existing use on the property. previously permitted by a CUP; and (2) a variance to allow (a) a reduced street setback ten feet for the Clark Building, Building D, and 4-1/2 feet for the new parking structure where 20 feet is required by zoning, which is Public Facilities District, and (b) a 31.2% lot coverage, 112,000 square feet on a 359,314 square-foot parcel where the Public Facilities District zoning, PF zoning allows a maximum lot coverage of 30%. Julie Ca~or_o-no. Advance Piannin~ Manager: Good afternoon. This is a request by the Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation for (1) a Conditional Use Permit to allow an out-patient medical facility of 41,500 square feet which would be an expansion of the existing use on the property previously permitted by a CUP; and (2) a variance to allow (a) a reduced street setback ten feet for the Clark Building, Building D, and 4-1/2 feet for the new parking structure where 20 feet is required by zoning, which is Public Facilities District, and (b) a 31.2% lot coverage, 112,000 square feet on a 359,314 square-foot parcel where the Public Facilities District zoning, PF zoning, allows a maximum lot coverage of 30%. Tricia, do you have any comments that you would like to make at this tinae? Tricia Schimpp. Planner: Yes. Tricia Schimpp, Project Planner. I’d just like to present that David Jury, the applicant, is in the audience and will make a statement. This project is the completion of the PAMF campus that was covered in the 1996 Environment Impact Report that was done on the entire project and envisioned Building D, which now we term Clark Building, as well as a five-story above ~ound parking structure with subterranean parking. The completion of the canpus is really a four-story parking structure and a Building D, or the Clark Building, which is fewer square feet than then was envisioned in the 1996 EIR. The 1996 EIR also discussed the setbacks as less than the 20-foot requirement and also discussed the lot coverage at 31.9%, and the completion is really coming in at 31.2%. So Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 the ERK was deemed adequate and the project was approved. We’re now looking at specific site plans for the Clark Building and the completion of the paring structure, ~vhich requhe the use permit to a conditional use in this district. It is a permitted conditional use to have outpatient medical facilities, which this is and which is what the whole campus is about. I tltink with that, I’ll turn it over to David. Female S.peaker (_,~ny French?): One other thing I would like to sav. This ad was placed citing the specific setbacks that were requested. That was not correct information, or it was inaccurate at the time the ad was placed. It’s actually better than what is stated in the ad. Tricia can. Nve you the exact dimensions. 11 Ms. Schimpp: That’s correct. Right. The ad stated that Building D would also need a 12 building setback because it would be less than 20 feet. However, the applicant has 13 redesig-ned the project and now Building D is in compliance with the 20-foot setback and 14 does not need the variance. We’re looking for a setback variance for the parldng 15 structure only. 16 17 18 19 20 Ms. Caporm~o: ~%nd the parking structure variance setback is less also than what was stated in the ad. Ms. Schimpp: That’s correct. Ms. Capor_o-no: But the information that is on the agenda today is correct - I mean, it’s just the ad in the newspaper that you’re referring to. 21 Ms. Schimpp: We’re looking for a variance setback for the parking structure and a lot 22 coverage variance for 31.2%, and we’re looking for the Conditional Use Permit. 23 Ms. Capora-no: Okay, so what we have here today is correct, but it’s just that the ad in 24 the newspaper was incorrect, right? It was modified afterwards. 25 Ms. Schimpp: Yes. 26 Ms. CaDor~o: Okay. With that, I will ask anyone fi:om the Palo Alto Medical 27 Foundation if they would like to make a presentation. 28 29 30 31 M_r. David Jury. Applicant: T-he agenda.actually does have the same information that the ad had in it. The agenda is requesting variances that are a ~eater variance than we are actually requesting. Ms. Capor~o-no: Okay. 32 Mr. Jury: I appreciate very much an opportunity to be heard. You have our applications 33 and our statements in support of the variance and the Conditional Use Permits. I’d just 34 like to go on record with a few comments for clarity purposes. 35 This project was, as was said earlier, anticipated by and included in the EIR that was 36 concluded prior to the 1996 approvals to construct the project. At that time the 37 examined a coverage of 31.9% while we’re as ~king for 31.2%. And it also anticipated the 38 setback issues. The issue with the setbacks at the time of desigri of the project was that 39 the Architectural Review Board and the City staffvv’anted to have more of an urban feel Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 to the street and w~anted to b~-ing the buildings closer to the street to make that feeling. So we are going along with that very same feeling. The current project is operated under a Conditional Use Permit, and ~anting this Conditional Use Permit will not allow any uses that are not allowed under the old Conditional Use Permit, so it’s just a continuation of the old use permit and allowing the larger coverage, or the larger site. It’s important to note, while the notice talks about the ten-foot setback, the setback at the Clark Building is actually 20.08, so it does not require a variance. And the setback for the parking structure is actually 14.35 feet from the curb line instead of 4.4 feet from the curb line, wkich is stated in the advertisement. Even so, I draw your attention to the front of the building. It is not a closed buiiding, it’s a very open building, so the feel will not be one of being crowded up against the street. The parking provided for the project is actually in essence of what would be required for this 41,000 square-foot building. We are providing four per thousand parking. In addition, we are putting in 25 additional par’king spaces which will work to help with our deferred parldng a~eement that was ganted back in 1996. We will still have the deferred parking ageement in place, and at any time that the City feels that it is necessary that we construct an extra floor on the garage, the garage will be built to accept an additional floor and we could provide whatever parking is still remaining under the deferred parking a~eement. The coverage issue, 31.2% coverage, you can see that this is the existing property now. This is the proposed Clark Building footprint and the proposed parking structure. This parking structure sits on top of a concrete deck now and is above two floors of parking. So we’re proposing to build levels above an already constructed concrete pad. The Clark Building is on a geen space area right now. It was just temporarily landscaped. There is an oak tree on site which will be.moved to the front of the building. The coverage, while at 31.2%, does exceed the allowed 30%. The road through the whole site is actually a private road with public access agreement with the City, it’s an easement. So if you consider this as part of the site and visually as part of the site, it ties everything in and it does not appear to be overly crowded. It doesn’t appear to be a 31% coverage. Ms. Capor_o-no: Now Mr. Jury, when the medical foundation had prepared their master plan I guess you’d call it, it was always envisioned it would exceed the allowed FAR. Mr. Jury: Yes. And the original EIR called out a 31.9% coverage. It doesn’t exceed the t:AR, it exceeds the coverage. The setbacks are illustrated here by the actual measurements on the engineers’ drawings. Just illustrates that it really is 14.35 feet from curb to the garage. The upper levels of the garage do terrace out somewhat. In an effort to give some visual interest to the project, the upper floors do project out. But they still are, with the exception of a couple of feet here which we’ll have to get encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, which hangs over the easement and over the sidewalk, but not the street. If it is off the Page 3 1 2 street and is not in anyone’s - as it’s so far been expressed to me is that [incoherent]. This is actually in response to a request by the Architectural Review Board. 3 I think that really concludes the remarks that I have. If there are any questions that you 4 have I would be happy to answer them. Ms. Capor_o-no: Not at this time. I thg~k what v,,e can do is we will open this up for public testimony. The public hearing is open. I know that one of you or both of you came in a little bit later after I had originally Nven the preamble to this hearing. If anyone is interested in providing testimony, I’d like you to fill out a card, and you have five minutes in which you can discuss any issues you may have with the project. 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 Thank you. NI_r. Rogers. Mr..Allen Roo, ers: We talked before once upon a time I guess. My name’s Allen Rogers. I’m the property owner at Wells and Urban Lane, Palo Alto. I’ve been sitting through some of the ARB meetings in the Council building, whatever you call it. What’s alarming to’ me {s not only my property being raikoaded, but the general public not being able to see an ElK, the ElK hidden with conditions, the new conditions. And all during the comment period it’s a situation where the City, the staff in particular, with whatever qualifications they might have, they go ahead on this project. It’s common ~knowledge that the original ElK referred to - apparently that’s the draft ElK - and then the final ElK is all being pointed to for this project, and how every-thing was approved prior. That isn’t the case. Building D was never approved. Building D was to be a landscaped turf area until such time convel~ient, adequate parking was achieved. Now the question is, is convenient, adequate parking achieved. Both the ARB stated that, the Planning Department stated that, and it was approved by the City Council. True, somewhere in the system the Director of Planning has the final go. But where’s the parking? Where’s the convenient parking? Do we take an elevator, then walk 500 feet away to our car? - general public, that is, not I. The question is, the new parldng garage that is supposed to facilitate the new Building D, that can’t be. It’s ludicrous. No one is going to walk 5- or 6- or 700 feet away to get to Building D. There’s going to be another nuisance. The nuisance is Urban Lane. Now the first time I’ve heard it today, it’s a private road. It was dedicated and displaced by the Homer and Urban Lane extension and we intend to use it. And it’s not a private road that can be taped off once a year, it’s a public street. It took four years of me hounding the City to put an Urban Lane at Wells Avenue sign. It was stopped by one David Ju~, or the medical foundation, who’s responsible to pay for that street sign. But to rub more salt in the wounds of Allen Rogers, let’s not put up the sig-n so that a~ybody that wants to fred on the coruer of Urban and Wells, let’s forget a street si~m-i for four years. 37 Now we come to Building D - incredible, incredible. The terms and conditions, or the 38 final approval with conditions, state - and I’ve read it - you don’t have to hear it again. 39 It’s obviously hidden by Amy French and whoever. Why would anybody hide - go on 40 again, off again, with respect to - Oh, it has to go before Planning - Oh, no it doesn’t. 4"1 Who’s got the piece of paper in front of him that states emphatically that Building D 42 doesn’t have adequate parking, doesn’t have convenient par ~king - and here we get down Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 to a decision for the Plalming Director with a hidden EIR with my name being taken off the list. And what is courtesy copies? I’ve never received one, on anyt15ng. ~Vhat is it? Is that a plan of action by our famous City of Palo Alto or the Palo Alto way, or is it David JUl3,’s way, or the medical foundation’s way. Who’s towing the wagon? I’m a property owner and I’ll be dam_ned ifI am going to just let this thing slide by. We like the tree; it’s a heritage tree, it’s a protected tree by t~vo trunks. Measure it any way you want it, either at the base, trunk, or the two trunks that go out. We’ve measured it; we’ve photo~aphed it. Now they want to run the risk of moving it and killing the tree - oh, what if?. We’re trimming it dow-n to gain more square inches of dirt to build Building D. The big question is pal’king. Now we have loss of parking with two little turnout spaces, which is going to be another nuisance. It’s common knowledge that we feel as a property owner - I do directly - these are my words. Urban Lane is a traffic engineer’s abortion. It has had more near misses than any street. A bus, a school bus, cannot negotiate the turn dov,,-n Urban Lane without going over the double yellow. The new Marguerite, the longer buses, wider, cannot get down the street without cars stopping and letting it through. That’s a nuisance and it’s a hazard. They’re looking for warm bodies to treat the injuries apparently. IfI don’t call when there’s an accident, that’s a misdemeanor. I’m tired of all of these things and the public nuisance that’s generated by David Ju~, and his cronies, if you will. It’s common knowledge they were responsible for the street sign. They were responsible for the power. They’re responsible for the beautification strip. They’ve done nothing except bad-mouth my property and claim it’s contaminated, where in fact, that’ll be Phase 2. Building D, in my opinion, should not go there because it would be a naisance based on the parking alone. Certified by the City Council and not a Director of Planning, and an EIR that was circulated, and an addendum to a hidden EIR to go on an existing ELY,. - would it be the draft ElY, with your conditions? This is incredible. Before even ARB approval, it’s got conditions in the packet that I received on the 20th. I-IOW could conditions with approval be put in there by the staffwhen it doesn’t even have the ARB approval yet? And who is hiding the oriNnal final, final conditions of approval, with conditions? That’s the document we go by. Apparently that’s not the document that the medical foundation or staff goes by. - sent to all these people, every, depalCment head. What’s interesting is these people, those people, the Ci~, generally, never thought that ~Mlen Rogers would ever have a copy of this or get a copy. On again, off again. OriNnal EIR, draft ELY,, final EIR - this is the document, nothing else. And the ARB certified - the then ARB certified - that that landscaped turf would be an asset to the community and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. You know, others know, that I intend to put condos on my property, times 29. No one wants to look out their window after bu,ving a condo and look at a doctor’s office exan~ine somebody through a window. They want to look at what’s there now, what’s approved there now. We’re not going to change my plans. The plan is in motion, or it’s set right here. The question is, until they produce - at the last ARB meeting incidentally, I believe it was Susan that mentioned - Well how are you going to park on the CalTrain’s Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 parking lot and then get to the front door of Building D. Well they’re not allowed to park on the CalTrain parking lot. And they’re not allowed to park an?~vhere on the City street, their employees. That’s only for the public. They are to park on their property proper. Apparently there’s a disconnect between the supervisors or their own staff telling their employees to park on your own property and leave the parking for the general punic on City streets. We’ve had all our parking displaced. Now we’re injured because of no par ~kJ_ng. We certainly don’t need David Jury pushing his trash can down the street ~vith noxious, toxic waste from medical things going down the street mad leaking out of the container that they’re going to push somewhere in the middle of the unit. That’s another joke in my opinion. Ms. Capor,o-no: M_r. Rogers, I appreciate your comments. Mr. Ro~ers: The setback ifI may. Ms. Capor_o-no: Okay, if you will focus the variance and the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Ro~ers: You approved the setback on this situation and the A_RB has been told in so many words, the general public- I as one apparently - that the setback is going to be 20 feet, period. ~M1 of a sudden it’s ten feet. ~Vhere did that happen? That just came about out of the clear blue sky, unless I’m missing something. So 4-1/2-foot setback or whatever it is, a 4-foot setback, that’s a joke on the parking garage. And the overhang on a public right-of-way is another major joke. They have deliveries. If a truck decides to back up on a 40-foot van or something and clipped their parking garage, that’s a hazard. 23 The Building D setback, to try and wrest any square inch of dirt is going to set a 24 precedent if it ever in fact happens, because others will ask for the same thing. This is a 25 major project. This is a continuum that they claim. It is not a continuum. This is a brand 26 new building. I heard it with my own ears in the ARB meeting. It’s a brand new building. But we’re going to use all the conditions off the old EIR, which is stale, stagnant.28 29 Ms. Capora-no: M_r. Rogers, I thank you. 30 _Mr. Ro~ers: I lcnow, and I appreciate the extra time you’ve given me. i acknowledge the 31 extra time. Thank you for letting me air my thoughts. 32 Ms. Capor~o-no: Tricia, I just have one question. As far as the addendum, that has been in 33 the file and available. 34 Ms. Schimpp: Yes. 35 Ms. Capor~o-no: Is that what you haven’t seen, Mr. Rogers, was the addendum? 36 Mr. Rogers: The EIR, for some reason, has not been privy to the general public, and I 37 guess I’m the general public. For whatever reason that is, that’s just dirb~ pool in my 38 book. If you’re going to start with a major project and it’s going to be a new- project and 39 you’ve got existing conditions of approval that directly state that Building D will be a 40 landscaped turf until parking is achieved, then why in the beck would any EIR even come 4 !to bout? Page 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Ms.Capor~o-no: Well, it’s a process an EIR needs to go tMough. Mr.Rogers: Well why would it be hidden from the general public? Ms.Capor_o-no: I started to ask... Ms.Schimpp: I can respond to that, M_r. Rogers. This is the only copy that we have. Mr.Rogers: I have those copies. Ms.Schimpp: Okay, you can see what condition it’s in. And this is the draft. Mr.Rogers: Yeah, I have one better than that. Ms. Schimpp.’. You probably do. But this one’s been well researched, and that’s why it’s falling apart. Mr.Rogers: But you see, what you’ve got there is the draft EIR. Ms.Schimpp: No, this is the final. Mr.Ro_~ers: Excuse me - the thick one is the draft EIR, that’s the final. Ms. Schimpp: Right. And we also have that, and we also have many files, and they are available to the public if you want to come in and review them. Mr. Rogers: And guess what - this supersedes that..Amd you "know what else - and I have known nothing about planning, I’m an aircraft parts manufacturer - I don’t know anything about this. But I’m not that much of a dummy that realizes when this comes in, it supersedes all of that. However, it cites certain things in that, but this is still the document. What I don’t understand at one of the meetings is the "new" EIR, based on Building D and the parking garage, is to be hidden from the general public and not circulated. Ms. Capor_o-no: It’s not required. We prepared an addendum and it’s not required to be circulated. But it is available to the public and it’s in the file. Ms. Schimpp: And we did - or at least I requested that that addendum and the staff report be sent to you and to Mr. Borock. Did you receive it? Mr. Rogers: t~irst of a11, you’ve got my first name is spelled and my last name is spelled. That’s an indicator that to me, that’s a little flag that goes - "Oh, do they really want to send me something?" No. Let me tell you something. I’ve never received a courtesy cop?, one, ever, in the US mail. Now something’s wrong with your system. We know about David Jury witl~holding my name as an impacted property owner, the closest impacted property, owner, and that’s probably the only reason I show up and not anybody else within the general public. And I am concerned about what you’re going to do so close to my property, across the Street, with people that have proven themselves dirty, nasb~ neighbors. They ~vere nasty neighbors where they were, the general public hated them, and they came over to my neighborhood, and now I’ve inherited them. But I have my limitations and one of them is to voice my opinion on how" close they are going to be to my building, what the other issues are - we have a whole bunch of them. Now we fred out that between six months and now, your decision, with an eight-day appeal period, - that’s probably going to be hidden, too, when the final decision is made on this hearing. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ms. Capora-no: You will be receiving a copy of this. You filled out a card, we will send it to this nmne at this address. Mr. Ro~ers: Well there’s no address on there, but you have my address. Ms. Schimpp: The address that we have for you is - I’m sorry to interrupt - is 49 Wells. If there’s a different address that we need to be sending docma~entation to you, you need to provide that. That’s what we have on our records. Mr. Roo_ers: And yes, what’s interesting about that comment. The gal at the City sends out a notice saying "resident." And she apparently sent out notices, except for one time, and that was the one time on the fn-st preIiminary hearing. And also, the medical foundation I understand is supposed to also supply names within 300 feet. Both those things just happened to not happen that time, that day. Then it’s been spasmodic. One day we get residents, the next day we get something with my name. But in answer to the original question - yes, that is the address. My problem is I have an address that I own, the piece of dirt that I pay taxes on. But your system doesn’t work to get it there in the mail somehow. 16 17 Ms. Capor_o-no: Well we’ll make sure, Mr. Rogers, that actually we will make sure that the Director’s decision gets to you. 18 Mr. Ro~ers: Where are the courtesy notices, because you know, I postponed this one 19 meeting because we weren’t notified because it was a blatant, just a blatant disregard of 20 an impact. In fact, even David Juv stated I wasn’t an impacted property. I can’t even 21 believe that anymore. I don’t believe a word he says after that little exercise. But honest 22 to goodness, if you could just mail it routinely and not withhold with your little games, 23.that would really help. Yeah, roll your eyes around there, and I know who it is. It’s you, 24 Amy. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Ms. Capora-no: We will make sure that you receive a copy of the Director’s decision, and it will be made - ifI close the public hearing today, it will be made within ten working days of the closure of the book. Mr. Rogers: I understand. Again, I just want to get your next guy on, or if you have anybody else, but I fn-st appreciate the extra time. Number two, I certainly feel railroaded by this whole little exercise on Building D, not just the mailing, but the hiding of the courtesy copies or the no EIR disclosed. We haven’t seen drawings. We don’t know what’s going on but we do know whatever goes on, better happen 20 feet away or we will appeal it or you’ll have everybody in Palo Alto asking for ten feet which is half on a new structure. Ms. Caporgno: Well, I appreciate your comments Mr. Rogers. And after the hearing - Tricia has the file here - so if there’s certain things that you would look (at) in the file, there’s an opportunity. You can look at it now or you can go over to the Development Center and ask for it. But I know we have another person who wants to speak, so thank you. Mr. Rogers: The biggest question I have is where are these people going to park in the building. You require parking, usually medical requires more parking. Where are they going to walk? Lfthe park undergound on one or two floors, it’s still a long walk to the elevator. If they park above gound that all the doctors are going to use, and then you’re Page 8 2 3 4 5 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 leaving your downstairs to the general public, where is the general public going to go? And is it a real ~vellness center, or is it a little health club. Those are my biggest questions. Thank you ve~ much. Ms. Capor~o-no: I noted your comments and I will be evaluating them within the next ten days if I close the public hearing. Mr. Ro~ers: Great; thank you again. Ms. Capor~o-no: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Herb. Mr. Herb Borock: Good afternoon. Just two things I’d like to bring up. One that I mentioned at the ARB hearing, and that refers to the traffic analysis. I don’t recall what consultant did the traffic analysis last time, but usually an applicant [incoherent] in the same one [incoherent]. And in my recollection that all of the ingess and egress to the property except for deliveries was to be through the main entrance of 795 E1 Camino Real and that shortly after the project opened for business, it was discovered that that traffic analysis was all wrong, and signs were posted and traffic entering the property from the south was directed to use Encina Avenue. To rny ~knowledge, until now, nothing has been done to make legal that change. And it’s a concern both of doing that after the fact, relying upon the same consultant who was unable to provide meaningful data the first time. And there’s also a question of a staff’s independent analysis of the traffic data based upon what happened when the facility opened compared to the oriNnal analysis that was part of the Environmental Impact Report. The second issue has to do with the discussion that Mr. Rogers had about adequate notice. The only address that you said he’s provided you is 49 Wells. It’s my understanding that the Ci~ has a court order prohibiting Mr. Rogers under most circumstances from accessing that property. So there seems to be a knowledge on both parts that if something’s sent to 49 Wells, he might not get it..And I hope he can provide you with an address that we can get some documents to him. Maybe his mail is being for~varded or maybe he’s allowed to pick up mail there, I don’t know. But to my knowledge it’s not one of the things that he’s permitted to do. So I would hope that he would provide you with an adequate address where he can get timely notification of any decisions that are made on the night of public hearings, either through the .Architectural Review Board recommendations, the Director, or decisions made as a result of this hearing. 33 And since neither one of us was present when you discussed the appeal process, just to 34 make sure that he understands what it is, to go through again with that timing. I 35 appreciate hearing that the files are still available. I thought they might have been on the 36 building optical disc system by now, but not yet. Usually it has to be put on when a 3/’project’s complete, so maybe (it’s) the tl~ngs that haven’t been compIeted yet from the 38 ori~nal project that are holding this up, because it’s been many years since this project’s 39 been built. So if there are things from the oriNnal approval that haven’t been done and 40 therefore is keeping the project file unavailable, that’s important to be part of the public 4]record for a decision here because that goes to the extent to which the addendum to the 42 EIR and the project application itself are related to an actual completed project or 43 whether there’s something that’s still holding over from the oriNnal approval that hasn’t Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 happened, either in terms of what the applicant ~vanted to do or in terms of the mitigations that need to be fulfilled. Thank you. Ms. Canor~o-no: Thank you. Tricia, is there anything that you would Iike to add as far as anything related to the previous project or the files or the traffic actually? Ms. Schimpp: Yes. I would like to say that the addendum addresses the issues of the site- specific development of the remainder of the campus. And the conditions that would be placed on the approva! of this project do not in any way supersede conditions that were placed on the ori~nal project. There are mitigation monitoring measures in effect right now, related to the deferred par ~king ageement, that will continue. Anad in the traffic analysis, they did look at the intersections for Encina and Wells and all access points to the property. When it was originally envisioned, Urban Lane was not in, so that extension was built as part of the original project. The update on the traffic analysis looked at any additional information, since now Urban Lane is in. And the traffic sig-nal - PAMI: was required to make contribution toward - and you might correct this, Mr. Jury, I don’t know the exact dollar amount - for the traffic signal, and that was done. So they have fulfilled their obligation to the mitigations and there are no further traffic mitigations necessary for the build-out of this. But it was carefully looked at and further analysis was done. As far as availability of the files, we have a lot of files on this from the whole ori~nal project. And if at some time you want to access any one thing in particular, please call me and I’ll meet you there and pull it out for you. But like I’ve said, some of them are not in condition to just have available for thumbing througS, but I would certainly like to make available anything to you that you might want to research. Herb Borock: Thank you. 25 Ms. Capor~c~no: And I just wanted - Mr. Borock raised the issue and Mr. Rogers, you 26 came in late I k_now, and you didn’t hear what the process is, I think I mentioned it to 27.you, though - that I will be closing the public hearing after I Nve Mr. Juv an oppormni~ 2[3 to respond if he wants to. 29 Mr. Rogers: I just want to make one comment to clari@" Nix-. Borock’s comment about 30 mailing and access. Yes, it’s true that I have four addresses on my property - two on 3 ]Urban Lane - that would be 650 Urban Lane and 690 Urban Lane. And on Wells 32 Avenue I have 49 Wells and 41 Wells - all IeNtimate addresses, all have electric meters, 33 bathrooms, etc. However, the one address that we use is 49 Wells, that’s the address on 34 the deed. That’s my mailing address for Palo Alto, not Redwood City or Nevada or 35 anywhere else: It’s Palo Alto. And yes, I get my mail there or I have it picked up, or I go 36 there and pick up my mail, and that is not the problem. As I stated earlier, we’ve 37 investigated the problem. The problem is here with the staff. 38 Secondly, the parking study that was done doesn’t have the name on it other than Palo 39 Alto Medical Foundation. So they did their own parking study. And they park across 40 from my building day and night. Thank you. 41 Ms. Capora-no’ Thank you Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ju~, is there anything else that you would 42 like to say? Page 10 Mr. Jury: One minor point of clarification. The parking that we are providing with this project does in fact exist at the parking structure, but it is not intended that that will be the parking that would necessarily serve the Clark Building. The entire campus is served by 996 parking spaces that are undergound and a total of 1,114 parking spaces. We will be adding to that total. It is anticipated that patients will, like they do when they come to other areas of the clinic, park in the undergound par-king garage, and we have provided an elevator access from the parldng garage that exits in very close proximity, to the Clark Building, so people will not be walking long distances. Ms. Caporm~o: Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing, and I will make a decision on this proj ect within ten wor ~king days. And again, we will send notices of that decision to everyone who has submitted a card. And actually, obviously, the applicant will also receive a copy of that. 13 14 15 Thank you for being here. Page 11 December SO, ~00~ Cib of Palo Alto Depariment of Planning and Communiflj Environment Attachment D M_r. Da~dd Jury Palo _adto Medical Foundation 795 E1 Camino Real Palo .Qto, CA 94301 Plarming Di~dsion Subject:795 E1 Camino Real Dear M.r. Jury: In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020. this is to pro~,ide you with notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the Cib’ of Palo .ajto in connection ~,ith the following development project approved by the Director of Planning and Coimaatmi%- Environment on December 30, 2003. On December 18, 2003, the A_rchitectural Review Board recommended approval subject to staff recommended conditions of approval and additional conditions as noted h’~ the attached document. An Addendum to the P_Qb~ 1996 EtR was prepared for this project that did not require ARB approval or public circulation. 795 E1 Camino Real [03-~tB-102, 03-EL~-t4]: Request by Palo Alto Medical Foundation for ARB re~,iew and recommendation to the Director of PIanning and Community. Environment to construct a new +41,000 square foot medical office building and a new +189 space, 4-1eve1 parldng structure and related site improvements at the existing medical facilib;. The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed by the CiD: m connection with your development project are described in your conditions of approval attached to this letter, inciuding by reference the approved development plans. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionaliy approved or witi~ ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. In your case, the project was conditionally approved on December 30, 2003. ~amy protest regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions .m~posed in cormection with your project must be inflated not later than Nnety (90) calendar days following t~s date. Additionally procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth ~ Government Code Section 66020. 250 Hamilton _Avenue RO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, C_A 94303 650.32Za.2441 650.329.2154 fax ]2= YOU F_Q]IL TO LN-fTL,ATE A PROTEST WTTI-IL-N- THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDI!RES DESCRIBED KN GOVER_N_-!VI~.~-T CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE B:’QRRED FRO±%,I CI-LALLENGLNG THE VA_LIDITY OR REASON_.<BLEN-ESS OF TI-IE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, EXACTIONS DES CRIBED ABOVE. h~ you ha~e any questions regarding the amount of the development z%es or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with yore: project, please call Amy French, Current Planning Manager, (650) 329-24,’41. The approval shall be valid for one year from December 30, 2003, except tha~ z%r phased projects, a specific development schedule may be approved. In no event, however, shall such a developmem schedule exceed five years 9ore the orizinal date of approval. The time period for a project, including a phased project, may be extended once for an additiorml year by the director of planning and shall be appealable. In the event ~e building pei-mk is ~ot secured for the project ~4thin the ~&r~e limits spechSed above, the architectural review board approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Please note that the project approval shall be effective for one year from December 30, 00~. within which time construction of the project shall ha~e commenced. Anplica~ion for extension maybe made prior to the expiration on December 30, 2004. Should you have any questions regarding this A!<B action, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 329-2441. Sincerely, Lisa Grote Chief Plarming Official Attachment: Conditions ox Approval Cc:Curds Snyder, Hawley Peterson & Snyder .’Architects Project Address:795 El Camino Real Project Planner:Tr c a Sch mpp Calculation Date:11/1012003 Project Approval Date:12/30/2003 [’~ =-stimate r~ Final }mpact Fee Worksheet Non-Residential square footage Commercial Motel/Hote! Project total square footage &Jcr number of residential un~ Less: .Exisiting square footage &/or number of residential ~ni~s Lees: Facility. Exemotions 41,500 Residential units Single Family Singie Faro/iv Multi-Family Home > 3.000 SF subtotal-1 IFaciiities)41,800 (square footage) Less: Usa Exemptions Mult~-Famiiy unit/cot~ge < 900 SF 41 ,ZOO Note: Fee = $0 if exempt use is circledCompute Facilities fees Parkrates 3.43 1.55 S 8,071 $5,283 S 12,050 S 2,671 Park fee (subtc~at-’l x rate)$142.345.00 Comm Center rates 0.19 0.09 $2,093 $1,377 $8,132 $694 CC fee (subtotal-Ix rate)S 7,885.00 $$ Library rates 0.18 0.08 $730 $477 $1,085 $239 Library fee (sub~otal-1 x rate)$7.470.00 Compute Housing fees Note: Fee = $0 if exempt use is circled Housing rate 15.24 15.24 Housing fee (~ubtetel-2 x rate)$ 632,460.00 Compute Traffic fee (Stanford Research Park area OR San Antonio / West Bayshore areas only) SRP rate 8.51 8.51~SRP fee (subfozal-3xra~.)$ San Antonio/W. 5ayshora rate 1.75 1.75 SA/WBfee(subtoral-3xra~) $ TOTAL Impact Fees due:$ 790,160.00 CONDITIONS OF _aA~PROVA_L Palo Alto Medical Foundation - Building I) and Parking Structure 795 El Camino Real/File No. 03-ARB-102 The plans submitted for Building Pemait shall be in substantia! con,~%rmance with plans dated December 18, 2003, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval sisal1 be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. B U-17~,D EN G DIWISION Prior to Submittal for Buildins Permit Separate building permits shall be required for the construction of each building. Proposed Buiidmg D is an entirely new building and the proposed parking structure shall be considered as an addition to the existing under~ound partcing garage. 2. - Building D shall be considered as a medical office building and wil! not be plan checked or inspected for compliance with the OSHPD-3 regulations per~ain~g to licensed clinics. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utiIiV installations, architectural, sta-uctural, e!ectrical, piumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. The desi~m of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building pe_rmit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be re-v-iewed and-approved prior to permit application. The location of the Building D’s electrical ser~dc.e shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services. Di~-ision and shall be iocated at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. Daring the construction of the new svmcmres, all necessary measures shall be taken io maintain safeb~ and occupancy requirements for employees and -v~sitors to the existing occupied buildings. Prior to Submittal for Buildin~ Permit The applicant shai1 arrange a meeting with the Fire Department to ensure that the project wiil provide adequate Fire Access throughout the property. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NTPA Standard No. 13, !999 Edition, )P~’vIC15.04.160). Fire Sprintder system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, (PAMCI5.04.083). NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. ~n approved a~dible sp~PJer ~ow alarms ~o a~er~ the occupant shall be provided in the inter~o~ of the building in an approved ~oca~on, (ZOOICBCg04.S.~). Fke ~arm system installations or modifications requke separate submi~al to the Fire Preveniion Bureau. (PAMCi 5.04.083). 10.Under~ound fire supply system installations or modificai~ons require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau ,0P_~a_MC15.04.083), Public Works Deparm~em and the Utilities Department. NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. 11.~m approved,-adequate wa~er supply and additional fire hydrants, as needed, shall be provided in accordance with Appendices IE-A and III-B of the 2001 Calir%mia Fire Code (2001CFC903) 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 iVIodel 76. t2. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width w~ith 13 ’6" vertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (65,000 lbs.) and turning radius (3~’ inside) requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all weather, and shall ex~tend to ~dthin 150 feet of hose reach of any point on the firsi-floor exterior of all buildings on-site. (2001CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The current proposal does not meet this requirement..~uy acceptance of alternate methods regarding fire access will include an upgrade at applicant’s expense of one or more signal intersections with the Opticom Preemption System, and at least one 50 foot section of the existing 16 foot access land to accommodate aerial ladder operations. 13.Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gaxmey access requirements based on gxtrney dimensions of 2’4" x 82" plus a minimum of t~vo emergency response personnel. (P_~MC 1.5.04.120) 14.Applicant shall meet with Planning, Bldg., Fire, Public Works and Utilities to work out logistical issues involved ~dth maintaining operation of the site during construction. PL~,LIC WORKS Prior to Submittal for Buildin_~ Permit 15.The applicant shall obtain a Public Works encroachment permit for that. portion of the parking sn-ucmre that encroaches into the air space of the Urban Lane easement. No part of the parking structure shut1 encroach over the paved surface area of Urban Lane. !6.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed pro~ect. ~Qay gading permit issued in conjunction with a phased projec~ impiemenmtion plan will only authorize ~ading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may- be shown on the ~ading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utiliD, infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. ! 7. The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant will be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on city’ sto~-m drains. The applicant"s en=~ineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations., including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be st_re’led and stamped by a re=o-istered civil en~o-~eer. Evaluate the previously installed on-site stonn drainage system to veri~ that it continues to satis$, this condition rezardin.g detention. ! 8. The applicant shall submit a final =o-rating and d.rainaye plan to Public Works En_oineerin~. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Exist~g drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 19.The proposed de~etopment w-ill result in a chan~e in the impervious area of the properb.~. The applicant shall provide calculations shorting the adjusted impervious area with the buildiny, permit application. A Storm Drainage t~ee adjustment on the applicant’s montttly Cib~ utility bill wil! take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calctfladon sheets and instructions are avallaole from Public WorksEn=o-tn~’ ==~.rm=.’ ~- 20.Permit-tee must obtain a ~ading permit from the City.. of Pato :Qto Buildin~ Inspection Division if excavation volume exceeds 100 cubic yards. 2!.The propervy owner shah obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works En=o~eering %r a structure, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on proper’O.., in which the Cib~ holds an interest. P_’K!~VfC, Sec. t2.12.010. The bui]ding permit associated with this application will not be issued until the encroachment permit or temporary lease has been approved. 22.A construction logstics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimtum parking, truck routes and sta=~dng, materials storage., and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All ~Tuck routes shall conform w-ith the Cib~ of Palo AJto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance.. Chapter 10.45.. and the route map which outlines truck routes available throu~out the City of Palo ~aJto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction lo~stics plan is available from Public Works En=oineerin=~. Prior to Issuance of Buildin_~ Permit 23.The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public. Works E.n~ee~Jng for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the Ci~ ri~_~t- of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 24.This proposed development would disturb more than one acre of land. The knplicant must knpty for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SVv-RCB) N-PDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity.. X Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the S-%RCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Yv-ater Pollution Prevention Plan (SV/PPP). The applicant is required to submit ~o copies of the NOI and the draft SW~PP to the Public Works DepmTment for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post- development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. 25.The applicant is required to paint the ~o Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek" logo in blue color on a white back~otmd, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are availgole from the Public Works Environmental Compliance DRdsion, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stenci!. Include the irish-action to paint the logos on the construction g-fading and drainage plan. Include maintenance -~ = ~~oi thes~ lo~os in the Hazardous MateriaIs Manazement Plan, if such a ptan is part of this project. Durin_~ Construction 26.The con~zactor must contact the CPA Public Woff~s Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public 27.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 28.The developer sha11 require its contractor to incorporate best management practices ~MP’s) for s~ormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conr%rmance with the Storm Water PolIution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materiais into gutters or storm drains. (P~QMC Chapter 16.09). 29..’4_ll construction within the Ci~- rigZat-of-way, easements or other property under City, jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and UtiLity. Departments. Prior to Finalization 30.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the fmalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shal! be finished prior to this siam:t-off. Similarly, all as- builts., on-si,e _aradinz,_ draina~ and post-deveiopmems BMP’s_ shall be completed prior to sigma-off. PLA_N~-ING DIVISION ARBORIST Prior to Director’s Hearin_~ for A~roval of AR_B Recommendation 31.Pro~dde a site plan shorting existing conditions, including landscaping, utilities, structures, and a!! minimum information required in the Ci~ Tree Technical Manuai, Section 6.00. 32. Provide a mitigation plan for protected oak #57 for selected re-location site. Tree Survey Plan. The applicant shah submit a tree survey prepared by a certified arborist (project arborist) and locate accurate tree m.mk locations and dripline of aH ~ees on site, and include trees in staging areas, transport routes and cueing areas. The Su~,ey shall be consistent with the criteria in the CitT. Tree TechrLical _Manual, Section 6.20. 34.Tree ;Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Surv’ey Report, the applicant shil submit a tree appraisal or replacement value of al! trees on site, both trees removed and trees to be preserved (each tree listed separately and formula used). The appraisal shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.40. 35.Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and approva! by the Planning Arborist. The plan shal! be consistent with the CiD Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. _M1 specific recommendations from the approved plan shal! be implemented and maintained throughou: consn-uction. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shah be established and be cteariy designated on all improvement plans as a bold dashed line, including ~ading, utilini and irrigation,, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shah specify,, but not be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, gading limitations and any; other measures necessaW zo insure survival of the n-ees. Key dements of this plan shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact number. 36.Project A_rborist shall be selected for the project as required in the CiD~ Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30. The Project Arborist shah be conduc~thug all required inspections and be consulted in any activiD~ involving the welfare of the trees to be retained. Prior to Submittal for Building_ Permit 37.Landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Di~dsion. A Landscape Vv-ater Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: M1 eMsting trees idenfi,qed both to be retained and removed incinding s~eet trees. Complete plant list indicating :ee and plant species, quantiD; size, and locations. Irrigation schedule and plan. Fence locations. Lighting plan with photometric data. Trees to be retained shal! be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. _&ll new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shovv-n on the approved plans, sha~ be installed per Public W-orks Standard Tree W-eli Diagram #504, shah have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Wor~ Detail #504 shah be shown on Landscape Plans. ho Landscape plan shalt include planting preparation details for trees speci$&ag digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, badcfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. _Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shah show- two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or largen Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shah be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbe~ and ~ound cover, pursuant to the Cit%~’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Lrrigafion in the right-of-way requires a street wofic permit per CPA Public V%rks standards. Landscape Plan shall ensure that the backflow preventer is adequately obscured either by planting the appropriate size and ~pe ska"abbe~; covering the pipes with a ~een wire cage, or painted dark ~een to minimize visibilib: 38.Landscape plan shah be consistent with P,Q’vIC 18.83, Desi~m Standards--Landscaping in ParLd~g Facilities and required landscape areas. 39.Planning staf~~ shall re,dew and approve of the location, size and screening of all above ~otmd transformers, bacld]ow preventers and other pad mounted equipment required by Utilities Department. _’~Lfter approval, an), revision involving above ~ound utilities shall be reviewed by Planning staff. 40..4!1 sidewalks, plaza and hardscape areas adjacent to trees (new and e~sting) shall speci~ on the civil drawings engfi_neered structural soi! (attached) as a base course material to a depth of 24-inches minimum to achieve and promote long term ~ow-th and m~n~mize damage to the infrastructure from tree roots. 41.The ~ading plan shall be reviewed by Public Wor~ Engineering and include provision for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPS). Base course material for the parking area shall specie engineered smuctural soil to a minimum of 30-inch depth (specifications attached). 42.Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show- a uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planing, the contractor shall pro-vide soils lab report to the City,’_~-ffbo~st veri~.~ing that the following soil mix has been delivered to the site. a. Palo Alto Soil ML’c by volume (pre-mix off siw) *65% sand? loam (mostly medium to coarse gade) *13% clay *10% Ii4-inch fLr bark *10% volcanic rock *Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per yard in the 12-inch area surrounding each root bah. Prior To Issuance of DemoLition. Gradin_~ or Buildin_~ Permit 43.Tree Protection Instructions. ~Q1 recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shah be consistent with the City.. Tree Technical Manual (TTM) implemented and maintained throughout the course of constraction. A. separate sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION :~N-D PRESERVA_TION L’qSTRUCTIONS shall accompany the plans submitted for building pomp_it and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utilib~, Storm, Grading, Erosion,. etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and P-reservation sheet shall also contain the arborist report (Revised report to Be Determined, dated _,XT~-X_-X~’-X_,~X). This sheet shall clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed. 44.All utilities, both public and private, requirin~ trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly" owned trees within the right-of-way: 45.The Planning Staff shah review and approve of the location, size and screening of all above ~ound transformers, bacldlow preventers and other pad mounted equipment required by Utilities Department. ,Qier approval or durin~ construction, any revision involving above ~otmd utilities shall be reviewed by Plarming staff. 46..Q1 sidewalks, plaza and hardscape areas adjacent to trees (new and existing) shall specify on the civil drawings engineered strucrura! soil (attached) as a base course materia! to a depth of 24-inches minimum to achieve and promote long term ~owth and minimize damage to the infrasrmcrare from tree roots. 47.Inspection Schedule. AI1 inspections outlined in the City. Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the ins! set of plans submitted ~%r the building permit. 48.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition, ~ading or building permit will be issued, unIess otherwise approved by the Ci~-A_rborist 49.Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Desi~nated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three prima~ functions, !) to keep the foliage canopy and branching sn-ncmre clear from contact by equipment, mate~a!s and activities; 2) to prese~e roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify" the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in ~vhich no soil disnn-bance is permitted and activities are resndcted: unless otherwise approved. Size: type and area to be t%nced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five or sLx (5’ * 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ~ound to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than lO-foot spacing. Type IqTree Protection The fences shah enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) to be saved throughou~ the life of the project. Par!~g areas: fencing must be located on pa~ing or concrete that will not be demolished, an appropriate ~ade level concrete base may support the posts. Type H Tree Protection For trees situated within a nm’row planting strip, only the planting strip shah be enclosed with the required chain 1ink protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use. Type IK Tree Protection Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter pit, shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ~ound to the first branch and overlaid with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely (slats shall not be allowed to dig fencing, caution shall be used tointo the bark). During instalIation of the plastic ~ " f, avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold limbs may also require ptasfic fencing as directed by the Cib; A_rborist Duration. Tree fencing shah be erected before demolition, ~ading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the pr~ect, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or CiD; A_rborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). ’Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20- foot intervals. The sign shah be a minimum 8.5-inches x 1 !-inches and clearly state: ’WV’A1K_5,rLN-O - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shah not be removed and is subject to a free according to P_~’~C Section &I0.110." Durin~ Construction 50.Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shah be in recent of the inspection report during the first week of each month umil completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. !0 51.,%11 neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shah be protected fi-om impact of any-k_ind. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owmed trees that are damaged during the course of construction, p~suant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo _Alto Municipal Code. 53.-The follo~dng tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The Sound under and around the tree canopy area shah not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shah be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessm7 to ensure survival. d. Watering Schedule. Jdl trees to be retained shalt receive monthly watering during al! phases of construction per the Cib’ Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A ~,~tten tog of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The Planning ,~borist shall be in receipt of tkis log before ffmai inspection is requested. 54.Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary" pruning or care for mees to remain shal! be performed fla accordance with the City.. Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the riff~ht t-of-way must first be approved by PubLic W’orks at (650) 496-6974. Prior To Occupancy 55.Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall cai1 for an inspection by the Landscape _<rchitect, and provide ~zitten verkfication to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installe~i and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 56.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-maintained, xvatered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nurse~" and the Best Management Practice: Tree Pruning (ANSI A300-Part 1, American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices, Pruning) as oatlined in the Paio ’Alto Tree Technical Manual. ,%r~y vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property. owner within 30 days of discovery. PL_~N ,_-NING DIVISION - ttOUS~G 57.This project is subject to a housing m-ueu ~ee based on 4i,500 square re~t of net new floor area. The fee as of May 8. _00_~ is $ _.~-, per square foot for an estimated total ~e~ due of $6.32.460.00. The ~%e is ~avable in full at the time of buildin~ permit !! issuance. The actual fee due will be based on the building square fdotage on the ~nal building permit plans. The fee rate is adjusted annually as of May 8 and the fee in efx%ct at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. (Section 16.47) UTILITIES MARI~, TENG SERVISES Prior to Director’s Hcarin_~ for A~3roval of AR_B Recommendation 58.The applicant shall submit an updated Water Use Calculations form for landsckne water efficiency standards for review and approval by Department of Utilities, Utilities Marlceting Services staff. PUBLIC WORKS~ - ~,KKTER QUA_LITYfE,’_NW-IRO~’I~NTAL COM3?LI_:~NCE Prior to Issuance of Buildin_~ Permit 59.A sampling location must be provided for sampling of the wastewater from the new clinic building. The sampling tocation must be either a manhole or Christy-~pe box allowing visual inspection of the waste stream as well as sampling access. The building plans must include detailed plans for the sampling location. PAMC Section !6.09.032(5)(9) prohibits the use of copper or copper alloys, including brass, in sewer lines except for sink traps and associated connecting pipes. The building plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 6!.PPdvfC Section 16.09.106@) requires that new dttmpster areas shall be covered. new dumpster area associated with the project shall be covered, and shalI be desi~ned to prevent water rum-on to the area and am-off from the area. 62._Any drain plumbing for interior levels of the new parldng garage must be connected to an oil!water separator w-ith a minimum capacib~ of !00 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (P~QMC Section 16.0320B)(17)). UTKLITIES - ELECTRIC 63.P:aJVfF has made pro-vision for providing electric service to the proposed Building D throu~ their intema! electrical distribution system. PA_MT: has already" installed/stubbed out conduit for Building D per their master plan. A!l the work/installation inside the building (a~er the main meter) must conform to National Electric Code/Building Codes and it mast be inspected and approved by the Building Department/Inspector. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit L2 64.The Permittee shall be responsible for iden~Lficafion and location of all utilities; both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Under~ound Semdce A Jeff (USA) at !-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning worK. The Applicant shal! submit a request to disconnect al! existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building. Inspection Division. Utilities w-ill be disconnected or removed within 10 wor-ldng days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after alt utilitT services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Buildin~ Permit 66.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 b included with the prelimJnafy, submittal. 67.Location of the electric paneL/s~dtchboard shall be shown on ~&e she plan and approved by the _~dB and Utilities Department. 68._~dl utility meters, imes, ~ansformers, bacl~ow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be sho~m on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict wil! occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all abovegound equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 69.The customer is responsible fo[ sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. UtiLities Rule & Regulation #i 8. 70.,amy additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facili~es will be subject.to Special Yaciliries charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additionaI facilities as well as the cost of o~,nership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Issuance of Buildin~ Permit 71.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utili)- Eng-ineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. Durin~ Construction 72.Contractors and deveiopers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street fi~t-of-way. TNs includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 73.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Under~ound Service Alert (USA) at !-800-227-2600 to have e.~sting under~ound utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated wdth white paint. _411 USA marPdngs shaI! be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. ~er Construction & Prior to Finalization 74.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showiug the location of switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vanlts and switch/transformer pads. Prior to Issuance ofBuiidin_~ Occunancv Permit 75.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the BuiIding Inspection Division and the Electrical Under~ound Inspector. 76..411 z%es must be paid. 77.,Q1 Special Facilities contracts or other ageements need to be signed by the Ci~" and applicant. UTILITIES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATE.R Prior to Submi~al for Buildin~ Pert’nit 78.The plans show patio areas alongside building D encroaching into the pubtic utilities easement. The plans show decorative concrete and retaining wall structures in these areas over the existing utili)- mains. No structures can be installed over the e,-dsting utilities nor can decorative-concrete pavements be used unless an ageement is entered into prior to installation where P,Q~vfF is responsible for ~e restoration of the decorative concrete if the CiV needs to repair the utilities. Additionally, no trees are allowed to be planted over the existing utilities, bushes are ok. 79.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater sexadce cormection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the im%rmation requested for utili~ service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). 80.The applicant shah submit improvement plans for utilib~ construction. The plans must show the size and location of ai1 under~ound utilities within the development and the public rigZnt of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and a~y other required utilities. 81.The applicant shal! be responsible for installing and upgading the existing utilib~ mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibili~ includes al! costs associated with the desi~-sm and consm~ction for the installationiup~ade of the u~ilit%,~ mains an&:or services. Prior to Issuance ....~ot Bmldms Perrm~ 82.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services., the applicant shall submit to the WG~V en=oineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department desifim criteria. _4ii utili~ work within the public riffZ~t-oSway sha!l be clearly shown on the plans that are prepped, si~ned and stamped ~z a re~stered civil en=oineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacmrds literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engfneeffmg section. The applicant’s contractor v~dll not be allowed to be=oin work until the submittals have been approved by the water, ~as arid wastewater en=oineering section. The applicant shah pay the connection fees associated ~x4~ the installation of the new utilib~ serviceis to be installed by the Cibz of Palo A_l~o Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities wiLl be performed a~ the cost of the perso~ientib~ requesting the relocation. 84.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral co~mection sho~m on the plans. 8~.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to Kin_ate. the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irri~a~ion accotmt an no other water se~’ice ~,jll be billed on the accotmt. The ir~gation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a ~ading or building permit shall conform to the Ci~ of Palo Alto water efScieEy stand~ds. 86.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For ser~,ffce connections of ~-fnch throuff_h 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter readin~ lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water sen, ice and meter on the plans. 87.A new water service line installation z%r irri~ation usage is required. Show the location of the new- water service and meter on the plans. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall pro~4de to the eng-ineerin~ department a copy of the plans for fire system including al! fire department’s requirements. 89.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA back~ow preventer device) shall be installed for all existin~ and new water connections from Palo zAJzo Uilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title !7, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shah be installed on the ow~ner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 90.~n approved detector check valve shall be installed for the exisiing or new-.water connections for the ire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Doable check detector check valves shah be installed on the o~er’s property- adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the detector check assembly- on the plans. Inspection by the utiIities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 91.A new gas ser~dce line installation is required. Show- the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 92.A new sewer laterai installation per toy is required. Show the location of the new" sewer lateral on the plans Durin_~ Construction 93.The contractor shall contact underg-round se~dce aler~ (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of ander~ound utilities. 94.The applicant shall pro~,Jde protection for utiliny lines subject to damage. D-riliD,~ lines within a pi~ or trench shah be adequately supported..4_ll exposed wa~er, gas, and sewer l~es shall be inspected by the WOW Utilities Inspector prior to bac -lsn511ing. 95.The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to new undergound facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing utiliD," mains and/or set,rices as necessar7 to accommodate new storm drains, with the prior approval of the UtiliD~ Department. This responsibiliry includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the relocation of the utiiiD, mains and/or services. Sanitary sewer laterals wig need to be replaced for the Nll length of the lateral (if possible) per the Utitiry Standards. Sanitary sewer mains cannot be replaced. 96.All utili~ installations shall be in accordance with the Ci~ ofPalo ~dto atili) standards for water, gas and wastewater. 97.Utility service connections will be instaIted between 30 and 40 days following receip~ of full pa?ment. Large developments must allow su~cient lead ~ime (g weeks minimum) for utiiiV construction performed by the City ofPalo ~to Utilities. 98.3-dl uHli~ work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector. k~spection costs shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW udhties k~spections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of construction. 99.The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify., the Utilities Depar~ent (650) 496-5982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 100. _~M! baclcflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engq._neering division, i~pected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 10i. No water valves or other facilities o-~med by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation ~,-ill only be performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s con~actor shall notify." the Utilities Deparn:nent not less than forb-eig.ht (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. !02. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except bv expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 103. The water main shall not be turned on until the sendce installation mad the performance of chlorination and bacterioIoNcal testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ,QNSD’A-vVWA C65 l-latest edition. 04. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City..- of Palo Alto Utilities. 105. :-M1 customer gas piping sha!l be inspected and approved by the building. inspection di-dsion before gas service is instituted. Gas meters wili be installed witNn five woff~d_ng days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department provided that the customer’s piping conforms to the Uti~b~ Standards. 106. Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals wil! require new- submittals, as specified above, showing the changes. The new submi~als must be approved by the utilities eng~aeering section before m ~aking any change. PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 107. Provide im%rmation regarding trash and recycling areas for the can\~us. 17 108. The !995 DEIR idenf~ed a project impact and mitigation for the ECR/Page Mill intersection (including impacts from Building D). The mitigation was identified as a 6% share of the cost of the proposed improvement (plV.B-82). Onty a conceptual 1eve1 cost estimate was made at that ~ime. The actua! amount would be payable when the City be=~ns its planning for construction of the improvement project. This has not occurred yet, nor is a better cost estimate yet available. Prior to Issuance of Buildin_~ Permit - Additional Review by Plannin~ Transportation Division 109. Partdng structure stall and layout dimensions shall be reviewed by the Plannin." g Transportation Division. ! t 0. The Transportation Division requires a dra~,ing showing the Ci~~ s consn-uction plan for the Homer undercrossing and its connection to the bike path overlaid with the Building D plans, to insure that there are no confkicts in this area. Additionaliy, the impact of {onsn~ction of this building on the bike path and tunnel, and vice versa, needs to be evaluated. Construction of this building should not be permitted to close either the bike path or the runne! access. 1 i 1. Bicycle parking quantibr, ,.wpe and locations need to be looked at carefully. Bike parking is required for patients and visitors (Class Vr, on Fade near the main entrance) and staff and employees (Class I in a reasonably proximate location). Racks and lockers must be of a make and model acceptable to the Transportation Di-~dsion. 112. Where Building D is immediately adjacent to the Ci~-’s bike path, appropriate lid_bring mast be provided to mitigate the loss of other lighting that now falls on the path. 113. Traffic exiting the above ~ade levels of the parking structure and ~urface exits onto Urban Lane mast have good visibiliD~ of oncoming traffic. Thus, shrubs must not exceed 2-1/2 feet natural ~owih heist next to these exits, parficuiarty where they cross sidewalks, nor may any other obstacle or wall be over 3 feet hi~ in these areas. 114. Submit a plan ~:o describe how PTCvfF shall direct patients and ~dsitors to access Building D by car and on foot. A~DDITIONAL REA, q~W BY ARB SUBCO,_~VIITTEE Prior to At?~iication for Buildin_~ Permit 115. The following items shai1 be re,dewed by an Architectural Review Board Subcommittee consisting of two members: IS a.Sprinklers b.Stone sizes c.Li~gn~ study for Parking Structure to ensure that light is not seen from the outside d.Parking. Structure planters e.Details of south elevation of Clark Building to understand how shado~ing is done l!Details for downspouts and =ontters - not visible ~.~Window- details to indicate the depth h.Look at paving azain to be sure there is not too much red TRANSPORTAT~ZON CO~SU LTANTS Attachment E MEMORANDUM From: Date: Subject: David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Tricia Schimpp, City of Palo Alto Carl Stoffel, City of Palo Alto Robert Eckols February 6, 2004 Supplemental Traffic Data and Analysis for the Clark Building Project No. 1035-617 This memorandum is in response to questions raised at the January 28, 2004 Palo Alto Planning Commission meeting related to traffic circulation around the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) facility located on El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. These questions center around two areas of concern: the operation of the adjacent roadways (Encina, Wells, and Urban Lane) and the level of and/or potential for cut through traffic using the Town & Country parking lot to access Urban Lane. This memorandum provides additional information to a supplemental traffic study prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Clark Building to be constructed between Urban Lane and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Adjacent Roadway Capacity In previous traffic studies for development projects located in the area around the PAMF site minimal analysis has been performed on the three local roadways (Encina, Wells, and Urban Lane) that support PAMF and the other commercial activities along these facilities. These three roadways are local, two-lane commercial streets that provide direct access to area businesses and the Caltrain parking lot located north of the PAMF site. Parallel parking is allowed along portions of each of these streets. None of these streets carry any significant amount of through traffic due to the lack of east/west and north/south connectivity. The railroad tracks form a barrier to through traffic on the east and El Camino Real creates a barrier on the west - where Encina and Wells are restricted to right-turns in and right-turns out. Similarly, Urban Lane has limited use in terms of carrying north/south through traffic since it only extends from Encina to University Circle. Therefore, all of these roadways carry significantly less through traffic than most two-lane commercial streets - such as those found in downtown Palo Alto - that provide on-street parking, access to off-street parking, and carry some level of regional or area-wide through traffic. It should be noted that in addition to these three public roadways surrounding the PAMF site, there is the signalized entrance to the PAMF facility located on El Camino Real. Since this is the only location were left turns can be made into the site, the majority of traffic approaching on El Camino from the north wilt use this entrance to the site. In addition, at least some of the 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com TRA ~’~S PO RTATD3 N CO~SULTAtITS traffic approaching on El Camino from the south may also use this access point since it leads directly into the underground parking areas at PAMF where the majority of the parking is located. When leaving the site traffic destined to southbound El Camino Real would be expected to use the main PAMF entrance to turn left onto El Camino Real. It is estimated that the addition of the Clark Building could add 105 AM peak hour trips and 156 PM peak hour trips to the area roadway network. Based on the original trip distribution approximately 65 percent of the traffic was assumed to use the main entrance to the PAMF facility. Therefore, approximately 35 AM trips and 55 PM trips would be added to the adjacent local commercial streets. Even if the additional PAMF staff and patients elect to use these local roadways to access the additional parking to be located at the rear of the site, the number of added trips to the three roadways would be expected to be less than 100 trips in the peak hours. Overall, the combined capacity of these three public roadways and the signalized main entrance to PAMF is more than adequate to carry the existing traffic generated by the existing local developments along with the addition of the Clark Building. Based on the layout of the public streets surrounding the PAMF site, Encina and Urban Lane will likely carry the majority of the traffic to the area that does not use the main entrance to PAMF. Wells should carry the least amount of the traffic generated by PAMF and the other businesses in the area served by Encina, Wells and Urban Lane. Town & Country Cut Through Traffic Based on field observations and field data, there is existing cut through traffic that uses the Town & County parking lot to travel between Embarcadero Road and Encina Avenue. There are three potential cut through routes that would serve PAMF and other businesses along Encina, Wells and Urban Lane. The three potential traffic flows that might use the Town & Country lot are (see Figure 1): ¯Westbound Embarcadero ¯Eastbound Embarcadero ¯Southbound El Camino Real Westbound Embarcadero Traffic The most logical cut through route serves westbound Embarcadero traffic. The Town & Country parking lot is an attractive cut through route to this traffic in order to avoid potential delays at the intersection of Embarcadero and El Camino Real. For westbound Embarcadero traffic this route is relatively easy to negotiate since once they have made the right turn off Embarcadero there is typically minimal delay passing through the shopping~ center parking lot. This route is most desirable during the early morning hours when the majority of the shopping center businesses are closed and there is little activity in the parking lot. However, it should be noted that this route is used during other periods of the day when traffic volumes are heavier on both El Camino Real and Embarcadero, and when the westbound approach to the El Camino Real/Embarcadero intersection backs up. 2 TRAt~SPORTAT[(]N CONSULTANTS Eastbound Embarcadero Traffic This potential cut through pattern is the reciprocal movement to the westbound Embarcadero traffic movement. This cut through route would be used to avoid making two left-turns at signalized intersections: one at the PAMF main entrance and the other at the intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero. While this eliminates two signalized left-turn movements, it should be noted that the left-turn movement out of the Town & Country driveway to travel east on Embarcadero is a stop sign controlled left-turn movement, which can be difficult to make during I~eak traffic periods - particularly the PM peak hour and the Palo Alto High School peaks. Therefore, this reverse movement is not as attractive a route as the morning inbound movement. Southbound El Camino Real A third potential cut through route provides access to the left-turn movement at the El Camino Real/Embarcadero intersection. This route may be used during the PM peak hour by persons that did not want to use the main PAMF entrance. Again, this route would require making a right-turn movement at the stop sign controlled shopping center driveway. While this movement is less difficult to make than the left-turn movement the time savings to cut through traffic may be minimal. Generally, all three of these potential cut through routes bypass the one or more signalized intersections and represent shorter travel paths between the drivers’ destinations (or orgins) and the roadways they desire to use. License Plate Survey A license plate survey was conducted to determine an order of magnitude of this cut through activity. The focus of this survey was on the westbound Embarcadero into traffic. Licenses plates were recorded for all vehicles turning right from Embarcadero into the shopping center between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM on Thursday February 5, 2004. License plates were also recorded at five other locations to determine 1) the total number of vehicles exiting onto Encina and 2) the total number of these cut through vehicles that access the PAMF parking areas. This early mo.rning time period was chosen to capture commute traffic that may be the most likely traffic to use a cut through route on a daily basis. During the other periods of the day when all the businesses are open, the portion of cut through traffic is expected to be lower. The findings of the three hour survey are as follows: Cut Through Traffic ¯440 vehicles entered Town & Country shopping center driveway from westbound Embarcadero ¯92 of these vehicles (21%) immediately (in less than 2 minutes) traversed the parking lot and exited at the rear driveway on Encina ¯70 of these cut-through (76%) vehicles entered the PAMF parking areas off Urban Lane FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATEDN CU~SULT&NT~ ¯22 of the cut-through (24%) vehicles went to other destinations (businesses along Encina, Homer underpass construction site, Caltrain station, etc.) ¯The cut-through traffic began around 6:45 AM and was relatively consistent through out the survey period with only slight increases around 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM Encina Driveway Traffic ¯139 total vehicles exited the Encina driveway during the survey period ¯92 vehicles (66%) were identified as cut-through trips ¯47 vehicles (37%) appear to have had business in Town & Country prior to using the rear driveway Observations and Findings Minimum Distance and Travel Time - The traffic signal at El Camino Rea! and Embarcadero was clearing every cycle during the majority of the survey period - particularly between 6:00 AM to 7:30 AM, so the delay at the intersection was minimal. Therefore, drivers perceive that the route through the shopping center represents the minimum travel distance and travel time. They elect to use this path even though there is a narrow driveway at Encina (two cars cannot pass) and there is a speed bump located near the exit. Therefore, attempts to improve the operation of El Camino Real and Embarcadero are not likely to change driver behavior. Cut-Through versus Customers - While Town & Country could (and has) block this access point using the existing roller gate, approximately one-third of the outbound trips recorded between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM appeared to be customers of the shopping center businesses (Peets, Hobbees, etc.). During the middle of the day and in the evenings (when all the businesses are opened) it would be expected that the percentage of the traffic with business in the shopping center should be even higher. An obvious business-to-business connection between PAMF and Town & Country Shopping Center is the Longs Drug Store which would be difficult to access without the rear driveway access. Therefore, the shopping center management may not desire to close this access point in order to eliminate the cut through traffic since it may inconvenience some customers. Traffic Calminq in Parkinq Lots - Typically, shopping centers try to avoid the use of traffic calming devices such as speed humps, speed tables, and diverters unless there is a significant safety issue. (During the survey vehicles were observed to move safely through the lot.) Vertical controls used to reduce speeds tend to interfere with parking maneuvers and diverters used to block cut-through routes may inconvenience customers. Therefore, most shopping centers avoid using these techniques. In this case, the shopping center management would need to assess the trade offs between the cut-through traffic and customer access and convenience. 4 000000000000 0000 ~ 0000000 ~