Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7548 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7548) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/9/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 900 N California Ave Appeal Title: 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Denial of the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning District: R-1 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application, thereby denying the appeal. Executive Summary The applicant received approval last year to subdivide a large R-1 zoned property into three lots. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing homes on that property, which would be replaced by three new homes; one of the new homes would have a second dwelling unit. Typically, new home development is reviewed by city staff. However, when an application to construct three or more new homes is filed, the Code requires additional review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), which forwards a recommendation to the Director. Following ARB review, the Director approved the proposed homes in November. This decision was appealed necessitating review before the City Council. The appellant’s reason for the appeal is provided in Attachment B and summarized as:  The appellant states that not one of the neighbors within 600 feet of the project site received notice of the ARB Public Hearing.  The appellant believes that residents have not had an opportunity to comment on issues related to: City of Palo Alto Page 2 o Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily and construction worker parking. o The impact of dewatering three units simultaneously. o Ongoing monitoring and contact personnel for ad hoc communications from residents. o Remedy the current inadequate on site signage that needs to be expanded for notifying the general neighborhood of the construction on site. o Shared driveway between Site 2 and Site 3. The City Council may accept this report and adopt the staff recommendation on Consent, thereby denying the appeal and accepting the Director’s decision based on the information contained herein. Alternatively, if three or more City Councilmembers request, the matter can be pulled from the Consent calendar and scheduled for a future noticed public hearing (approximately 6-8 weeks from this Council date). Included with this report are all relevant records, including the Director’s determination letter (Attachment D) and an excerpt of the verbatim transcript of the ARB meeting (Attachment C). Background The proposed project is an Architectural Review of three single family homes. Typically, single family homes are reviewed by City staff for conformance with the Individual Review Guidelines (PAMC 18.12.110) and processed in accordance with the Low-Density Residential Review Process (PAMC 18.77.075). However, three or more single family homes proposed at one time require review by the City’s Architectural Review Board (PAMC 18.76.020(b)(2)(c)) and an ultimate decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Directors decision can be appealed to the City Council. The project site contains three existing homes on one lot with three different addresses. The project would demolish these homes and construct one new single family home on each parcel. The largest of the three parcels would be developed with a second dwelling unit. The proposed homes are all two-stories with basements. Each home contains below grade patios and light wells to allow light into the basements. Houses range in size from approximately 3,100 square feet to almost 4,000 square feet (sf). The homes are generally a traditional architectural style with contemporary Colonial Revival architectural elements. Louis Road provides access to Lot 1; Lots 2 and 3 are accessed from California Avenue. A detailed description of the proposed project is included in Attachment I. The City’s Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on September 15, 2016. Their motion included a condition to return to the ARB subcommittee with revisions as described below. The Director City of Palo Alto Page 3 signed the determination letter on November 1, 2016. The Palo Alto Municipal Code provides 14 days to file an appeal, and a timely appeal was filed on November 15, 2016. A discussion of the September 15, 2016 hearing is provided below. Accompanying the request for Architectural Review was a parcel map to subdivide the property into three lots for each of the single family homes. This parcel map requested an exception to the PAMC for one of the lots to exceed the minimum lot size. This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission on October 26, 2016, which unanimously recommended conditional approval to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the proposed parcel map on November 14, 2016. The Council added conditions to the parcel map which required the accessory dwelling unit and garage to be setback eight-feet from all property lines and that the applicant submit a geotechnical report that considered the simultaneous dewatering of site for the proposed homes. With these conditions, the Council voted to approve the project at the November 14, 2016 hearing. ARB Review and Recommendation The ARB reviewed the project plans and oral testimony from the applicant at a public hearing on September 15, 2016. Members of the public did not attend the meeting to provide comments. The ARB discussed the aesthetic quality of the project, access width of the driveway on lot 3 and the location and architectural style of the homes, garage and accessory dwelling unit on lot 3. The ARB requested that the applicant return to a subcommittee of the ARB to review the driveway width on lot 3 and the style and positioning of the detached garage and accessory dwelling unit. The ARB transcript of the meeting is provided in Attachment C. The applicant has recently modified the project plans in response to the Board’s direction and those plans are the ones included in this report. Specifically changes from the director approved plans and the plans included in this packet include the following:  The home on lot 3 is setback 12 feet from the property line at 920 N. California Ave. This space affords a landscape buffer and 11 foot driveway.  In response to the Council’s direction, the accessory dwelling unit and garage are setback eight feet from all property lines. The accessory dwelling unit has a window header height of six-foot nine-inches, which is less than the seven-foot tall fence along the property lines. The applicant also incorporated landscape screening between the fence and homes to enhance the level of privacy.  The accessory dwelling unit and detached garage incorporated similar design elements as the main residence on lot 3. Discussion The appellants are Beatrix Cashmore, the property owner of 928 N. California Avenue and City of Palo Alto Page 4 Nicholas Kaposhilin of 936 N. California Avenue. Below is a summary of key appeal statements and information about the issues raised in the appeal, followed by initial staff comments. If the appeal is granted and the Council elects to schedule this item for a noticed public hearing, the Council would conduct a “de novo” hearing, which means it may consider any of the issues raised by appellants or any other issue related to architectural review. Appeal Comment 1: The appellant suggests improper public noticing of the ARB hearing on September 15, 2016. Staff Response: The proposed project is subject to the City’s public noticing requirements. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of a public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Mailed notice was sent on September 2, 2015, 13 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing was published in the September 2, 2016 edition of the Palo Alto Weekly, 13 days in advance of the hearing. The hearing agenda was also available online on the city’s website and posted at the information kiosk at city hall. Attachments E and F contain an excerpt from the city’s mailing list and includes the appellant’s information. An affidavit attesting to proper noticing is also included in this attachment. Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded the project met and exceeded the standard noticing requirements. Staff is unable to attest as to whether the appellant actually received the notice, which is subject to other variables beyond the city’s control, including proper postal delivery and what an individual or family member does with the notice and the amount of attention paid to the notice when received. Appeal Comment 2: The appellant suggests input from local residents is required regarding management of potentially disruptive or unsafe effects on the neighborhood and should be addressed in collaboration with project planners. Staff Response: This is an understandable comment since the appellant reports not being informed about the project. In most instances, local residents would become informed of the project through site posting and mailed notices, which provides an opportunity for interested persons to offer comments about the project and to express concerns about potential impacts. The city also uses an online service to sign up for email notification of planning projects in their neighborhood (https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning). City of Palo Alto Page 5 While the appellant’s concerns were not expressed prior to the determination letter, the city routinely evaluates projects from a multi-disciplinary perspective receiving comments from the city’s planning, building, public works, utilities, fire, urban forestry, and legal departments. This particular project was approved based on a number of standard conditions intended to minimize the disruptive impacts of construction. Additionally, a few special conditions were added to this approval determination to address the unique nature of three sites being developed at one time. Some of these special and standard conditions are provided below that related to this issue:  Condition #59: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: o Pedestrian control o Traffic control o Truck routes o Material deliveries o Contractor’s parking o On-site staging and storage areas o Concrete pours o Crane lifts o Work hours o Noise control o Dust control o Storm water pollution prevention o Contractor’s contact. This plan is required to be prepared and submitted for review by the City along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. The plan is also required to include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site, and how the bike lane will remain accessible during construction  Condition # 64: Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right- of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED City of Palo Alto Page 6 BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”  Condition # 66: Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. Further, the parcel map approved by the City Council includes conditions to setback the accessory dwelling unit and perform geotechnical assessment of the simultaneous effects of dewatering. These conditions also include the logistics plan previously mentioned. Appeal Comment 3: Management of heavy commuter and school/bicycle traffic twice daily at the construction site plus parking for construction workers Staff Response: This is related to the above comment. This specific issue will be addressed by the construction logistics plan that will be reviewed by the public works and transportation departments. Transportation’s review in particular will address operational constraints related to safe routes to school, pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as use of flag persons, parking management and other requirements. The construction logistics plan will also be reviewed by City and School Traffic Safety Committee for their expertise in creating a plan that ensures safe school routes. Appeal Comment 4: A new geotechnical study to assess the aggregate impact of dewatering three units simultaneously Staff Response: There has been increased community interest on the impacts of dewatering associated with the construction of basements in the city’s residential neighborhoods. In response, the city’s public works department has established certain reporting and analysis requirements for projects involving dewatering. The city’s Policy and Services Committee recently held a community meeting on this topic and some additional measures and requirements are being explored. As noted earlier, the public works department has reviewed the proposed project. The project includes a specific condition that requires a geotechnical report. Specifically, the condition requires the following:  Condition of Approval 53 – Dewatering: City of Palo Alto Page 7 o Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. o The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. o Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. o Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on the City’s website at. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388 It is anticipated that this review combined with standard practices and the department’s evolving policies on this topic will ensure that dewatering impacts will be minimized. Appeal Comment 5: Remedying the inadequate onsite signage notifying residents of the proposed project Staff Response: As noted and as included in Attachment G, the project site contains onsite signage as required by the municipal code. In addition, the PAMC requires notice of the hearing to be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by publication in a local newspaper, by posting in a public place, and by mailing to the applicant, the hearing requestor, if applicable, and all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the project. The notice is required to include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date and time of the hearing. While there could be an argument for evaluating the city’s noticing procedures, including on-site posting requirements, staff believes the project complied with the applicable noticing requirements. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Appeal Comment 6: Discussion regarding shared driveway for lots 2 and 3 to increase the permeable surface. Staff Response: The proposed driveways for the project utilize the existing driveway locations already on the subject property. This proposal minimizes the amount of earthwork, grading and site alterations to City streets and sidewalks. The existing driveways consist of impermeable surfaces. The project proposes that the driveway on Lot 3 will be a permeable driveway. Therefore, the project increases the permeability of the existing driveways onsite. Further, sharing a driveway presents potential conflicts between neighbors and would require a reciprocal access agreement. In addition, our Code disfavors flag lots in residential areas in part to minimize future neighbor disputes. Ultimately, the proposal conforms to the Zoning Code requirement of 60% permeable surface in the front setback (18.12.040(h)) and improves the existing condition by increasing permeability on the site. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The project includes a proposal to construct three new single family homes. The proposed homes are located in an urbanized area on a site used continuously for residential purposes by three existing single- family homes. The proposed exemption allows for the construction of up to three homes in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received beyond the appeal letter. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the City Council may: 1. Remove the project from consent and continue the hearing to March 13, 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment C: ARB Minutes for September 15, 2016 (DOC) Attachment D: Signed Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval (PDF) Attachment E: Hearing Notice Cards (PDF) Attachment F: Notice of Director's Decision (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 9 Attachment G: On-site Signage (DOCX) Attachment H: Palo Alto Weekly Publication September 2, 2016 (PDF) Attachment I: Project Details (DOCX) Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Excerpt Minutes of September 15, 2016 1 Architectural Review Board 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 900 N California Ave [15PLN-00155]: Request by Kohler Associates Architects, on behalf of Greg Xiong, 10 for Architectural Review of three single-family homes to replace three existing homes. Environmental 11 Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion 12 of Small Structures). Zoning District: Single Family Residential District (R-1). For more information 13 contact the planner, Adam Petersen, at APetersen@m-group.us. 14 15 Adam Petersen reviewed details of the proposed project. Staff found the project to be consistent with the 16 Comprehensive Plan, the Individual Review guidelines for single-family homes and the Zoning Code 17 Development Standards. Staff recommended the Architectural Review Board recommend the Director find the 18 project exempt from the California Evaluation Quality Act and recommend approval subject to the conditions 19 and findings of approval. 20 21 Roger Kohler, Kohler Associates Architects, noted the project had been subjected to the Individual Review 22 process. Jeff Kuo described the neighborhood context, the design concept, and details of the three houses. 23 24 Board Member Baltay requested staff provide the history of review of this project. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that 25 the City's IR architect had reviewed the project and provided comments. Board Member Baltay inquired 26 whether the Board could assume that the IR process would approve the project or if the Board should make 27 that determination. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the same guidelines applied to an Individual Review as an 28 Architectural Review. 29 30 Board Member Kim requested an explanation for Condition of Approval 3A. Ms. Gerhardt referred to an 31 interpretation of the allowed basement under the footprint of buildings. An applicant was allowed to complete 32 the square in two areas where those were under an entry porch or a back porch. In this floor plan, there 33 wasn't a sliding glass door or something to that extent to make it an entry. Board Member Kim reiterated that a 34 door was being required so that it was an entry. 35 36 Board Member Furth inquired regarding the minimum lot size. Ms. Gerhardt indicate the minimum lot size was 37 6,000 square feet and the maximum was 9,999 square feet. 38 39 Vice Chair Lew requested the logic for the placement of the garage and the guest house on Lot 3. Mr. Kohler 40 indicated that combining them resulted in a fairly large building. Two separate buildings allowed plantings and 41 trees, and the home had more of a backyard feel. Vice Chair Lew added that one building would be large and 42 low to meet daylight plane requirements. Mr. Kohler noted the maximum allowed height was 12 feet. Vice 43 Chair Lew inquired regarding a minimum separation between accessory buildings. Ms. Gerhardt advised of a 44 minimum separation for accessory structures of 3 feet. The minimum separation for a second dwelling unit was 45 12 feet from the main dwelling. 46 47 Board Member Kim asked if there was a reason the secondary dwelling unit was not built to 900 square feet. 48 Mr. Kohler indicated floor area limits prevented a larger building. Board Member Kim added that increasing the 49 size of the secondary dwelling unit would not exceed the total floor area. Mr. Kohler asked if Board Member 50 Kim was encouraging him to build to the maximum size. Board Member Kim was encouraging secondary 51 dwelling units that would serve a second family as best as possible. Mr. Kuo clarified that the allowable floor 52 area was 4,777 square feet. Board Member Kim was mistakenly looking at lot coverage only. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Board Member Baltay inquired regarding the width of the driveway easement on Lot 3. Mr. Kuo responded 10 2 feet 10 inches. 3 4 Greg Xiong stated the existing structures were not a good use of those sites. He proposed living in one of the 5 homes and selling the other two. 6 7 Board Member Kim indicated the IR process addressed most issues. Some sheets for Lot 1 had the wrong 8 address. On Sheet A5, part of the roof plane was shown incorrectly. He felt the project would dramatically 9 change the intersection. He was interested in seeing 3D site perspectives showing the three homes in relation 10 to neighboring single-story homes. Considering the size of the homes, he did not like the garage placement on 11 Lot 2 with the side entry. The proposed homes were large; yet, Lots 1 and 2 had only single-car garages. The 12 garage and guest house on Lot 3 needed more thought. 13 14 Vice Chair Lew liked the design of project. The porches were very desirable and would make the neighborhood 15 look better. Blending the two-story mass with one-story hipped roofs helped tie the house into the 16 neighborhood. His only issue was the Lot 3 guest house. There was little privacy from the adjacent house as 17 the structure was located only 6 feet from the property line. He suggested adding a buffer or moving the 18 building back for landscaping or a taller fence. Ms. Gerhardt reported staff had not received any comments 19 from neighbors. 20 21 Board Member Furth agreed the project would be quite a transformation of the corner. She could not find 22 "guest house" in the City's glossary. Ms. Gerhardt indicated the proper term was second dwelling unit. Board 23 Member Furth suggested marking those as second dwelling units so the Board could understand which 24 standards to apply. The relationship between Lot 3 and 920 California Avenue was problematic. The proposed 25 structures would surround a small, low-key house on two sides. She could not make the finding that it 26 adequately addressed the neighboring issue. Lot 3 would require significant screening/landscaping on the north 27 side, which would require widening the driveway. The same applied to the accessory dwelling unit. She 28 inquired whether one of the covered spaces was required for the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Petersen advised 29 that the Code required one parking space in the garage and one outside the garage. Board Member Furth felt a 30 garage shared by two separate uses should be a divided space. She would not want to approve the project 31 without a bifurcated garage. She expressed some concern that the design of the house made it look bigger 32 than the square footage needed to look. Replacement houses along California Avenue were set back and low 33 key. The three proposed homes were not differentiated, but appeared to be built as a set of three. 34 35 Board Member Baltay shared Vice Chair Lew's sentiment that the homes were handsome and fit into the fabric 36 of the community. He liked the wrap-around corner porch on Lot 2 as well as the plaster finish with curved 37 eave detailing. That provided a notable corner. He did not share the sentiment that the three homes were 38 sufficiently different. They were clearly individually designed for individual circumstances. He could support the 39 project overall. The driveway space on Lot 3 was too narrow and needed a minimum of 12 feet for landscaping 40 between the driveway and the neighboring home. The driveway needed more space to be usable. Perhaps the 41 applicant could narrow the house a bit. The guest house and garage were not thought out. He would prefer to 42 move the project forward subject to some small changes. 43 44 Vice Chair Lew inquired whether the Board could approve the project and have changes return on the consent 45 calendar or to the subcommittee for review. The Board discussed modifications to the design and whether 46 those modifications could be submitted to staff, the subcommittee or the Board on the consent calendar. 47 48 Chair Gooyer viewed a five-bedroom house with a one-car garage as an invitation for cars to park everywhere; 49 however, the Code allowed that. The proposed homes were large, but most newer homes in the area were 50 similar. 51 52 MOTION: 53 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 Board Member Baltay moved, seconded by Vice Chair Lew, that the Architectural Review Board make the 2 findings in the Staff Report and approve the project with an additional finding that (1) the house on Lot 3 be 3 shifted so that there is a minimum of 12 feet between the property line and the house; (2) a landscape buffer 4 be installed on the left-hand side of the driveway; and (3) the design of the guest house and garage return to 5 the Architectural Review Board subcommittee for final review. 6 7 Board Member Furth offered an amendment that the garage have two separate spaces. Board Member Baltay 8 felt that had not been required previously. 9 10 MOTION PASSED: 3-2 11 ATTACHMENT G ONSITE SIGNAGE 900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155 The sign was first posted onsite in April 2015, it was damaged and fell on the ground sometimes after the winter season. The applicant fixed the sign and updated the plans and put on the site again in early September this year. The photos below were taken on December 19, 2016: ATTACHMENT I PROJECT DETAILS 900 North California Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00155 Lot 1 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on an 8,033 sf lot. The proposed structure would have a total of 3,157 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage. Of this area, 1,148 sf of floor area (36%) is proposed on the second floor. One street tree has been added to the frontage per the City Arborist’s request. Five screening trees have been added along the side interior lot lines in the rear yard area. Lot 2 - A two-story house with an attached one-car garage on a 9,379 sf corner lot. The proposed structure would have a total of 3,563 sf of floor area, excluding the basement but including the garage. Of this area, 1,269 sf of floor (36%) is proposed on the second floor, including any second floor equivalency area. One street tree on the Louis Road the frontage would be replaced. The existing street tree on the North California Avenue frontage would remain. Most other landscape, including small trees would be removed except for some existing trees along the right side setback line at the rear yard, located on Lot 3. No other new trees are proposed. Lot 3 – The proposed lot is ‘L’ shaped with the base of the ‘L’ wrapping behind the adjacent lot to the left at 920 N. California Avenue. The project proposes a two-story house with a detached two-car garage and detached guesthouse on a 13,425 sf lot. The proposed structures would have a total of 4,775 sf of floor area, including the garage and guest house, but excluding the basement. The main house is 3,978 sf, and the second unit is 597 sf excluding the garage and guest house. The second floor of the main house is 1,424 sf of floor area (36%), including any second floor equivalency area. One existing street tree will remain along with two trees at the left side lot line in the front yard and a few trees along the rear lot line and distant left side lot line adjacent the proposed cottage. Several new screening trees have been added along both side interior lot lines and the rear lot line. Table 1 Project Summary Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Address 2205 Louis Road 900 N. California Ave 912 N. California Ave Lot Area 8,032.90 sf 9,378.70 sf 13,425 sf First Floor Area 1,789.60 sf 2,071.47 sf 2,313.44 sf Second Floor Area 1,148 sf 1,269 sf 1,423 sf Garage 219.54 sf 222.45 sf 441 sf 2nd Dwelling Unit -- -- 597.12 sf Total FAR 3,157.21 sf 3,563.02 sf 34,775.19 sf Basement (Non- FAR) 1,896.27 sf 2,274.73 sf 2,417 sf Attachment J Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “900 California Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “06.08.16_900N.California redux.pdf”